'Shocking' bedroom tax should be axed, says UN investigator

The United Nations' special investigator on housing has told the British government it should scrap the bedroom tax, after hearing "shocking" accounts of how the policy was affecting vulnerable citizens during a visit to the UK.

Britain's record on housing was also worsening from a human rights perspective, Raquel Rolnik, the UN special rapporteur on housing, said in a Guardian interview after presenting her preliminary findings to the government.

Rolnik, a former urban planning minister in Brazil, said Britain's previously good record on housing was being eroded by a failure to provide sufficient quantities of affordable social housing, and more recently by the impact of welfare reform.

After speaking to dozens of council house tenants in Britain during her visit over the past fortnight, Rolnik said she was particularly concerned by the impact of bedroom tax, officially known as the new spare room subsidy. The policy was introduced by the government in April, and is designed to charge tenants extra for under-occupying homes that are supposedly too large for them.

Rolnik said she was disturbed by the extent of unhappiness caused by the bedroom tax and struck by how heavily this policy was affecting "the most vulnerable, the most fragile, the people who are on the fringes of coping with everyday life".

During her visit she travelled to Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh and London, visiting council estates, food banks, homelessness crisis centres, Traveller sites and new housing association developments. "My immediate recommendation is that the bedroom tax is abolished," she said.

Rolnik has spent much of her five-year tenure as the UN's unpaid special rapporteur on adequate housing looking at human rights violations in countries including Rwanda and Kazakhstan. Appointed by the UN human rights council, the former minister with the centre-left Workers' party spent her previous mission this year looking at slum housing in Indonesia. But Britain's housing crisis was an equally urgent subject for investigation, she said.

"I was very shocked to hear how people really feel abused in their human rights by this decision and why – being so vulnerable – they should pay for the cost of the economic downturn, which was brought about by the financial crisis. People in testimonies were crying, saying 'I have nowhere to go', 'I will commit suicide'."

During interviews with council officials, she noted that they were struggling to cope with the fallout from the policy's introduction, not least because there was a shortage of single-bedroom properties into which tenants might downsize.

"It's so clear that the government didn't really assess the impact on lives when it took this decision … The mechanism that they have in place to mitigate it – the discretionary payment that they provide the councils with, it doesn't solve anything, it's for just a couple of months, and the councils cannot count on that on a permanent basis, they don't know if it's going to be available next year, so it's useless," she said.

Historically, "the United Kingdom has much to be proud of in the provision of affordable housing," she said, but its reputation was "being eroded from different sides". The state had an obligation to "put in place safeguards to protect the most vulnerable and what I am seeing here is quite the opposite – the most vulnerable are having to pay for these cuts". The country was "going backwards in the protection and promotion of the human right to housing".

Rolnik was due to meet Eric Pickles, secretary of state for communities and local government to discuss her investigation. She will present a report with her conclusions to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva early next year.

The bedroom tax could constitute a violation of the human right to adequate housing in several ways, she said, if for example the extra payments forced tenants to cut down on their spending on food or heating their home. She said her conclusions should carry weight in British courts, where a number of legal challenges to the bedroom tax are under way. "It depends on how much the judiciary here takes into account the international legislation. In principle they should because the UK has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," she said, referring to the document which defines adequate housing as a human right.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-should-be-axed-says-un-investigator

 

This "bedroom tax" is an invasion of privacy, and highway robbery. What does it matter if someone has some extra rooms? I think this is just another way of taking your money.

 

You do realise it's regarding social housing/housing benefit don't you?

 

Oh, so you think by forcing people to pay more money they're gonna rent out there garden, guest room or dead childs bedroom?Again, Who is the government to say how many bedrooms one can have?

I'm sure there is a dire need for housing in the UK, but I don't see force or threat of force as a solution to this problem. The Government owns land, your queen owns plenty of land. Why is it citizens who must suffer due to mismanagement of resources?

Plus, what about people who don't want to rent their bedrooms, because people steal and destroy your property; Now, they must be punished in taxes because they value personal space?

This is just totally out there to me, but wtvr, it's your country.

 

StpLSD25

What are you talking about?

Have you turned into some sort of liberal socialist in the last 8 hours?

Big government is providing social housing and paying peoples full rent - regardless if it is one person living in a two bedroom property (for e.g).
People who privately rent do not get the full cost of their rent if they are in receipt of housing benefit.
So, big government has now decided to not pay the complete rent if the council property is under-occupied.
Council tenants can't rent out a room, as that is sub-letting.

'Who is the government to say how many bedrooms one can have?'
Who do you think should?

'I'm sure there is a dire need for housing in the UK'
Yes, social housing, and I started a thread on just that topic (in the politics forum).

'Why is it citizens who must suffer due to mismanagement of resources?'
'Now, they must be punished in taxes because they value personal space?'

It isn't actually called the 'Bedroom tax act' - it isn't a tax.
Why do you interpret it as a 'tax'?
BBC: 'A UN official has defended her criticism of the UK's spare room subsidy and has apologised for referring to it as the "bedroom tax"'
If she can't even get the title correct, then surely she hasn't looked at the details that intently - relying more on what others hostile to it have to say.

'This is just totally out there to me'
It's generally people that are not working or can't work - so they are not paying any taxes.
I would have thought you would see the logic here.

From my perspective, currently I'm not working, receiving housing benefit, and don't get my full rent.
I have to struggle through, with what big government decides is 'fair'.
I personally don't like it.
However, If I was living in a large property with a spare room, I would understand having to either make up even more of my rent, or move.
Thankfully this does not apply to me.

I totally understand the government needs to build more affordable homes, and in part it is quite possibly their fault (and previous governments before them) - if their premise is to provide social housing in the first place.

But if more people are looking for social housing (in part due to mass immigration in the late 90's / early 00's) than can be built - coupled with a recession - we are left with a problem.

BBC:
'Ms Rolnik told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that she had received "hundreds of testimonies" and said there was a "danger of a retrogression in the right to adequate housing" in the UK.'

'She cited examples of disabled people, or grandmothers who were carers, and said the measure seemed to have been designed "without the human component in mind"'

It is a catch all policy, I totally understand where/when people NEED a 'spare room'.

I do not know how she feels about the vast majority of people that don't actually need their 'spare' room.

'Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes housing as part of the “right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family”.'

Does this mean everybody is entitled to a 'spare room'?


BBC:
'Rolnik said she was disturbed by the extent of unhappiness caused by the bedroom tax and struck by how heavily this policy was affecting "the most vulnerable, the most fragile, the people who are on the fringes of coping with everyday life".'

Me too.

Her report isn't completely about one issue.

I have mixed feelings about this.

 

Oh, I didn't know you meant houses government paid for. This is why I disagree with Government Money doing the job of charities. Now, they own your house, and they can force you to break it up if they decide it's "too big."


I agree with most of what I said the first time, but also, this goes to show how cheap and uncaring government is with their citizens and taxpayers.

NO fyi, I did not turn into a socialist overnight lol, (thanks for your concern though.) But I'm not some jerk that wants to cut off all humanitarian resources, while the government sends trillions overseas either.


I believe we should lower our dependency on Government, and Charaties would eventually replace these type of situation. Because when the government gets involved, something as simple as your living-space is being controlled by them, and they throw laws in. (like in this situation.)

Another example is here in the US; Florida passed a law where if you test positive for any drugs, you can't receive Food Stamps.

To me, this is an invasive way of checking on people and punishing people for doing something the government doesn't like.


My Basic point is, the government getting involved, creates those messes. I think people generally would go much further if we learned to live without government with regards to housing, food, disability and social aspects of society, we wouldn't really need government.

Liberals claim Charaties would never do such a thing, but it's funny cause they already have Charaties for all of the above, and then some. I think people are on the way to self reliance. We just need to take a step back in these situations, and ask ourselves if government controlling the amount of rooms we have, or what chemicals/plants I ingest, is worth the so-called "help" they give at all? Plus, what happens 50 years down the road when they need more control? Maybe they'll decide to drug test disability users next, you never know; Everything done by government, ends up becoming a dog-and-pony show!

 

Not just me - the entire thread

'Issue
For decades, there have not been enough homes to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population. From 2009 to 2010, only 115,000 new-builds were completed in England – fewer than any year in peace time since the 1920s and nearly a quarter of a million homes in England have stood empty for more than 6 months.

The housing market is also one of the biggest casualties of the 2008 global credit crunch and the government’s priority has been to rectify a situation where lenders couldn't lend, so builders couldn't build and buyers couldn't buy.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-number-of-available-homes

How do you expect charities to build even fifty thousand homes a year?
And then continue to pay for those houses in perpetuity?

It's 'council housing' - so yes. I think you call them 'public housing'.
Unless you buy it (and pay the mortgage) It never is, technically, your house.
You can pay (etc) the rent, or the council pays part of the rent (etc).

Really?
I think the only bit that tracks with the actual issue is:
'Why is it citizens who must suffer due to mismanagement of resources?'
But now you say:
'This is why I disagree with Government Money doing the job of charities.'
Is this what you guys call a 'flip-flop'?

We don't send trillions overseas.

They might - but I doubt they could cope.
What's the situation like where you live with regards to charity funded housing/food programmes?
Imagine that times 10, and then how do you think things will be?
After that, you might want to times it by about 3-4 million.
How's it looking now?

I understand what you are saying, but even if charities stepped up, it doesn't mean they could cope any better.
The charitable housing I have seen in the US tends to be religious based.
That wouldn't really work so well over here.
They struggle to keep afloat themselves.

People don't just want a temp' home they want their own home.
I don't think charities can step up and do that.
Is each county (etc) going to formulate it's own housing policy?
It's a little more complicated than just shifting the burden away from 'gov'.

If we are not coping how are you guys going to cope with the No.s and the types of attitudes you have?

What are people doing that the government doesn't like?

Remember it's 'social housing' / 'public housing' - not everyone's housing.

 

And whose fault is that? You're telling me what I know, cause America experienced it too. Let me ask then why Big Banks are immune to your "law;" I mean, in a way, the bailouts kept them running, and should've left them with an obligation to do some good for the taxpayer. But they fired people, stopped giving home loans and, stockpiled their accounts with OUR money. But still, it is the little guy who must suffer. I'll bring up more as I go on..

You're telling me there's half a million homes empty (250,000) That's a five year start right there. Plus, in the free market, prices would go down due to competition. The housing market had a huge boom when the government was manipulating it. People were taking huge loans they couldn't repay, and barely able to survive. I'm sure we agree there.

But here's where we disagree; I believe house prices/prices generally are only so high because of Government intervention. In America, you can get a house at auction for just a few grand. I think Charaties would need to use resources like this, but I do think they're better than government.

Many of them may be Christian, but I'm Agnostic and my Gf was an atheist and we got housing, a months worth of food each week, and generally nice people willing to give to help out. Leftists say we "need" government help people, I think it's a lie as old as time. We hardly know what society is like with no government, still, everyone seems to think people would be dying in the streets, and that's simply not true.

Okay, but if it's anything like America, they try to "help people." Let's say for example a girl with a baby has her house paid for by government but has no income, the UK government is now forcing that women, either into work, or into having someone live with her. But the second issue, Who is this other person? Are they trying to better themselves, are they going to hurt the girl or her child? If a women is worried, now she must work, (get cut off most government benefits) just so she has cash 6to pay for an extra room? Again, this is the government Monkey wrench in the machine, anytime something is run by government, they think they own you. I disagree with your premise that it's fixing anything. I think it's trying to fix HUGE problems HUGE businesses caused, by picking on little bit. Now, no one with government help receives privacy, yet the government have total privacy, and are never subject to scrutiny.

No, it's not. The government WASTES and mismanages money. I don't think we should have to keep paying for a government that wastes extrodinary amounts of money.

I would ask why the Queen isn't subject to the law, but for some reason the Royal Family, is also "above the law."

Any type of "international aid" is government bribes, to empower specific people with fiat money. Every modern government does it.

Charities are nation-wide. Furthermore, I actually see it working alot better if people got to keep all there money and not pay 1/5th of their paycheck into a system that doesn't benefit them. People with money, not only would get the economy rolling again, it also encourages giving and sharing.

Some are religious, hardly any would discriminate, against non-christians. Plus, there's no signs of Charities being broke, in fact they usually make tons of money. (probably mostly for african kids and the ASPCA) but I am confident there's more than enough wealth from everyone, we just need to get it out of the tight grip of government 'interests.'

I think government has proven itself incapable by actually punishing people to go for help. The government doesn't like addicts, and have no respect for privacy, so anything the government does usually involves forcing others to comply, and that's totally wrong when it comes to someones personal space. So i refute your argument by saying Charaties do better than government, because they don't treat you as subjects.

Evaluate please?

Alot of things. Someone may want to grow opium on their property, some people want to smoke weed freely and, many women believe they have the Right to sell their own body if they'd like. We may find these things reprehensible, but we shouldn't be in the businesses of policing everyone and forcing them to comply with our standards! "Protecting us" or what-have-you.

Everyone should be free to make their own choices, and deal with the consequences. The government could never protect us from ourselves without a camera and police in everyone's home- and that's pure tyranny.

I know that, but lberals act like they care about these poor struggling people, yet they are products of bad governmental decisions.. Now the government is making more bad decisions that will certainly effect the "little people" directly, while ignoring the banks who caused the housing bubble from the start.

 

Really ? Dont they have VAT round your way then ?

 

There's a sales tax, but it's a small percentage compared to VAT and I think it only goes toward local, not federal government.

 

America threw off you limey bastards for a lot less.

 

With more than a little help from the French. Your oldest ally, remember.

The trouble with this bedroom tax is that people are stuck with it because housing associations and councils dont have smaller places to move them to.

 

I dislike most governments. But in my 28 years on this planet I would have to say that this current government is the worse. Same old story. feed the rich persecute the poor.

 

Well, I think most governments have been corrupt, but perhaps our parents and grandparents became too content, and fixated Society and Government in one entity. I Contend society will run with or without government.

“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins ... Society is in every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Thomas Paine

 

True. I forgot about that. Doh! Although, is it really their money?

You are missing the point: 'For decades, there have not been enough homes to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population.'
This encompasses the pre/post-economic down-turn.

Why are these homes empty?

http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/empty-homes-statistice-201112/

I think only two or three (out of 8-9) were 'bailed out' (loaned money) here - RBS, LloydsTSB and Northern Rock.

What law are you talking about?
e.g: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23430030

You expected those three to immediately retain all staff, and immediately start lending money as if nothing had occurred?
It's a nice cloud you are living on - is everybody welcome?
Imagine what would have happened if they were not ('bailed-out').

'In the free market, prices would go down due to competition.' - mmm, how does that work then?

There is a lot - but if you read the article above, it isn't as simple as X amount of homes being able to be used for 'social'/'affordable' housing.
If it was as simple as that then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I do agree that: 'People were taking huge loans they couldn't repay, and barely able to survive.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24066371
What intervention are you talking about?

And how much do these homes need spent on them to make them habitable?

I think you are placing far too much faith (pardon the pun) on charities.
This is why I asked you what the situation is like where you live...
...you didn't really answer the question.
Where do you live (or where did you live)? - I'll do a little bit of research of my own.

What are you talking about?
Why would she have an extra room?

The size criteria allows one bedroom for each person or couple living as part of the household with the following exceptions:

Children under 16 of the same gender are expected to share
Children under 10 are expected to share regardless of gender
A disabled tenant or partner who needs a non-resident overnight carer will be allowed an extra room.
Foster carers will be allowed one additional room, so long as they have fostered a child or become an approved foster carer within the last 52 weeks.
Parents with adult children in the armed forces (or reservists) who normally live with them will be able to retain the bedroom for that adult child when they are deployed on operations.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/adviser/updates/size-criteria-social-rented/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy-fact-sheet

Did you notice what the thread was about by any chance?

No it's not what?
I'm agreeing with you with regards to mismanagement.
Waste, if you prefer.
I don't have much to say about that, though, as it's a complex issue, and will take us so far of the issue, we might as well not be talking about the main issue at all.
Saying: 'Well, charities can take over, and people will become self-sufficient, seems a simplistic notion to me.
What happens if that doesn't work?

What law(s)?

I'm just saying: we don't send trillions overseas.
It works out to approx 13-14 billion a year or £130-140 per person.
Less than 0.7 of GDP (I've just found out that's approx' what the UK economic growth is supposed to be - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23807182 )

Charities could generate 1-2 trillion £$ every year?

I like the world you live in with regards to this issue, but it's a fantasy world.

You didn't really answer my question, though.
I asked what is the situation in your area right now?
Is it good, bad, mediocre?

Hardly any will discriminate? Well, that's alright then

Say we all kept all of our 'pay-cheques' but a vast swathe decided not to part with any of their money to charitable organisations etc - what happens to those people?

The question is about coping.
Just saying: 'well, it encourages giving' seems a bit weak.

Charity donations down 20%, says UK Giving 2012 report
£11bn to £9.3bn in 2011/12

The number of people donating fell - as did the amounts they gave, from an average of £11 to £10 a month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20304267

9b should last us, oh, I don't know - maybe a month or two.

$316.23 billion from American individuals, corporations and foundations
- See more at: http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/news/article/giving-usa-2013#sthash.ZemS6nxO.dpuf

How many times do you think we'll have to double that to pay for all what 'government' spends now?
That's roughly what California receives in Federal tax revenue.
You seriously think charities can match government/tax?

You have not provided any evidence to support that yet.

Do you mean explain?

If charities are not coping now, how would they cope with more burden?

The attitude you guys have has left you with the fantastic healthcare system you have right now.
Imagine the amazing social housing you chaps would have...

Do you mind keeping it to just the housing issue?

In what way are 'they' ignoring the banks?

 

I think we might have been justified in expecting them not to have got themselves into that position in the first place.

 

I'm not sure about sure about two, but didn't Northern Rock basically take out a Wonga loan and then lose their job two weeks later?
It's probably a bad analogy, but, basically, was it entirely their fault?

The bank planned to repay the government debt within three to four years, primarily by encouraging mortgage customers to take their mortgage to another lender. Costs were also reduced by reducing numbers of staff.
As of 3 March 2009, the bank was repaying the loan well ahead of target, owing a net balance of only £8.9 billion of the loan which stood at £26.9 billion at the end of 2007.

On 23 February 2009, Northern Rock announced that they would be offering £14 billion worth of new mortgages, over the next two years, as a part of their new business plan. This new lending was partly funded by an increase in the government loan and a reversal of previous strategy to pay the loan off as quickly as possible by actively encouraging mortgage customers to leave when their mortgage deal matures. The reason for this change was government policy to increase the availability of credit. This £14 billion will be split into £5 billion in 2009 and £9 billion in 2010

(wiki)