Skip to main content

Discretionary Housing Payments and the "Bedroom Tax"

OK, so it isn't a bedroom tax, but everyone understands what those words mean.

Today the administrative court did not conclude that the government's policy on disabled people and the spare room subsidy was unlawful. However, the details are important. There are people who as a result of disability do need a spare bedroom. There is no question about this. The government's plan was for these people to be funded through Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP). The court accepted that the government were producing detailed guidelines to ensure that such people go get DHP.

I had a case like this in my constituency. Initially the council refused DHP, but I complained about this and they granted DHP.

A big question in terms of the implementation of this policy is the amount of DHP that is available. As at the first quarter in Birmingham Quarter 1 a total of £1,007,256.94 had been spent or committed. £763,395.70 was spent in the first quarter, £207,282.05 was committed for Q2, £34,140.57 for Q3 and £2,438.62 for Q4.

The budget is £3.7m, but in fact if you take the funds spent in Q1 and multiply that by 4 you get 3,053,582.8 still leaving over half a million. On the other hand if you take the total spent and committed and multiply that by 4 you get an over spend.

The council is obviously being careful with this, but given that central government have announced an additional £35m then there the budget is not going that badly.

The figures for solihull are more flexible.
Total budget £294,866.00
Paid to Date £35,664.23
Committed £27,457.67
Unallocated £231,744.10

What concerns me is that people are getting really stressed about the removal of the subsidy for spare rooms when in fact there remains spare capacity in the DHP budget. There are still the four options of downsizing, which a lot of people are doing, getting DHP, taking in a lodger (which is now in the financial interests of tenants much that the Taxpayers Alliance have criticised this) and simply paying it which some people are doing.
On Saturday I met another family living in a 1 bedroom council flat. They clearly want to move out. Hence there remains a lot of flexibility in the system.
What concerns me particularly is that the reporting of the "bedroom tax" often doesn't mention the options of DHP or taking in a lodger. It is very important that people know that they have a number of options. Often campaigners do not refer to DHP thereby discouraging people from asking about it.

Here is a detailed article about the court case. Here is the judgment.

Comments

Coolkama said…
one wonders sometimes... you have to pay if your under utilizing an accommodation.. but what if your over crowded.. do you get rewarded/compensated?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…