Skip to main content

Lodgers, Boarders, Non-Dependents and payments for Spare Rooms

The issues here are complex and I will try to explain them accurately (using the figures for 2013-14), but it is always worthwhile checking things out as to precise details.

There has been considerable debate about the change in policy so that tenants in Social Housing have to pay for any spare rooms in the same way that tenants in Private Rented properties have to pay the extra rent for a spare room.

The difference in Social Housing is that the rent is subsidised and housing benefit pays all of the rent apart from the spare room. In Private Rented rents are higher and if the rent without a spare room is greater than the lowest 3 in ten properties in the area then housing benefit is limited to that amount.

In a home (flat or house) there is the basic household which could be a single person or couple with or without dependent children. However, at times there might be "non-dependents" in the household. Those are normally adult children who have grown up, but not left the house. They could include a grandparent (or two). Additionally there can be lodgers (aka Sub-tenants) or Boarders.

A non-dependent is defined as someone who lives in the household, but on a non-commercial basis. A lodger is a sub-tenant who is living in the property on a non-commerical basis and a boarder is a lodger who eats some meals provided by the tenant.

As far as Social Housing goes (Housing Associations, Council Housing, ALMOs etc) any adults be they non-dependents, lodgers or boarders are included in the calculation as to how many rooms are needed. For non-dependents there is a "non-dependent deduction". For a non-dependent on benefits this is £13.60 per week. This might be less than the spare room payment (aka Bedroom tax) or it might be more.

For a lodger the tenant is allowed to keep the first £20 per week before any benefits are reduced, but there is no spare room payment. For a boarder it is the first £20 per week and then half of any greater sum (hence if someone pays £30 a week for boarding the tenant gets £30 and benefit is reduced by £5 (meaning the tenant keeps £25 per week).

I must stress that taking in lodgers is not something everyone would want to do. I personally have often had lodgers or shared accommodation with others. However, there are circumstances where this would not be appropriate.

However, if you think of a single man occupying a 3 bedroom flat. Say the rent is £80 per week. The spare bedroom payment is £20(25%). If the man has an income of £71.70 he is left with £51.70. With two lodgers he has an income of £111.70 and does not have to pay for the spare bedrooms.

The government wishes to see the spare bedrooms being used and to reduce rents more generally which is why the government is encouraging people to take in lodgers. I am currently trying to find out for certain if LHA will pay the £20 (It will not pay the non-dependent contribution).

Comments

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…