Opinion: The bedroom tax - so many outcomes, so little time

Published by Jon Land for 24dash.com in Housing and also in Bill Payments

New Moat chief executive Elizabeth Austerberry explains why she thinks the bedroom tax is the 'right direction of travel' but is let down by inflexibility and unpredictable outcomes.

It’s been interesting over the last couple of months to see interest in under-occupation – or the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ – finally starting to feature in the mainstream media.

The housing press has unsurprisingly been thorough about covering our concerns about under-occupation for some time. But what I find odd, is that it has not been a bigger focus for national press before now. I can only assume that the myriad of unpredictable outcomes make the story a difficult one to tell.

The legislation is a one-size-fits-all solution, rather than one which allows some manoeuvre around case-by-case circumstances. The direction of travel is absolutely right – subsidy should be used to provide the right housing to those who need it. Our Welfare Reform teams are already identifying those who are willing to downsize, and we’re being more flexible in our mutual exchange agreements in order to support these moves. We’re also providing employment and training support wherever possible, and working with the Money Advice Plus Service to offer budgeting advice. For some, this support may help to mitigate the effect of underoccupation reforms.

But for many, it isn’t even about choice; they don’t have the money to pay the additional rent costs, nor is downsizing a sensible solution for their circumstances. There is no option but to fall into arrears.

And even for those under-occupying residents who are willing and able to downsize, we simply do not have the ‘appropriately’ sized units to house everyone. The paper we produced with the Consortium of Associations in the South East (CASE) last year evidenced that, we would have to build nothing except one bedroom homes for two years in order to provide the ‘proper’ home for every under-occupying resident. This is neither practical, nor sensible. It’s all too easy to get into an emotive discussion regarding underoccupation, and providers have to remain objective. We should be looking at providing the ‘right’ homes, not just the ‘proper’ ones.

Essentially, we agree that moving towards a society where people are less benefit dependent is the right thing to do – our recently launched Moat Promise is a proactive way of helping residents to take personal responsibility. But equally, benefits are vital to the most vulnerable in society. It is a safety net that we, as a nation, have continued to support for many decades.

So, although the principle of under-occupation rules may seem reasonable, it is the execution that has become a concern. The policy is too inflexible to address genuine hardship cases, which means that many vulnerable people are likely to be left behind. To mitigate these problems, we will continue to lobby on changes which we believe could soften some of the ‘harder edges’ of the policy.

As affordable housing providers, we must remember that there should be a social purpose at the heart of all that we do. For many residents, we will become their strongest advocates at a government level. We have a duty not only to support them through what will undoubtedly be a challenging time, but also to do what we can to ensure that housing policy is fair, and sensibly implemented.