Former ‘World's most unpleasant Young Conservative’ claims bedroom tax is helping tenants

Harry, Phibbs

Just some brief notes on news out today that the bedroom tax is apparently “getting thousands into work”.

The author of the Conservative Home blogpost that carries the above headline, toff tory councillor Harry Phibbs, has conducted “an extensive piece of research” to support his claim. We’ve requested Phibbs make the FOI requests/replies available to the public so they can be scrutinized.

Although the headline is a tory neck swinger, Phibbs spends most of the blog explaining caveats to the figures, ending with a feeble attempt at turning the bedroom tax into a work-related success. Bollocks. 

The reality is the bedroom tax, in concert with the rest of welfare attacks, is destroying lives, upending communities and severing socially supportive networks for hundreds of thousands of tenants. But the Gov doesn’t want voters to dwell on that stuff when they’re attempting to entrench divisions within the working class or trying to prop up a piece of crumbling legislation.

And Phibbs, once voted “The world's most unpleasant Young Conservative”, certainly won’t want to be dwelling on the human cost as he spins on some easily, deliberately misinterpreted figures.

Expect more shite from Phibbs all this week.

combatbedroomtax@gmail.com

Can't Pay, Won't Pay: Callout for Non-Payers to Go Public

Merseyside Federation of Anti-Bedroom Tax Groups is looking for a group of tenants to publicly declare their non-payment. This is part of a new strategy of pressuring local councils to put their money where their mouth is, and take action on tribunal rulings which should end the coalition’s hated and destructive policy.

The Conservative/Lib Dem government is very much on the back foot over the bedroom tax. The report by Raquel Rolnik of the United Nations was a devastating condemnation of the suffering the measure has imposed on already vulnerable people. Also, tribunal after tribunal has found in favour of tenants, and against councils, over the implementation of the bedroom tax.

The government has declared it will appeal against the judgement in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, which found that Fife Council – and therefore all councils – had acted contrary to the law when they simply took the social landlord’s word over the number of bedrooms in each property. The tribunal found that each council must take into account room size, available floor space, purpose, and usage of each room. It definitively ruled that rooms of under seventy square feet cannot be classed as a bedroom.

When Ed Miliband announced Labour’s pledge to axe the bedroom tax if they come to power in 2015 (years too late for tenants struggling right now), Merseyside’s council leaders chimed in, all saying that they oppose the bedroom tax on a personal level, but can do nothing to challenge national government policy.

This is a lie.

All the region’s Labour councils have to do is comply with the law, as interpreted by the Kirkcaldy tribunal! Fife council have already agreed to do this, so if Liverpool, Wirral, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens and Halton councils all went along, the bedroom tax would be dealt a fatal blow, and the government would have to stop dragging its feet.

To make local council chiefs think again, Merseyside Federation of Anti-Bedroom Tax Groups propose a high profile campaign. Volunteer tenants:

• must be prepared to take a public stand
• would have to have handed in an appeal to help preserve their position (we can help with this)
• would make two public statements – one to the housing association and one to the council, saying why they have been forced into this position

Tenants interested in being one of our non-payment volunteers should contact our secretary Juliet Edgar on 07528194137 or julietjulesj@yahoo.co.uk.

[reposted from Merseyside Federation of Anti-Bedroom Tax Groups]

DWP issue new bedroom tax guidance to local authorities; Seek to appeal Fife ruling

removal of the spare room subsidy bulletin 23 sep

A room less than 70 sq ft is not liable for bedroom tax – Fife Council

 

The following is a press release from Merseyside Federation of Anti-Bedroom Tax Groups:

Following a first-tier benefit tribunal judgement* against Fife Council that a room of less than 70 sq ft is not a bedroom for bedroom tax purposes, an emergency meeting agreed today that this will now become official council policy. Earlier in the week the council announced that it would not appeal against the tribunal ruling. In separate judgements over the last two weeks, the benefit tribunal in Kirkcaldy has ruled that room purpose, usage and usable space are also issues that councils need to take into account in determining a tenant’s liability for the bedroom tax.

Secretary of Merseyside Federation of anti-Bedroom Tax Groups Juliet Edgar says: “This is is an important and very welcome decision. We have always said the process that councils went through in determining bedroom tax liability was fundamentally flawed since they did not take into account the space standards of the 1985 Housing Act or individual circumstances. Fife Council has set a precedent: we now insist that councils on Merseyside follow immediately.”

There are thousands of properties on Merseyside where tenants are paying bedroom tax for room less than 70 sq ft. The 1985 Housing Act space standard says that this is too small to serve as a bedroom for an adult. Councils and housing associations will now have to face up to the prospect of undertaking individual surveys of tens of thousands of social housing properties across Merseyside to record individual room sizes, their purpose and the use that is made of them. It is expected that at least 30% of all bedroom tax decisions will have to be set aside as a result.

Ms Edgar comments: “This is is an exercise that will take months. In the meantime, we demand that all existing bedroom tax decisions are set aside. Why should tenants continue to pay a tax for which they are not liable while councils do the job that they should have done at the outset?”

For further information contact Juliet Edgar on 07528194137

* Judgements SC108/13/01362 and SC108/13/01318. For a more detailed assessment of both judgements and their significance see speye.wordpress.com

Bolton at Home concocts ‘no homelessness’ policy for bedroom tax-hit tenants

On August 19^th ‘arms length’ housing association Bolton at Home (BH) announced a ‘no homelessness’ policy to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax on BH tenants. This would seem like a tenant-supporting move, but when John Dunn, assistant director of housing services at BH, spent 7 paragraphs in the Guardian bemoaning the ‘no eviction’ policies some housing associations (HA) have adopted –in effect arguing for the necessity of evictions- it becomes clear that the reasoning underpinning the ‘no homelessness’ policy are wholly economic.

According to BH’s ‘no homelessness’ policy, if a tenant is evicted over the bedroom tax they’re given the option of moving into “another” property. The tenant is given one re-housing offer only and if they turn it down they can basically fuck off somewhere else.

With 11,000 tenants in Bolton chasing 91 one-bedroom properties, it leaves the policy vacuous. With a shortage of properties to ‘downsize’ to, BH’s only option would be to shift tenants into the private rented sector. And this, it seems, is what BH intend to do:

“We will use some of the empty properties generated by turnover in our stock to re-house affected tenants, as well as making use of private-sector leasehold properties.”

also BH:

“…would work with the private rented sector and Bolton Council to bring in suitable accommodation where possible.”

According to BH, though, it all depends on what kind of tenant you are. The narrative that BH concocts is that they are protecting the tenant from homelessness and simultaneously other tenants who would be indirectly hit “if rent is not collected.” But, like all state-aligned institutions, BH tries to bring tenants into conflict with each other by dividing them into good/deserving and bad/undeserving:

“’No eviction’ policies do not differentiate between those who can't pay and those who won't pay. It is unfair on those who go on struggling to pay the bedroom tax if others choose not to.”

Dunn does not mention the possibility that tenants who “won’t pay” might also be struggling and can’t pay, preferring to use them as scapegoats for the failure of housing associations to act in genuine solidarity with all tenants.

Bolton News reported in august that:

“They [Bolton at Home] said the policy will not apply if tenants are evicted for arrears that are the result of other factors, such as deliberate non-payment.”

While Dunn has-a-go at folk for focusing on the ‘morality’ of the bedroom tax, he uses his own courtroom tactics to moralise over the decisions made by BH tenants, and principally how those pesky tenants, unable to afford the fucking rent and can’t/won’t pay, are damaging the “service standards”, “credit” and “capital improvement projects” of Bolton at Home. Well, whoopee-fucking-do!

Meanwhile, Dunn shows whose side he’s really on with this mucky little outburst: 

“A ‘no eviction’ policy also sets a precedent for landlords. How can they then argue that they are right to evict in cases where arrears are caused by other factors, such as government cuts to tax credits, welfare benefits, increases in non-dependant deductions, and so on?”

The chances are if you’re struggling with the bedroom tax then you’re probably, -whether you can’t or won’t pay- struggling with rent full stop, especially if you’re being threatened with eviction by your HA. So, what difference does it make if you come under the ‘no homelessness’ policy, or not, if you’re going to get shunted into private-rented property anyways? Fuck all.

By slapping the politically loaded term ‘homelessness’ on a mirage-of-a-policy BH merely, and most likely briefly, score some brownie points with the Boltonian electorate and council. If they were truly acting in the interests of their tenants, then they would have adopted a no-evictions policy that protects all tenants from reform and crisis. Instead, they’ve chosen to divide the Bolton at Home tenant community and concentrate on protecting their more important capital assets: bricks and mortar.

combatbedroomtax@gmail.com

Combat the Bedroom Tax's Brief Guide to Direct Action

"Harpooned to the sides of capitalistic society it shall tear and bleed it until the shark turns the final somersault" - Émile Pouget

"Direct action may be the extreme of violence, or it may be as peaceful as the waters of the Brook of Shiloa that go softly." - Voltairine de Cleyre

Direct action is taking matters into our own hands

Direct action is not a boycott

http://libcom.org/library/boycotting-amazon-boycotting-ukuncut-or-why-thin-understanding-post-fordist-capitalism-f

Direct action is not dependent on approval from the state

http://ca.ibtimes.com/articles/255711/20111124/occupy-toronto-encampment-taken-longer-occupied-photos.htm#page4

Protestor shaking hands with a copper

Direct action is under the control of the participants

http://seasol.net/

Direct action is not a letter to your MP

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/campaigns/current_campaigns/cam-fw-esaactions/cam-fw-mpcontact.htm

Direct action is chasing bailiffs off

http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/kirkby-activists-face-down-thieving.html

Local residents prevent bailiffs from entering property in Liverpool

Direct action is not a petition

http://antiworkfare.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/i-direct-action-your-petition-and-raise.html

Direct action is not, nor never will be, lobbying the local council

http://www.writetothem.com/

Direct action is expropriation of food to feed your family

http://libcom.org/news/unemployed-take-food-mercadona-carrefour-mass-action-andalucia-08082012

Unemployed take food from Mercadona and Carrefour in mass action in Andalucia

Direct action is not a foodbank

http://www.historyofsocialwork.org/1967_food_banks/2002%20Riches%20food%20banks.pdf

Direct action is a wildcat strike

http://iwwboston.org/2013/08/19/workers-at-insomnia-cookies-go-on-wildcat-strike/

Direct action is not a march from point A to B

http://libcom.org/blog/what-october-20-tells-us-about-state-movement-21102012

Direct action is the Gulabi Gang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulabi_Gang

Direct action is Anti-Fascist Action
http://libcom.org/history/articles/afa-anti-fascist-actionhttp://libcom.org/history/articles/afa-anti-fascist-action

Direct action is not a symbolic protest

http://tmso.org.uk/ 
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/

UKuncut activists outside Nick Clegg's House

Direct action is fighting for ourselves

http://libcom.org/library/fighting-ourselves-anarcho-syndicalism-class-struggle-solidarity-federation

Direct action is not about the media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEb9i_cuhy4

Direct action is not civil disobedience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flower_Power_demonstrator.jpg

http://www.theargus.co.uk/resources/images/2594683.jpg?type=articleLandscape

Direct action is sabotage

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emile-pouget-sabotage.pdf

Direct action “subscribes to notions of freedom and autonomy”

http://libcom.org/library/direct-action-emile-pouget

Direct action is the "normal function" of working class resistance

(ya)

combatbedroomtax@gmail.com

Merseyside Bedroom Tax Federation: After The Storm

Repost via Infantile Disorder:

During the spring, the Merseyside Federation of Anti-Bedroom Tax Groups was formed, following weeks of frenzied activity. Neighbourhood-based groups from all across the region sent delegates to meetings in Liverpool town centre, and amidst a buzz of excitement, an anti-oppression motion was unanimously agreed.

But the trouble began when it became clear that one local anti-bedroom tax group - based in Knowsley - had strong links to notorious local fascists. Knowsley sought to join the Federation, and anti-fascists tried to raise the alarm. But at the next Federation meeting, the Knowsley application was steamrollered through by the chair, who refused to allow antifascists permission to air their concerns. The next moment I received a tweet from a jubilant Knowsley admin, threatening to take me to court for my "lies" (I'm yet to hear anything further, by the way). Following this, the Federation Twitter account published statements attacking "the anarchists", aimed at covering up the chair's undemocratic actions.

At a special meeting called to look into whether "the Federation [had] been brought into disrepute", Knowsley's affiliation application was withdrawn, and no-one from that group has attended any further meetings. In the meantime, local groups have continued doing some excellent work, but the issue of what happened at the 1st June meeting has been the elephant in the room at a federal level.

Today, over a tense and very emotional hour and a half, delegates had it out. This was prompted by a motion from one of the local groups, which called for "The activists who have made public statements attacking the Federation" (a reference to those who had called-out the behaviour of individuals within the Federation) to "withdraw them". Further, "all groups agree not to make public statements attacking the Federation or members of the Federation", and later on, "concerns or disagreements to be put in writing and discussed at a full Federation meeting and to agree with the democratic decision at that meeting".

There was lots of back and forth about the merits or otherwise of what antifascists had written in their whistleblowing blog posts, but when one speaker described the motion as "top down", and another characterised it as "policing" what individuals are doing when "we're not the state", it was agreed to amend the resolution to the following:

"The Federation is to unite in practise whenever possible and assist all groups to become bigger and stronger in fighting the bedroom tax and cuts in welfare benefit.

"To agree to a Code of Conduct. Differences should be respected, and all members have a right to express their positions and discuss in a frank, open and respectful way.

"Members should not make personal attacks. The Chairperson to pull members to order when personal attacks are made and if the person persists they be asked to leave the meeting."

The amendment was backed by a majority of three, out of eleven voting delegates. While such a margin shows there are still tensions and suspicions within the group, there was a sense that the air has been cleared somewhat, and hopes that the Federation will be able to put the infighting behind us, so we can get on with the urgent work of challenging the bedroom tax. With fascists unable to spread their divisive poison anywhere near affiliated groups, we can proceed with some confidence.