Leeds councillors to vote on no-eviction policy for tenants in “bedroom tax” arrears

chamberCouncillors in Leeds vote on Wednesday whether to adopt a policy not to evict council tenants who have had their benefits cut due to the “bedroom tax”.

The proposal is being put to a full meeting of the council by Liberal Democrat councillors, who say the current coalition government policy of reducing benefit for under-occupying tenants is “ineffective, unfair and penalises the most vulnerable”.

According to council figures, at the end of June 2,354 of the 6,407 council tenants who have an “under-occupation charge” applied to their housing benefit were in arrears.

“Council notes the efforts of other councils to offer greater certainty to affected tenants by guaranteeing they won’t be evicted for arrears accrued as a result of under-occupying their home,” the Lib-Dem motion being debated on Wednesday says.

“Council resolves to adopt a non-eviction policy for tenants in Leeds who have had their benefits cuts due to under-occupation …”.

There are caveats, though. To qualify, tenants will have to prove they have: “applied for rehousing; applied for a discretionary housing payment; maintained their tenancy effectively in terms of overall property condition and standards of behaviour; not refused reasonable offers to downsize”.

Local groups campaigning against the coalition government’s welfare reforms – like Hands Off Our Homes – have been calling for a no-eviction policy to be introduced in Leeds.

Hardship fund

Cllr Peter Gruen: no-eviction policy "very difficult to maintain"

Cllr Peter Gruen: no-eviction policy “very difficult to maintain”

The council’s position so far has been that it can’t write off any arrears arising as a result of the “bedroom tax”, but it will “do everything reasonably possible to support and advise tenants who find themselves in arrears because of the welfare changes”.

It has so far awarded a total of £465,098 in “discretionary housing payments (DHP)” to 813 of the 1,714 households who have applied to the council’s hardship fund for help.

As far as eviction is concerned, an updated policy approved by council leaders in April didn’t broach a blanket no-eviction policy, but came up with new guidelines on “when it would not be appropriate to serve (what is officially called) a Notice of Intent to Seek Possession”.

Council housing chief Peter Gruen was quoted recently as saying that “a no-eviction policy is very difficult to maintain”.

Worth noting that one council that has adopted a no-eviction policy, Bristol, could now be having second thoughts after a council working party found the policy was “not sustainable and should be ended as soon as possible”.

Will Labour party councillors – the majority in the Leeds council chamber – accept the Lib-Dem proposal? They’re making up their collective mind today.

As recently as last month Hands Off Our Homes didn’t hold out much hope of a no-eviction policy happening in Leeds.

Here’s what one Labour councillor, prospective parliamentary candidate for Leeds North West Alex Sobel, was saying last night:

bedroomtaxsobel

You can watch the debate live on the internet on Wednesday afternoon by clicking here.

Advertisements

About the leeds citizen

contributions to this blog welcome
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Leeds councillors to vote on no-eviction policy for tenants in “bedroom tax” arrears

  1. Steve Williamson says:

    Hmmm… Did I miss something but aren’t the Liberal Democrats part of the government which introduced this measure?

    I cannot see how any responsible local administration can say it won’t evict people for non-payment. There is a very fuzzy line between can’t pay and won’t pay… The best that can be hoped for is a very sensitive approach which it seems to me the Council is trying to adopt. I believe that national Labour party policy is to commit itself to repealing this measure if and when it forms a government; this is probably the best that can be done with a very bad measure

  2. @ Steve Williamson – you’re missing nothing much apart from the fact that local party representatives sometimes go in a different direction from their [in this instance] governing party’s espoused policy measures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s