This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Once again @outlawla you have my thanks for the very useful information. Do you (or can anyone else provide insight) if it is legal for me to submit an invoice to the local authority for my time spent on this matter? If so do they have to pay it? What would be the correct procedure to follow? Thanks again

Once again @outlawla your information is incredibly useful. I need to build a case within the next 2 weeks and this will certainly help me to do it. so far I can pursue the following: 1) I believe the local authority is acting beyond its powers by reducing the Council Tax Support without public consultation. They also may be guilty of maladministration depending on how this decision was reached. 2) They have failed in their duty of care by reducing the Council Tax Support and taking people they know cannot aford to pay the bill to Magistrates Court. 3) They have abused their position and given misinformation and misrepresented their powers regarding the process at the magistrates court. 4) Their costs are unreasonable and they have failed to provide a breakdown of costs on a per capita basis 5) They have breached the Human Rights of their constituents with the actioned aforementioned. 6) The magistrates at Wirral Magistrates Court appear to be unaware of the law pertaining to costs and the fact they do not have to award them 7) The magistrates appear to be unaware of the law regarding Mackenzie Friends and representation 8) The summons may not be a legal document, making any court action and decision invalid Have I missed anything?

Thanks for the replies @citizenb and @outlawla Your reply has been incredible helpful @outlawla and has given me something very concrete to work with. Please do add more information if you come across anything. Thanks again

Can someone please advise if it is normal for a Magistrates Court to make it a condition for someone who is fighting the Council Tax cuts and who has requested to be heard by a District Judge, they must supply a copy of their defence to the local authority and the Court 14 days before the hearing? The magistrate actually stated "we will not allow anyone to ambush the local authority with a legal argument, therefore you must present a defence to the court and the local authority 14 days prior to the hearing". When questioned about whether this puts the individual at a disadvantage the reply is "No". Is this correct? Here are my notes from memory of what happened today: Council Tax Summons Appearance - 6 August 2013 1) About 150 people turned up and were told by a council official to go to the One Stop shop to arrange a payment plan. They were not advised they had a right to challenge the charges in fact they were told the Liability Order would be granted regardless of whether they went to the One stop shop or went into the court room. This is clear mis-information and "Contempt of Court" because they are effectively saying the outcome of a supposedly impartial hearing was pre-determined. They also neglected to tell people by making an arrangement to pay they forfeit their legal right to challenge unfair charges in court and accept the charges as applied by the local authority. 2) Everone is entitled to a "Mckenzie Friend" and all courts are open to the public. However people were not being made aware of their legal right to sit in the Public Gallery. As such they were denied the legal right to moral support and counsel. 3) Local authority Officers were wearing name badges but when questioned the name badge was different from the name they supplied. 4) People were being taken into a side room and naturally presumed they were speaking to an advocate. However in truth it was another officer of the council who wanted to know what they were going to say to the court so the council officers could prepare an adequate defense in order to "prove" the liability order should be enforced. 5) Because I had spoken out I was kept until last, along with another individual who supported me. This was clearly a form of intimidation. (let them cool their heels mentality etc) 6) The letter issued as a summons does not carry a court seal and does not state under which law, legislation or regulations people are being prosecuted. 7) There was no court recorder in attendance to document the proceedings 8) The council officer presenting the prosecutions to the Magistrates confirmed she was an officer of the council but was not legally qualified. 9) The council failed to answer when questioned how many people had been summonsed on the day. 10) The council failed to produce documents specific to the case. As such "No Case To Answer" became the defence but this was ignored by the Magistrates. 11) The matter continued and turned to the failure to have a Public Consultation when reducing the Council Tax Benefit as required under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 12) Additionally the Council has failed in its Duty of Care towards its vulnerable residents. The costs are punitive and there is no right to appeal in order to contest the costs. Attempts at arrangements to pay prior to the court appearance failed. They insisted costs would still be applied which is unreasonable. 13)Presented to the Bench - The Council is guilty of procedural ultra vires (acting beyond its powers) 14) resented to the Bench - The council is failing to consider the relevant facts of individual cases in order not to act in an unreasonable manner (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223. The coucil has acted unreasonably by its application for a liability order. 15) Presented to the Bench - The council appears to be prepared to act beyond its powers by placing budgetry considerations above the Common Law Duty of Care owed to this community and the individuals within it. 16) The court advised "This is not the correct place to discuss this". When pressed they agreed the matter should be sent before a District Judge in order to preserve the legal right to be heard and have a fair trial. 17) The case was adjourned to appear before a District Judge on 03 Sept 2013 9:45am (Court 6) A condition was placed by the Magistrates all defence documents must be submitted to the Local Authority and to the Court 14 days prior to the hearing.

As you correctly point out, rents in most HA 3 bed houses are often cheaper or the same as 1 Bed houses. In the Private sector they are often much more expensive. It follows then the cost of rehousing people and paying their "eligible" Housing Benefit for a 1 Bed or 2 bed property is likely to cost more than the property they currently occupy. The Bedroom tax is madness and will cause untold hardship, mental health problems, poverty and suffering for the hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected. It appears the Government have also changed the laws on Squatting in residential properties - no doubt because people will refuse to move out and claim squatters rights. If they have predicted mass squatting and changed the law to suit, they have given the Bedroom tax and its repercussions a lot of thought. It seems they know exactly what they are doing and don't seem to care. I am astonished this thread has not attracted much more attention. People are sleepwalking into homelessness.

id6052 Thanks for your thoughts. I agree a lot would need to be thought through but much of what you pointed out could be sorted out with amendments to the tenancy agreement and a new contract. I have commented on each of your points in turn below: 1) it would make eviction process more difficult for non payers This is a valid point. Perhaps a clause in the contract mentioned above would solve this problem. Something for the lawyers to do 2) it would cause greater difficulties if tenant died, whereby a relative would inherit Again, a fair point and once again this could be addressed in a contractual agreement 3) they would recive less income than even under the welfare reforms, as shared ownership rents are less than a HA rent would be (even after taking into account a reduction for the bedroom tax) I disagree with you on this point. Rent levels would be based on the number of rooms in the property and whilst the shared ownership portion would not attract rent, the rented portion could remain at market value or increased to compensate. I certainly seems a more viable proposal than losing the rent and being saddled with arrears which are unlikely to be recovered. 4) the administrative/legal side of it would be a nightmare How so? They seem to manage pretty well with collecting rents at the moment. All this would mean is an extra box stating the customer had "purchased or leased" part of the building. Administration may be more complex in the short term but when faced with losing £millions in rent, systems have a way of adapting very quickly 5) they would have less control of their housing stock Again I cannot see why. This is a contractual matter and I do agree would need legal experts to think it through but the contract would revert the ownership back to the HA upon succession of the tenancy or outright purchase by the tenant. I cannot see how the HA would lose control of their housing stock under these conditions. If anything they may actually sell more of their housing stock and then be able to build more houses. 6) the application and collection of various service charges A fair point. Granted their would be increased administrative burdens but no more than the Bedroom Tax would appear to bring.

They may go for it purely for financial reasons. The Government has foisted the responsibility of defining a bedroom which then allows the Housing Benefits to be reduced. It is Housing Associations who will be faced with huge rent arrears on their balance sheets, the cost of evictions and legal fees then the impossible task of rehousing tenants in suitable properties which do not exist. Whilst I agree many have ceased to be the charitable and benevolent institutions they originally started out to be, they will want to limit the cost and the fallout to their finances. Uncollected rent will cost jobs for people working in Housing associations. I do not believe the Housing Associations want the Bedroom Tax any more than the tenants. This is why I thing the "deferred shared ownership" idea I proposed above may be of interest to them. They would effectively manage to circumvent the effects of the Bedroom Tax whilst till complying with the rules and not needing to find one or two bedroom properties which do not exist. Plus the tenants will not need to move home. All that is needed is a variation to the tenancy agreement and a contract for the "deferred shared ownership". Low cost and effective. The Government has attempted to solve the housing crisis by not building more homes and by throwing vulnerable people out of their homes, whilst generating additional revenues from their misery. The "deferred shared ownership" option turns this around without the need for waiting for the results of a costly and lengthy legal challenge. When it comes to money, Housing Associations are always interested in new ideas and initiatives

After thinking about this I wonder if Housing Associations could set up a shared ownership scheme for existing tenants where the extra "rooms" could be purchased for a nominal sum (e.g. £100 per room) and sold back to the Housing Association when the tenancy ends. It could use existing legislation designed for Private Tenants to protect deposits. This would circumvent the Housing Benefit reforms because "shared ownership" is exempted under the welfare reforms and Housing Benefit cannot be reduced because technically the rooms are owned by the tenant. The big question is whether Housing Associations would co-operate and what shape the contract would need to take in order to protect them from actually selling part of the house to the tenant on the cheap. Perhaps the tenant could pay a deposit against the true value of each room and the remainder deferred with the option to realise the full shared ownership if circumstances improve? Is this workable? Thoughts anyone

When is a bedroom not a bedroom? Does putting a computer into a room make it an office? There is no actual statutory definition of what constitutes a bedroom so how can Housing Benefit be reduced based on the number of bedrooms a house has when a bedroom has not been defined legally? Is this enough to stop recovery action by a landlord whilst a legal definition of a bedroom is pursued? How long would it take to define and who would do it?

To be fair she has a point. We do not know her personal circumstances - her family could come and stay for holidays etc. People who have been awarded houses have been assessed, gone on a waiting list, made multiple applications and then been awarded somewhere to live based on the assessment of their need. Many have waited years to get a property. To be forced to move out of your home simply because the Government has sold off the housing stock and not built more houses is unjust and immoral. It used to be a tenant was guaranteed a home for life and this formed the basis of a social contract between tenant and landlord. The tenant then often improved their properties and communities were built. The Government are always banging on about reducing Anti-Social Behaviour and building stronger communities but the Bedroom Tax will have the reverse effect if people are not allowed to settle and are constantly forced to move. Housing stock will be worsened because tenants will have no incentive to look after or improve the buildings. In the case of the tenant who has a 4 bedroomed house and lives alone, incentives should be offered to encourage her to move to a smaller property. Forcing people out of their homes harks back to Dickensian times and is not very Big Society at all.

Here is a very god blog post explaining the impact of the "stealth" Bedroom Tax on the poor and vulnerable http://hhgrahamjones.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/governments-appalling-decision-to.html True, there is a shortage of social housing but evicting people does not solve the problem. It simply moves one family at the expense of another. It makes the situation worse because there are not enough smaller properties to go around. The solution is to build more houses which would also create jobs and help kick start the economy.

When the Government introduced a window tax people blocked up their windows. Will people block up their bedrooms in order to save their home?