SDC rules out no-eviction policy for tenants hit by bedroom tax

Stroud News and Journal: Members of Stroud Against The Cuts protesting against the so-called 'bedroom tax' outside Ebley Mill last night Members of Stroud Against The Cuts protesting against the so-called 'bedroom tax' outside Ebley Mill last night

STROUD District Council has rejected calls for it to adopt a no-evictions policy in response to the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ and has refused to write off arrears for the 120 tenants who have already fallen into debt as a result of the change to housing benefit.

A petition containing some 1,200 signatures was submitted by anti-austerity group Stroud Against The Cuts to councillors during a meeting at Ebley Mill last night (Thursday, November 28) urging them to commit to no evictions.

Earlier, a dozen or so members of the group had gathered outside the council offices with placards to protest against the controversial welfare reform, which has been dubbed the bedroom tax by its opponents, but is referred to as the spare-room subsidy by supporters and officially known as the under-occupancy penalty.

Presenting the petition to members in the council chamber, political activist Chris Moore, of SATC, described the cut to housing benefit, which impacts on council tenants with spare rooms, as a ‘disgrace’ and said it was about ‘blaming the poor and disabled for the housing crisis’.

Mr Moore, who was heckled by councillors and branded a ‘Trotskyist’ (a reference to the Russian Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky), pointed out that two-thirds of those affected by the policy are disabled and said increasing numbers of tenants were being faced with a choice of ‘heat or eat’.

After he had finished speaking, a motion tabled by the Green Party calling on SDC to ‘publicly state its opposition to the bedroom tax as unfair and contrary to the wellbeing of children and adults in the district’ was brought forward by the chairman Dennis Andrewartha for debate.

The motion, which also demanded that SDC pledge not to carry out evictions, sparked a fierce row between Labour and Green Party councillors, who together, along with the Lib Dems, form part of the rainbow coalition which runs the authority.

Cllr Molly-Scott Cato (Valley) who leads the Green group, said that district councillors needed to oppose evictions so they could be seen to be standing by their communities.

However, Labour councillors insisted it was wrong to adopt a policy of no evictions for one specific set of tenants affected by the bedroom tax when there were so many others who were struggling to pay their rent for different reasons.

Labour members, who were joined by the Conservatives and all but one Lib Dem councillor in voting against the motion, also stressed that no evictions had taken place so far and that officers were doing everything in their power to avoid them.

Cllr David Drew (Lab, Farmhill and Paganhill) said whilst he strongly opposed the bedroom tax, SDC already had a no evictions policy ‘in all but name’.

A number of his party colleagues accused the Greens of ‘grandstanding’ and ‘gesture politics’, adding that the only way to get rid of the bedroom tax was by voting Labour in 2015 as Ed Miliband had promised to repeal it.

Conservative leader Keith Pearson said the motion was unnecessary because SDC had already agreed policies at the committee stage to help tenants who were suffering financial difficulties.

“There have been no evictions and the intent is that there will be no evictions,” he said.

His Tory colleague Debbie Young defended the housing benefit reforms, saying they were all about 'fairness'.

Families living in houses with spare rooms “should not receive council taxpayer’s subsidy to keep them in houses which are too big for them,” she said.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:51pm Sat 30 Nov 13

chrisrainbow says...

anybody caught up in this unfair tax,should ask the council to provide proof of contract,over this unlawful taxif they can provide proof,then you should agree to pay,but as I suspect,there will be no contract,therefore no case.if taken to court you should quote case 750181,which is common law jurisdiction precedent number.please see FREEMAN OF GLOUCESTER COURT 29 JAN 2010 to see how this works..there is only part 1,as he was never recalled. the arrogance of this coalition ,has no bounds and I am here to scupper them
anybody caught up in this unfair tax,should ask the council to provide proof of contract,over this unlawful taxif they can provide proof,then you should agree to pay,but as I suspect,there will be no contract,therefore no case.if taken to court you should quote case 750181,which is common law jurisdiction precedent number.please see FREEMAN OF GLOUCESTER COURT 29 JAN 2010 to see how this works..there is only part 1,as he was never recalled. the arrogance of this coalition ,has no bounds and I am here to scupper them chrisrainbow

11:54am Sun 1 Dec 13

Salendine says...

Many unfair aspects to this tax, even if it trying to deal with a real problem. The bigger problem is as Councillor Drew states there is effectively a no evictions policy. I lived next to a council tennant with violence and drug offences (used his council property to cultivate a cannabis farm), and the Council was completely ineffective in dealing with him. Why should all us decent tax payers (including council house tennants) subsidise those abusing the provision of social housing? We shouldn't. SDC, time for you to do your job and kick out those who don't live within our laws. They don't deserve the benefits of the state.
Many unfair aspects to this tax, even if it trying to deal with a real problem. The bigger problem is as Councillor Drew states there is effectively a no evictions policy. I lived next to a council tennant with violence and drug offences (used his council property to cultivate a cannabis farm), and the Council was completely ineffective in dealing with him. Why should all us decent tax payers (including council house tennants) subsidise those abusing the provision of social housing? We shouldn't. SDC, time for you to do your job and kick out those who don't live within our laws. They don't deserve the benefits of the state. Salendine

5:22pm Sun 1 Dec 13

dimreepr says...

Chrisrainbow you know this is rubbish and I've explained why; build your revolution on solid ground FFS.
Chrisrainbow you know this is rubbish and I've explained why; build your revolution on solid ground FFS. dimreepr

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree