Housing organisations have called on the Government to drop plans to charge households in council homes earning £30,000 a year unaffordable market rents.
A key part of the Housing Bill is the so-called ‘Pay-to-Stay’ proposal, announced in the 2015 Budget, which will see households with incomes as low as £30,000 being forced to pay expensive market rates.
Tenant representative organisation Tpas and housing campaign SHOUT have published a report arguing the policy will punish the less well-off and increase welfare dependency.
The new proposals, the report says, could affect a household with two people who earn just over the national living wage.
Tpas and SHOUT also claim Pay-to-Stay would be an administrative nightmare and breach of taxpayer confidentiality, embroiling tenants and landlords in complex and intrusive bureaucracy.
In one clause, the housing organisations warn, the Government proposes to hand over confidential HMRC data on tenants’ incomes to councils, housing associations and even private companies.
Former civil service chief and housing expert Lord Kerslake and others have put down amendments which would leave it up to councils whether or not to implement Pay-to-Stay.
They also include proposals to raise the proposed income limits from £30,000 to £40,000 a year (£50,000 in London) and stop the government taking more than 10p in extra rent for every extra pound of income.
Tpas chief executive Jenny Osbourne said: ‘The Government should listen to tenants and housing experts and drop this unfair tax on aspiration and hard work.
‘Council tenants who work hard, get on in life and are already paying their full rent shouldn’t be punished with swingeing rent increases or be forced out of their homes.’
SHOUT leading campaigner Alison Inman said: ‘I hope that, having listened to the arguments of all parties on other aspects of the Bill this week, the Government will also agree to make the kinds of changes being suggested by Bob Kerslake and other distinguished peers and agree to the very sensible changes they are proposing, if it can’t see its way to dropping this mistaken idea altogether.’
