More people applied to the council for help to pay their rent in two months than the whole of last year.
Between April and May this year, there were 390 applications to Caerphilly County Borough for discretionary housing payments compared to 276 in 2012/13.
Other councils across Wales have showed similar increases after the figures were released to Plaid Cymru under the Freedom of Information Act.
The party has blamed UK Government changes to housing benefit.
Since April, changes to housing benefit by the UK Government meant that working-age recipients faced a cut of 14% to their payments for one spare bedroom, and a 25% cut for two spare bedrooms or more.
Critics have labelled the reduction a ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Councils can make discretionary housing payments to help council tax and housing benefit recipients cover their rent.
Councillor Colin Mann, leader of the Plaid Cymru group on Caerphilly council, said: “These figures highlight the impact the bedroom tax is having on families and individuals in Caerphilly county borough.
“Many tenants are clearly struggling to make ends meet because of cuts in their housing benefit with more people applying for discretionary housing benefit in the first two months of 2013/14 than in the whole of the previous year. I expect more and more tenants will be seeking support.
“Plaid has tried through a positive motion to aid tenants but we have not had the support of the ruling Labour group, which is disappointing. UK Labour has also said it will not commit to reversing the bedroom tax introduced by the Tories and Liberal Democrats at Westminster.”
Jocelyn Davies AM, Plaid Cymru’s Shadow Minister for Housing, added: “These figures reveal the true impact of the UK Coalition Government’s policies on social housing tenants. They are hitting vulnerable people hard.
“It is clear that many people have turned to local authorities for top up help with their housing costs after seeing their benefit cut.
“It is disingenuous of Labour to express outrage on this issue whilst refusing to commit to reversing this harmful policy. It’s clear that a consensus exists between the three London parties. The public will not be duped.”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said: “It’s simply not affordable to pay housing benefit for people to have spare rooms in social housing, when there are millions of households on the social housing waiting list and in overcrowded homes.
“We have no evidence that councils are running out of discretionary housing payments but as with any major reform, we are monitoring it closely – including watching how councils are spending the extra funding that we are providing to support vulnerable people.”
This is a situation which will get far worse over the months to come.
The Caerphilly Council have a policy which deals with rent arrears, the policy is quite clear and quite simple, if you don`t pay the rent you eventually get evicted, but the `process` which the Caerphilly Council goes through before getting to the point of evicting an individual or a family is designed to `prevent` eviction.
What has to be very clear if the wroth of public opinion od thosewho pay their Council Taxes, is to be avoided, is that ALL tenants who fail to pay their rent are treated in same way, particularly in so far as the `eventual` point to be reached in the event of a tenant not paying this odious levy, is `eviction`.
There are ways the council can collect the unpaid rent arrears from any tenant who fails to pay, those in work and who don`t pay can have their earnings attached through a court order, those who are not working, and in receipt of benefits, can have their benefits `attached` and the DWP will pay Caerphilly Council the levy direct from the benefits.
There is little need for the current debate on the adverse effect on finances of the authority by those who cannot pay this levy direct. There is no need to for the Caerphilly council to spend time discussing this situation, unless of course, they are genuine in their protestations about the real effects on local families of having to pay this levy at all, in which case, they would re-designate all those effected properties with extra bedrooms, i.e a three bedroom house as a two bedroom, a two bedroom house as a one bedroom by altering the tenancy agreements accordingly, the effected tenants would then be exempt from the levy. There are three bedroom houses in the Borough already which are being used as `Four` bedroom homes, these are those with `downstairs study rooms` which are used by the tenants as bedrooms, but they only pay for a three bedroom home because of the tenancy agreement designation of the forth room, it would be a simple administrative exercise for the Council to undertake a re-designation in those properties where a tenants are effected by this levy. If an when a particular re-designated property became vacant then the council would simply reverse the process.
The Tory Party Chairman Grant Shapps own constituent authority has performed a similar acrobatic move and prevented to matter there becoming a hot potato, that Council has designated certain rooms as `utility rooms` and not bedrooms, the issue is what the tenancy agreement says.
Caerphilly council should be equally imaginable with possible solutions in preventing evictions and resultant huge human and financial costs, whilst not leaving themselves open to a charge of discrimination between those tenants who fall into arrears because they can`t pay, as in the situation of hard pressed families and this additional tax on their incomes, and those who fall into arrears for many other reasons.
The DWP will only deduct from benefits amounts they deem to be affordable. The rent shortfall as a result of the bedroom tax could well exceed this level in some cases. Discretionary payments are of course a short term measure and by no means guaranteed.
The spinster that left the government half a million pounds was a council house tenant. Having declined to purchase her home for the paltry sum of two thousand pounds, she remained a tenant.
Under-occupying and depriving a family of housing, with the means to house herself. Not that any political party would dare to mention this as pensioners make for keen voters. It is a curiosity that her house blocking resulted in the preservation of a council house which is now available for other families.
Heli's comment reinforces my view that the 'Bedroom Tax' will cost us all money as tennants are helped out of 'crisis' situations entirely caused by this tax.
The spinster that left the money for the benefit of the country (The two parties in government tried to pocket this for themselves until found out) did us all a real service. Apart from the contribution to taxes, of a considerable sum, she kept a council house available. This is of much greater value to her local authority than the £2,000 they would have otherwise received. She also must have paid full rent for many years using her own resources. As a person who had savings she would not have been entitled to means tested benefits.