There was large campaigns to abolish this tax, I believe this was largely funded by lobbying. Edge cases, like the ones below which was largely used to stir criticism from public could easily be accounted for (ie implement allowance of 6 months after the death for under-occupancy tax to kick in and medical requirements). Yes these allowances may be abused/dodged (I can see a lot of "home offices" popping up and people claiming tax on their "office rooms"), however there will be a large amount of revenue generated from implementing an under-occupancy tax.

But as we all know getting bureaucracies to implement something like this will cost hundreds of millions, and will it be beneficial in the short term? Probably not. But we should start looking at long-term solutions.

> Michael Rosen writing in The Guardian has criticised how, under government proposals, parents living in social housing could become liable for what he calls the bedroom tax after only three months following the death of a child – something that inadvertently causes the creation of a "spare" room.[26] In March 2015 the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid newspaper, reported that a woman had become liable for the bedroom tax following her son's death from a brain haemorrhage following an assault.

> The changes in housing benefit have been criticised for having a disproportionate effect on disabled families. Two-thirds of individuals affected by the under-occupancy penalty are registered as disabled.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupancy_penalty