Vulnerable suffering as result of housing welfare reforms
2 Apr 2014 02:57 PM
Reforms to the support provided for housing
costs – including the Social Sector Size Criteria (SSSC) (also known as
the “Bedroom Tax” and the “Spare Room Subsidy”) and the
household Benefit Cap – are causing financial hardship to vulnerable
people who were not the intended targets of the reforms and are unlikely to be
able to change their circumstances in response, say the Work and Pensions
Committee in a report published Wednesday 2
April.
The
SSSC is having a particular impact on people with disabilities who have adapted
homes or need a room to hold medical equipment or to accommodate a carer. The
Committee recommends that anybody living in a home that has been significantly
adapted for them should be exempt from the SSSC. The Report further urges the
Government to exempt all households that contain a person in receipt of higher
level disability benefits (DLA or PIP) from the SSSC.
Committee Chair
Dame Anne Begg MP, Committee Chair,
said:
"The Government has reformed the housing cost
support system with the aim of reducing benefit expenditure and incentivising
people to enter work. But vulnerable groups, who were not the intended
targets of the reforms and are not able to respond by moving house or finding a
job, are suffering as a result.
The
Government’s reforms are causing severe financial hardship and distress
to vulnerable groups, including disabled people. Discretionary Housing Payments
(DHPs), which local authorities can award to people facing hardship in paying
their rent, are not a solution for many claimants. They are temporary, not
permanent, and whether or not a claimant is awarded DHP is heavily dependent on
where they live because different local authorities apply different eligibility
rules.
Using housing stock more efficiently and reducing
overcrowding are understandable goals. But 60-70% of households in
England affected by the SSSC contain somebody with a disability and many of
these people will not be able to move home easily due to their disability. So
they have to remain in their homes with no option but to have their Housing
Benefit reduced."
The
household Benefit Cap
- The
Benefit Cap is having an adverse impact on disabled people and their
carers. This is particularly the case where the carer lives with the
disabled person, for example a parent or adult child, but is not considered
part of the same household for benefit purposes. The Government should exempt
all recipients of Carers Allowance in this situation from the Benefit Cap.
[paragraph 106]
- Local authorities often have no option other than to
place homeless households in temporary accommodation. This is usually more
expensive than permanent accommodation and claimants can then fall within the
scope of the Benefit Cap. Local authorities often have to pay the shortfall
between rent levels and Housing Benefit for those affected by the Cap so there
is no overall saving to public funds. The Government should exempt all
households in temporary accommodation from the Benefit Cap. [paragraph
110]
Dame Anne said:
"The Government has stated that the Benefit Cap is
not intended to push carers into work. But this may well be its effect unless
recipients of Carers Allowance are exempted from the Cap.
Homeless people placed in temporary accommodation have
no choice over where they are housed and few options for reducing their housing
costs. It seems particularly unjust, therefore, for them to be affected by the
Benefit Cap."
Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)
- The
Government should review DHP provision when more data are available and
increase funding, if necessary, to protect vulnerable people from hardship.
[paragraph 148]
- Local authority discretion in granting DHPs is resulting
in access to funding depending heavily on where a claimant lives. Some local
authorities are taking income from disability benefits into account in the
means tests they apply for determining eligibility for DHPs. The
Government should issue clear guidance to local authorities that disability
benefits should be disregarded in any means tests for DHPs. [paragraph
141]
- People with long term problems such as disabilities, who
are unlikely to be able to move house or find work as a response to the reforms
might need longer term DHP awards. The Government should issue new guidance to
local authorities making explicit that it supports long-term DHP awards for
specific categories of claimants.
- Local authorities will need clarity on DHP funding for
at least three years ahead. The Government should announce decisions on DHP
funding early so that local authorities can plan effectively. [paragraph
145]
Dame Anne said:
"Access to DHPs should depend on need, not
somebody’s postcode.
DHPs will be needed for the foreseeable future to assist
people affected by the housing benefit reforms. Local authorities need
certainty about what funding the Government will make available for this, for
at least the next three years. The Government cannot on the one hand expect
local authorities to make longer-term DHP awards and on the other only outline
funding levels for the short-term.
Disability benefits are intended to cover the extra
costs arising from a disability; they are not disposable income. It is
inappropriate, therefore, for them to be included in means tests for
DHPs."
Reforms to Local Housing Allowance
(LHA)
- There is a growing discrepancy between average rents and
the amount of LHA that households can claim. As a result, private sector
landlords are increasingly reluctant to rent to LHA recipients. Evictions and
non-renewals of tenancies are increasing, and the properties that do remain
available to claimants are of increasingly poor quality. [paragraphs
27-28]
- Despite homelessness acceptances being down overall,
rises are occurring in high demand areas and homelessness among those not in
priority need increased by 9% between 2012 and 2013. The Government should
monitor the impact of LHA reforms on homelessness and look at further ways of
supporting claimants if the reforms are found to be exacerbating it.
[paragraph 36]
- The
Government should consider increasing LHA by more than 1% in more pressured
areas and amend the Targeted Affordability Fund so that it can be paid at
higher levels in areas where rent increases are greater than 4%. [paragraphs 27
and 47]
Dame Anne said:
"Private sector rents are becoming increasingly
less affordable for Housing Benefit claimants and this may be contributing to
increased homelessness in some areas.
Whilst the Targeted Affordability Fund is welcome, in
places like London where rents are increasing by 8%, its effectiveness in
relieving hardship and preventing arrears will be much more
limited."