Agenda item

This report provides a review of the welfare reform legislative changes that have been implemented by the Coalition Government and the Council’s responses.

Mr Mike England, accompanied by Mr Paul Rosenberg, presented the update report in respect of housing-related welfare reform, which included: Local Housing Allowance (LHA) Rates; Shared Accommodation Room Rate Changes; and Overall Benefits Cap (from April 2013).

 

Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

 

The total number of households in the private rented sector affected by the Cap had decreased from an initial 540 to 100. There had not been a significant increase in private sector benefit claims within the borough, with just over 3,100 claims being managed in April 2011 and 3,150 claims in January 2013.

 

The reasons for the reduction in the number of households affected by the Cap was likely to be a combination of: people moving out of the borough; use of own resources to pay difference in rent (although this might be a relatively short term solution): households declaring themselves homeless (estimated to be 25/30 households); and landlords reducing rent.

 

Families having to move out of the borough because of the Cap was being monitored, but currently there was little evidenced of this happening.

 

Housing Benefit Size Criteria Restrictions for Working age Claimants in the Social Housing Sector (Bedroom Tax)

 

It was estimated that there were 834 under-occupying cases claiming housing benefit in the Council housing sector potentially affected by the Housing Benefit change. Of these, it was estimated that 629 were ‘under-occupying’ by one bedroom and 205 by two bedrooms. Within the Registered Provider (Housing Associations) sector, it was estimated that 648 households were potentially affected.

 

The Housing Occupancy Team was currently working with 115 working age under occupiers. 

 

In March, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had announced a number of further exemptions involving: foster carers; absent members of the armed forces; and persons with a severe disability unable to share a bedroom. H&F Direct would be working with tenants to identify those benefiting from these exemptions.

 

Overall Benefit Cap

 

The Benefits Cap of £350 for single households and £500 for a family was scheduled to be phased in from mid-July, with the first households expected to be capped in September. The duration of the phasing was not known.

 

The DWP had estimated that there would be 848 households affected in Hammersmith & Fulham, but it was believed that the actual figure would be 500/550. It was known that 67 households in permanent tenancies (HRA) would be affected. There were 178 households in temporary accommodation, Council directly managed and 187 households in temporary accommodation, managed by housing associations potentially affected.

 

Mr England noted that first responsibility for responding to the impacts of the welfare reform changes rested with the households.

 

The Council had met with all housing associations in the borough and established protocols for exchange of information. 

 

The HB Assist Team were in the process of delivering seven project work streams focusing on: LHA Cap; Benefit Caps; Universal Credit; Temporary Accommodation Subsidy; Employment Links and Under Occupation of Social Housing.

 

A data matching exercise would be undertaken to identify vulnerable families known to either or both Adult Social Care and Children’s services.

 

£1.48 million had been set aside for discretionary payments by the DWP. This was a significant increase but not sufficient to meet the whole gap, and therefore groups would be prioritised.

 

Mr England updated on the work of the HB Assist Team. The total number of households still to be resolved of 26 in August 2012 had now been reduced to two.

 

Mr England and Mr Rosenberg then responded to questions.

 

The benefit cap of £500 per week might appear adequate, but there could be hardship for families paying market rent to a private landlord. There might be some circumstances in which households would be required to move to accommodation in another borough. The Council would offer advice on employment as these households would be not be affected by the Cap. All cases would be assessed individually, and councils were able to offer short term discretionary payments.

 

In respect of the 67 households in permanent tenancies, the social housing rent would be comparatively low and individual circumstances would vary. Some households might have a large number of children, with a gap between the overall benefit and the amount required for the household’s needs. For some households, the gap might be relatively modest, and they would be expected to meet this themselves.

 

Where it was known that households would be affected by the Cap, they had been contacted in advance of the changes, initially by a telephone call, which would be followed up in writing. The DWP had been in contact with people affected since October.

 

In respect of the exemptions to the Cap, the criteria for ‘severe disability’ had not been set. However a parent or child in receipt of disability allowance would  by regarded as an exemption. Other cases would be judged on merit.

 

Two disabled children or children 16 and over would not be expected to share a bedroom. There was no minimum size for a bedroom and no distinction between a single and double bedroom.

 

The Appeals Process was through an Independent Tribunal.

 

An equalities impact analysis of LHA households affected had not been undertaken, as this information was not available through housing benefits records. An analysis of the ethnic breakdown would be undertaken as households were contacted in respect of the bedroom tax.

 

In response to a question in respect of the financial justification for the resource team, Mr England stated that should a household’s situation not be resolved, the household might qualify for assistance under the Council’s homelessness duty, which might have to be met through costly bed and breakfast accommodation.

 

Mr Rosenberg confirmed that there were differences in LHA claims based on postcodes. The W6 postcode, where there had been an increase in market rent, had seen a reduction in private sector claims, whereas SW6, W12 and W14 had all seen slight increases.

 

Mr England confirmed that under occupied households had been informed that

taking a lodger was another course of action. Households had been advised to contact the Council for further information.

 

Mr Rosenberg confirmed that, within the housing association sector, an estimated 648 households were potentially affected. However, it was expected that this figure could increase to 800.

 

The maximum number of households unable to pay their rent was estimated at 500/550 affected by the benefit cap and 1400 by the bedroom tax.

 

ACTION:

 

Information to be provided in respect of:

 

·         the 115 working age under occupiers and the number of children per household;

·         the cost of the resource team, assisting households affected by the gap; and

·         the outcome and number of children of households currently affected or likely to be affected by the changes.

 

Action: Mike England

 

Councillor Cowan requested that historic data in respect of households in larger properties be provided, comparing the situation six months ago with the current position.

 

Mr England  was concerned at the resources required to produce this information, but agreed to look into possible electronic information, which could be provided to the Committee.

 

Action: Mike England

 

RESOLVED THAT:

 

The report be noted.