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 to them.

Mr England summarised the welfare reform legislative changes and the Council’s response.

Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

There had been minor variations in the private sector housing benefit claims within the borough. In April 2011, when the LHA charges had been introduced, there had been 3109 claims paid through LHA; in December 2013, the equivalent figure was 3035.

The report set out the most recent update (April 2013) for the HB Assist team, which had been established to look at mitigating the effects of the LHA.

Overall Benefit Cap

The capping process had begun in August 2013 and by mid-October most of the initial wave of benefit cap claims had been received from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP). The total number of households then stood at 414, considerably fewer thant the original estimate. In January 2014, the number had fallen to 385. The report set out the total breakdown by individual tenure.

Since capping had begun, a total of 569 households had been subject to the restriction, with a significant number moving into and out of it in any one month. Officers were seeking to build a statistical picture of this movement within the HB Assist project. In  January 2014, the project was aware of 179 cases where a ‘resolution’ of the household circumstances had occurred. Of these, 85 households had moved into employment and were therefore not subject to the cap; 19 had been resettled or moved into different accommodation; 7 had become exempt from the cap and in 68 cases the reason for resolution had yet to be confirmed.

Housing Benefit Size Criteria Restrictions for Working Age Claimants in the Social Housing Sector

It was currently estimated that there were 677 under-occupying cases claiming housing benefits in the Council housing sector affected by the Housing Benefit changes. This was a a reduction from the total of 834 at April 2013. Within the Registered Provider (Housing Associations) sector, it was estimated that 644 tenants were affected.

The Council had awarded a total of 198 Discretionary Housing Payments to assist the most vulnerable tenants affected or those who had committeed to downsizing. In addition, officers were visiting tenants affected by the benefit restrictions to ensure that they are fully aware of the available options.

In January 2014, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed that they had discovered a gap in the law such that those claimants who had been continuously entitled to benefit and continuously resident in their propoerty since 1 January 1996 should have been exempt this change. This gap would be closed with effect from 3 March. The Council was working to identify those claiments who could benefit from this.

Universal Credit

The national roll-out of Universal Credit (UC) had begun at Hammersmith Job Centre on 28 October 2013. Initially only a restricted cohort of claimants were affected: broadly single, newly-unemployed people who were not previously claiming benefits, estimated to be 100 claimants per month. The Cabinet had authorised an agreement between the Council and DWP for the Council to provide a number of services in support of UC implementation.

The work of the HB Assist team had been extended to cover the impact of welfare reform more generally.The report set out the main areas of focus of the team.

Mr England responded to Members’ queries.

The number of UC claimants was not known but believed to be in the region of 300/400. Applications were made to DWP. Protocols in respect of data sharing had not currently been agreed. Claimants were identified only if they approached the Council for other reasons. UC placed more of the onus for managing affairs/income on the claimant and to inform any other agencies which the claimant believed should be informed.

Mr Engalnd was not aware of any specific problems for vulnerable people, although it was possible that this group might have problems in making claims on line and in budgeting. Looking forward, a support framework would need to be developed.

In respect of the Housing Benefit Size Criteria, properties occupied by, for example, a person who required an extra room for a carer, it was likley that the Council would be  able help with a discretionary payment. Mr England asked Members to advise him should they be aware of any affected vulnerable people who were not receiving a discretionary payment.

In respect of private rented accommodation, the level of rent was dependent on the state of the market. However, the changes in legislation had influenced landlords and it was still possible to attract privately rented properties in the borough and surrounding areas and to meet the demand for temporary accomodation. Letting properties via the Council had the advantage of guaranteed vacant possession and no letting agents’ commission. A system was in place to attract more properties and where appropriate the Council would provide financial  incentives to landlords or tenants, rather than have a family in bed and breakfast accomodation. There had been a substantial decrease in families in bed and breakfast accomodation over the previous six months. Currently, there were 28/29 families compared with 75/80 in June 2013. No families had been in bed and breakfast accomodation for more than six months.

Mr England confirmed that tenants with spare bedrooms were allowed to take in a lodger, and were advised of this. However, a number of those affected chose to pay the difference.

Councillor Cowan requested information in respect of the type of accomadtion which families in bed and breakfast accomodation had been moved into and the location of all temporary accomodation.

Action: Mike England

Mr England stated that 60% of all temporary accomodation was in borough and almost all the remainder in surrounding boroughs. A few properties were out of Greater London, for example in Luton and Slough. Councillor Cowan requested an analysis of where people had lived previously. Mr England responded that he would advise on available information.

Action: Mike England

Mr Naylor commented on older people living in bigger properties who considered that the offer made was poor quality smaller accomodation.

Mr Naylor considered that there was a scarcity of supported housing within the borough.

Mr England responded that if a person was deemed to have a spare bedroom, an offer of smaller accomodation would not be outside the borough, but the offer would be restricted by availability and this could be of varying quality.  The Council had substantially increased the payment to incentivise people to move and resources for people to decorate were also available.

It was intended over time to improve the quality of sheltered housing. Investment was shifting to provide improved quality properties to which people would want to move.

RESOLVED THAT:

The report be noted.