Memorandum submitted by the Hyde Group
(FP 44)
INTRODUCTION
The Hyde Group (Hyde) is a leading provider
of affordable housing and services that improve people's quality
of life. Over 120,000 people live in more than 45,000 Hyde properties
across the South East and East of England, London and the East
Midlands.
Through Hyde Plus, Hyde's social and economic
regeneration arm, we provide debt and money advice. The service
titled Money Plus helps residents reduce their debt, maximise
their income and improve their finances.
Money Plus is available to all Hyde residents
who either self-refer or are referred by Hyde's housing officers.
Advisers help residents to find and transfer to a suitable fuel
tariff and apply for grants and benefits, achieving tens of thousands
of pounds in savings for clients.
Hyde is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and
is therefore responsible for upgrading its stock to the Decent
Homes Standard, which includes sustainability and efficiency criteria.
Currently, Hyde's stock across the Group (excluding supported
housing) has level of non-Decency of 4.01%. Hyde is on course
to complete its upgrade programme by December 2010.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— The criteria for government help are
too restrictive, and families and individuals are on low income
who struggle to pay for fuel miss out.
— Government must tackle the growing problem
of "fuel debt" poverty as a result of significant changes
in fuel prices being passed on by providers to customers.
— Utility companies should do more to help
clients make a better choice of tariffs and monitor their fuel
consumption through better communication and improved sales tactics.
— Increasing the efficiency of affordable
homes through Decent Homes Standard programme has had some effect,
but the energy efficiency requirements were too low and must be
strengthened in the post-2012 standard.
RESPONSE IN
FULL
1. Effective low cost heating and insulation
is key to reducing high fuel bills but many low income families
are excluded from this support because of the tight means-tested
restrictions of government support
1.1 Warm Front is available to those who
own or rent privately and in receipt of:
— Job Seekers Allowance (income-based).
— Income-related Employment and Support
Allowance.
This does not help families who may be in receipt
of Tax credits who are often on low incomes and are struggling
to make ends meet.
1.2 Similarly, elderly people who have some
savings and not eligible for Pension Credit don't qualify for
this support. The £300 rebate available for non qualifying
pensioners is too low to help insulate or change their heating
against the total costs that might be generated from carrying
out these works.
1.3 Winter fuel payments and cold weather
payments also have very restrictive criteria. The winter fuel
payments are for households with over 60s and the cold weather
payment is for those in receipt of Pension Credit when the temperature
is below freezing for seven consecutive days (£25). These
benefits should be extended to everyone in receipt of means tested
benefits as families with young people or disabilities are equally
vulnerable from the effects of cold weather.
2. The definition of households in poverty
debt should cover those who spend over 10% of their income to
service fuel debt
2.1 Such debt is the result of energy providers
passing on volatile changes in fuel prices to consumers. The government
should explore how the existing range of support and initiatives
can address this emerging group of people who are spending more
than 10% of their income in servicing fuel debt.
2.2 For example, a client who has been paying
£50 per month for a period of time and has amassed debt suddenly
has to pay £120 per month for their fuel. They may find themselves
struggling to make these payments in the long term.
3. Utility companies should be compelled
to do more to help people chose the most appropriate fuel tariffs
3.1 Money Plus' fuel poverty project has
discovered that simply by being on wrong or unsuitable tariff
people were overspending by hundreds of pounds. The project helps
clients save money by finding a more suitable rate. Utility companies
should do more to provide the most appropriate service to their
customers.
3.2 They must also reduce confusion about
the different types of tariffs available and customers by providing
clear, appropriate information. Information permeated by industry
jargon results in people taking on the type of tariff that is
allocated by the supplier without a real appreciation or understanding
of what that means for them in terms of usage and potential cost.
3.3 Consumer awareness and education is
key to moving towards a culture where people are able to make
informed choices about the methods of payment, tariffs and the
best supplier for their needs.
3.4 While for most customers transfers are
problem-free, many people who have different suppliers for their
gas and electricity are reluctant to explore changing suppliers
as the process is perceived to be complicated.
3.5 Some of our clients were contacted by
agents of suppliers, who often use hard sell tactics and target
vulnerable people. For these clients, transfers to a more suitable
supplier were more complicated.
3.6 Customers should be better educated
about their rights and responsibilities in accessing energy. The
jump in the monthly fuel payment in the example (£50 to £120)
may have been avoided if people were more aware that they should
monitor their meter readings more often and supply these on to
their supplier even if a meter reading has not been taken by the
company.
4. The energy efficiency requirements of
the Decent Homes Standard are low and any future standards must
be strengthened
4.1 Since 2001 social housing has been undergoing
a programme of upgrades to a Decent Homes Standard (DHS), which
set out the minimum criteria of socially rented flats and houses.
Criteria D states that a home should "provide a reasonable
degree of thermal comfort", meaning that the dwelling must
have both effective insulation and heating.
4.2 The DHS has helped to improve sustainability
of social homes, but progress towards the target of 100% decency
for all social homes by 2010 is slow.
4.3 The prescriptive nature of the DHS has
meant that some more advanced sustainability measures have had
to be put aside because of the financial pressure to meet the
standard by the end of 2010.
4.4 The DHS has not been effective for hard
to treat homes as it has no requirement to insulate solid external
walls or un-insulated suspended timber floors.
4.5 Any energy related standard post 2010
should take into consideration and RSLs' stock age and type. For
example a common SAP target could indirectly penalise RSLs with
older and/or more distinctive properties where the cost of improving
the energy efficiency may be disproportionately high.
4.6 Without additional funding to address
such homes, disposal of some homes is the only means though which
an RSL with large numbers of such homes can fund works to those
it keeps.
February 2010
| 
