Written evidence submitted by Muscular
Dystrophy Campaign
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign welcomes the proposal
to reform of the Local Housing Allowance rules, to allow a disabled
single person a separate bedroom for their overnight carer —which
was permitted under the Housing Benefit rules.
However this reform does not reflect the need for
extra space for severely disabled people who rely on essential
equipment, or for families with a disabled child who is not able
to share a bedroom due to their medical needs. We recommend that
the reform of LHA to provide an extra room for claimants is extended
for disabled claimants in these circumstances.
Further we strongly oppose the proposals in the June
2010 Budget to change the uprating of LHA and to cut LHA levels
12 months after the award is made for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants.
These proposals will increase poverty and reduce housing stability
among people with a disability, possibly forcing people out of
accommodation that has been adapted for them, and away from vital
support networks.
1. There are approximately 4,900 people with
muscular dystrophy or related neuromuscular conditions living
in privately rented accommodation. A number of these will have
severely disabling conditions which require twenty-four hour care.
ROOM FOR
AN EXTRA
CARER OR
ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT
2. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign called repeatedly
for the reform of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rules, to
allow a disabled single person a separate bedroom for their overnight
carer — which was permitted under the Housing Benefit rules.
We welcome the proposal to reform the rules from April 2011.
3. However the LHA has not been reformed to meet
the needs of disabled adults who need a larger than normal house
to accommodate equipment or adaptations and families with a disabled
child where sharing bedrooms makes the child's condition worse
or has an adverse impact on other children. This ensures that
some severely disabled people continue to be discriminated against
by the LHA rules with a very considerable impact on their quality
of life.
4. The Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) budget,
even increased, remains completely inappropriate to address this
issue.
- 7.1 You cannot claim for a DHP until you
have moved into the relevant property. This means that a claimant
who requires a larger property than the LHA will provide for would
have to sign a lease and move into a property before they know
if they will be able to afford the rent. This could leave the
claimant in rent arrears and in breach of the lease they have
taken out, with the potential of eviction and homelessness.
- 7.2 Local authorities have a limited DHP
budget — even if your claim is valid, you may not receive
a payment as too many other people have claimed.
- 7.3 Even if your claim is successful, the
payment can be withdrawn at any point, denying the claimant security
of tenure and risking the problems of rent arrears and potential
eviction as outlined above.
5. We therefore recommend that urgent action
is taken to enable disabled people who require extra space for
essential equipment to live in an appropriately sized home.
UPRATING OF
HOUSING BENEFIT
AND LOCAL
HOUSING ALLOWANCE
6. We are strongly opposed to the proposal to
change the uprating of Local Housing Allowance to the Consumer
Price Index, which does not include housing costs. This is likely
to lead to a significant cut in the level of LHA, which is very
unlikely to be matched by a drop in rent levels, leaving LHA claimants,
including those with severe disabilities, to make up a shortfall
in their rent. Disabled people are already twice as likely to
live in persistent poverty than non-disabled people, and this
will only be exacerbated by this proposal which it seems is intended
solely to reduce expenditure, with no assessment of the consequence
of pricing LHA claimants out of a home.[21]
REDUCTION IN
LHA FOR CLAIMANTS
ON JOBSEEKER'S
ALLOWANCE
7. We further oppose the proposed cut of 10%
to Housing Benefit after 12 months for claimants on Jobseeker's
Allowance which is completely inappropriate and ill-targeted.
This proposal will increase the risk of vulnerable disabled people
facing eviction due to their reduced local housing allowance payments
not being sufficient to cover their rent, despite their best efforts
to find a job. Indeed, people with a disability who are looking
for work will find their search impeded by the potential loss
of their home. Furthermore, people with a disability face often
insurmountable barriers to obtaining employment due to a lack
of physical access to the workplace, jobs which require greater
mobility than a disabled person may have, and discrimination on
the part of employers. A recent survey by Trailblazers: The
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign's young campaigners network revealed
that 70% of young disabled
people believe their job applications
have been rejected because of how employers view their disability.[22]
It cannot be right to punish disabled people for failure of employers
to make their workplaces accessible or for discrimination on behalf
of employers.
8. Reduction in LHA paid to disabled claimants,
due to either the 10% rule, or the change to the uprating of benefit
levels may force claimants out of homes that have been adapted
for them, often at their own expense. This cannot be acceptable
when there is a severe shortage of accessible and adapted privately
rented homes available. Furthermore, disabled claimants may be
forced to move away from vital support networks—family members
who care and provide support, or accessibility to medical services.
2 September 2010
2
21 1 HM Government
Cabinet Office State of the Nation report May 2010 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/410872/web-poverty-report.pdf
Back
2
22 2 Trailblazers
Right to Work August 2009 http://www.mdctrailblazers.org/assets/0000/4485/Trailblazers_Right_to_work_webcopy.pdf
Back
| 
