Written evidence submitted by Westminster
Community Network
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 This is a response on behalf of the members
of Westminster Community Network, which addresses the lack of
considered impact assessment and adequate consultation time in
regards to the Housing Benefit Amendment Regulations (2010).
1.2 In London, the impact of people potentially
moving in large numbers out from Inner London is likely to have
a strong impact in neighbouring and outer London boroughs, further
concentrating existing areas of deprivation.
1.3 Many people, including those with
support needs and other vulnerabilities, have been advised by
their local authority to accept private sector tenancies, as an
alternative to social housing and several such schemes have existed
precisely for this purpose, including in Westminster. We would
argue that support, both financial and emotional be available
for this group, where tenancies are now found to exceed caps.
1.4 The estimate that 30% of properties
will still be available for housing benefit customers needs to
be reassessed in relation to inner London. For properties that
are two bedrooms or more, this is clearly not a reality.
1.5 The removal of the £15 excess
will be a sudden and unexpected reduction in income for a large
number of families. We would urge that this is considered as part
of the overall revision to welfare benefits (which we understand
to be outside of the scope of this consultation).
1.6 The removal of the five-bedroom rate
and the capping at the four-bedroom rate of £400 for all
families is likely to increase overcrowding and inadequate standards
of living, particularly for children included within the household.
It appears that children will be disproportionately affected by
these changes and this contradicts the government's commitment
to ensuring a decent standard of living for all children.
1.7 A full equality impact assessment
(EIA) has not been undertaken, and attention has not been paid
to the effects of these proposals on community cohesion. If a
longer time period had been allowed for this consultation, it
is predicted that the adverse effect on BME communities would
rise in prominence. Additionally these housing benefit changes
do not appear to be Compact compliant, particularly when referring
to the good practice guidance around "Consultation and Policy
Appraisal".
1.8 We feel that insufficient attention
is given to the subsequent impact of families being forced to
move to concentrated areas of lower cost housing on health, education
or social care services.
1.9 We support the introduction of funding
for an additional bedroom where the customer or their partner
has an established need for overnight care.
1.10 We question whether Discretionary
Housing Payments will be sufficient to cover the gap created by
the proposals. We would like to see a review of these values (£10
million for the first year and £40 million thereafter) once
an indicative level of need has been established.
2. FACTUAL INFORMATION
2.1 The time period allowed for contributions
to this consultation is not adequate for a fully considered response.
The six week period from 27 July to 6 September 2010 is only half
of the recommended consultation period, and it does not allow
time for data gathering or full consultation with the community.
2.2 It is felt that the immediate effect
of the proposals, particularly the caps for properties with two
bedrooms or more, will have a severe impact on families living
in Westminster and neighbouring areas. Additionally, the broader
implications on community cohesion, education, health and homelessness
of these proposals has not been effectively researched, with the
effects undoubtedly being felt in outer London boroughs as people
will be compelled to move into areas with lower cost housing,
thereby increasing levels of deprivation in boroughs such as Brent,
Hounslow and Newham.
2.3 We acknowledge that in Central London
some rents are excessively high and that this has contributed
to the escalation of expenditure under Local Housing Allowance
(LHA) Rates in Central London areas including Westminster. However,
we would argue that this is not the fault of tenants but the LHA
system which was introduced nationwide in April 2008. In Westminster,
as in all London boroughs, people have increasingly been encouraged
to accept private sector tenancies as an alternative to waiting
for Social Housing, of which there is not enough to meet demand.
With rents largely met through Housing Benefit LHA, this solution
has been viewed as a 'panacea' to the housing crisis. However
under the new proposed caps, tenants, including vulnerable people
with mental health problems and homeless families, who have been
advised that this is their best option, may find themselves in
rent arrears and facing eviction within a matter of months.
As an example, in Westminster City Council's Housing
Needs Delivery Plan 2010-11 one of the functions/activities is
to reduce numbers in temporary accommodation. One performance
measure is "500 cases of homelessness to be prevented or
relieved". The planned action is "active casework—350
private sector solutions (firstlets, qualifying offers, homefinders
grants)". Taking the lead on this is the housing options
service and key partners are Orchard and Shipman and Capita (housing
benefit). One of the identified risks is "changes to DWP
and LHA puts use of private sector at risk".
No alternatives have been suggested for relieving
the pressure on homelessness services, and therefore we must assume
that numbers in temporary accommodation (which have been reduced
largely because of the increased use of private sector tenancies
to meet the Government target of reducing temporary accommodation
by 50% by the end of 2010) and those in need of re-housing, whether
accepted as having a statutory responsibility or not, will increase
significantly over the next few years, putting pressure on already
strained services.
We would argue that additional support should be
provided to people who find themselves in this situation, whether
through pressure on landlords to reduce rents or through increased
housing-related support interventions plus a longer lead-in time
to the introduction of the caps for these people.
2.4 Under the following proposals for
capping, Local Housing Allowance levels will be restricted to
the four bedroom rate, and a new upper limit will be introduced
for each property size, with upper limits set at:
- £250 a week for a one bedroom property (£1,083
pcm).
- £290 a week for a two bedroom property (£1,257
pcm).
- £340 a week for a three bedroom property
(£1,473 pcm).
- £400 a week for a four bedroom property
or larger (£1,733 pcm).
The introduction of the caps from April 2011 will
have an immediate effect from the anniversary of each new claim.
However, the assumption that "reducing all rates to the 30th
percentile rather than the median will bear down generally on
the rental values" does not appear likely to take an immediate
effect, particularly where there are other competitive forces
in the rental market.
For example, currently on www.rightmove.co.uk (August
2010) there are in Westminster:
- two properties available for £290 or less
per week for two bedrooms (one in Queens Park and one in Harrow
Road);
- only one property available for £340 or
less per week for three bedrooms; and
- no properties available for £400 or less
per week for four or more bedrooms.
Therefore, people are likely to be compelled to move,
unless a phasing-in of the process is incorporated into the plans
or adequate cover is provided by the Discretionary Housing Payment.
2.5 It is understood that the proposal
to remove the £15 weekly excess is predicted to generate
a large amount of savings for the department. However, we would
urge the committee to consider these reductions as part of the
overall revisions to welfare benefits, as for a large number of
families this will result in a significant and sudden drop in
income, if introduced as planned from April 2011.
2.6 The removal of the five-bedroom rate
and the capping at the four-bedroom rate of £400 for all
families is likely to increase overcrowding and inadequate standards
of living, particularly for children included within the household.
There are only a limited number of properties available for rent
at this price within greater London, and it is almost impossible
to find any property for this rental value within the Central
London area. The knock-on effect for families in terms of the
Every Child Matters outcomes (be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and
achieve; make a positive contribution; and achieve economic well-being)
are likely to be significant if people are forced to move, as
established support networks will be broken, schools and health
services will need to be changed and travel times will be significantly
increased for school and work.
2.7 The negative effect on community cohesion
could be immense, as people on low incomes who receive housing
benefit moving to properties within the new capped rates could
further increase pockets of deprivation within London and the
surrounding areas, with the likelihood of being forced to accept
accommodation of low quality in the largely unregulated private
sector.
Within this situation a number of additional issues
can arise relating to health, attainment and social inclusion,
such as moving away from established kinship networks or faith/community
groups, many of whom will have language connections. Additionally
these housing benefit caps could decrease the numbers of mixed
and balanced communities in central London. Research carried out
by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2006) has indicated that mixed
communities, with different incomes and tenure, are successful
in leading to less worklessness and fewer social problems.
2.8 We feel that insufficient attention
is given to the subsequent impact of families being forced to
move to concentrated areas of lower cost housing on health, education
or social care services. This would have to be taken into account
by local authorities and the NHS as part of a broader impact assessment
relating to these proposals.
2.9 We support the introduction of funding
for an additional bedroom where the customer or their partner
has an established need for overnight care.
2.10 We support the increase in Discretionary
Housing Payments for local authorities, but question whether the
allocated amounts are sufficient to cover the gap created by the
proposals. Recent research indicates that over 90% of households
currently living in Westminster in receipt of housing benefits
have rents above the proposed housing benefit cap. We would like
to see a review of these values (ie. £10 million for the
first year and £40 million thereafter) once an indicative
level of need has been established.
2.11 If Housing Benefit is capped at the
proposed levels, the likelihood is that there will be an increase
in rent arrears and an increase in evictions through the county
court—under the conditions of an assured shorthold tenancy
(AST), an automatic possession order is granted for two months
of arrears. This will lead in turn to more homeless families,
which will have an impact on council resources if they were to
make a homeless application and require temporary accommodation.
3. A WESTMINSTER
CASE STUDY
3.1 The caseload of the housing advisors
at the Cardinal Hume Centre indicate that overcrowding is on the
increase. This is due to a lack of larger suitable properties
both in the social and private housing sectors that are affordable.
Many families are on waiting lists with little hope of moving
to larger properties. As discussed above in paragraph 3.6, the
danger is that overcrowding might increase if people are unable
to move or afford alternative accommodation. Many families that
visit the Cardinal Hume Centre have strong centres of interest
in Westminster such as schools, medical facilities and social
networks which will be totally disrupted if they are forced to
move to outer London boroughs.
The Cardinal Hume Centre is also approached by families
who are working on low incomes and in receipt of housing benefit,
who are finding themselves in rent arrears. There is a danger
that these arrears will increase should their housing benefit
entitlement decrease; clearly increased rent arrears could ultimately
lead to evictions taking place.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 We suggest that a thorough equality
impact assessment needs to be conducted, taking into account all
of the protected groups as it is likely that the proposed changes
will have a particularly adverse impact on women, lone parents,
BME communities and families, particularly children. This will
have long term impacts on social mobility and further marginalise
vulnerable communities
4.2 We believe that there is a need for
separate proposals addressing the particular issues faced in London.
4.3 We would like to see transitional
arrangements put in place, with particular consideration being
given to existing claimants, particularly those who have been
advised by their local authority to accept a private sector tenancy
as an alternative to social housing.
4.4 We believe that the estimate that
"a third" of rentable properties will be available to
housing benefit customers is unrealistic in relation to inner
London. The crisis will be particularly acute as family size increases.
4.5 We believe that there should be pressure
on landlords to reduce rents, particularly those who are used
by local authorities to provide temporary accommodation.
4.6 We suggest steps need to be taken
to address why rents in inner London are so high. Rent control
was removed under the Housing Act 1988, which means landlords
can charge whatever the market rent happens to be. A legislative
change could be enacted to impose some kind of rent control to
stop private rents being out of reach for so many groups of people.
3 September 2010
| 
