Written evidence submitted by National
Association of Welfare Rights Advisers
The Work and Pensions Committee has requested written
evidence for its enquiry from interested organisations to focus
on how the announced changes will impact on:
- — Incentives
to work and access to low paid work.
- — Levels
of rent, including regional variations.
- — Shortfalls
in rent.
- — Levels
of evictions and the impact on homelessness services.
- — Landlord
confidence.
- — Community
cohesion.
- — Disabled
people, carers and specialist housing.
- — Older
people; large families and overcrowding.
It is extremely difficult to reply to this in isolation
of the other changes to benefits proposed in the budget as they
are likely to be seen as a direct attack on benefit claimants
as a whole. This is not likely to be conducive to lowering child
poverty as Housing Benefit is one of the few benefits claimants
may access in work.
This evidence was started by inserting the title
of this paper into Google search engine; one of the foremost entries
was for a landlord's websitei and one of the posts
simply states "yet another reason not to let to benefit tenants".
This bald statement indicates existing hostility towards tenants,
when the levels of LHA are capped at current levels. Clearly reducing
the levels at which people will be able to claim Housing Benefit
is only going to increase this. Another comment from the same
forum mentioned dissatisfaction with the way that LHA is paid
four-weekly in arrears, rather than in advance as is the norm
for most assured shorthold tenancy agreements.
It is recognised that this cap will have a disproportionate
effect on claimants in London and the South East of England, where
rents are on average much higher than in the rest of the country.
One postcode in the London Borough of Barnet shows the lower quartile
for the postcode NW7 as £402 per week for a property of four
or more bedrooms.ii Barnet as a borough has extremely
limited social housing, so privately rented accommodation is at
a premium. The borough has three Broad Market Rental Areas. Much
of the housing in this area is let to communities of Jewish or
Islamic extraction. We are not aware of any Equalities Impact
Assessment on this issue, and the proposal may be said to directly
or indirectly discriminate against the relevant races as the families
are typically larger and so need larger than standard properties.
It is difficult to envisage how social cohesion can be fostered
by alienating or vilifying these claimants. It cannot be reasonable
to insist that whilst landlords may charge a market rent, people
who are already by definition living in poverty, are penalised
by not being able to rent property without having to make good
a shortfall from an already low income. History documents well
what happens to people who are victimised and deemed less than
worthy of public support.
Families in general are going through very hard times
financially, and there must be concern that the increased financial
pressures of trying to make young adults within them contribute
as non-dependents will fracture them. Mention is made of uprating
the non-dependent deduction in line with the Consumer Price Index,
but there have been various statements indicating that benefit
rates could be increased at a lower rate. Does that mean that
the young adults who may have learning difficulties or other problems
should be told that if they cannot make the contribution, that
they should leave the family home and present as homeless so that
they can try to find accommodation themselves and claim Housing
Benefit in their own right? Social housing is scarce and if they
have to try to rent in the private sector, what course of action
should they take when faced with shortfalls in their rent from
the 30th percentile of local rents from October 2011? Remembering
that people under 25 are entitled to Job Seekers Allowance at
a reduced rate, the ability to cover a shortfall in rent is reduced
commensurately. This situation can only worsen if we penalise
Jobseekers who have not been able to find employment within one
year by reducing their entitlement to LHA by 10%. We are concerned
that this may be an additional sanction to unsuccessful jobseekers.
If the Jobseeker has not been able to find work within two years,
is the government's intention to reduce entitlement by a further
10%? We already have examples of older parents who are afraid
of violence, often through drugs or alcohol misuse, to ask their
adult children who still live at home for a contribution at all
towards the rent. It is not clear whether the parent should be
punished for the "sins" of the child.
Housing Benefit is a lifeline to people who are fortunate
to have a job, albeit that when someone works they have to contribute
65% of the income they earn above means tested benefit rates towards
their rent and a further 20% towards Council Tax. This could be
seen as a deterrent to work, particularly in lower paid jobs.
Many clients have built up a way of life in an area
and they need to continue to live there, perhaps they work, have
family or have developed a support network. I know of a client
who has to live in NW11, which is another high rental area, because
his autism means that he would be confused and unable to deal
with unfamiliar places. He needs continuity and reducing his entitlement
would not enable he or his mother to stay in that area.
We would welcome the increased contribution by government
towards the fund for Discretionary Housing Payments; however this
payment is not a right but may be awarded at the discretion of
a housing benefits officer. These payments have traditionally
been for short periods of time and there is no guarantee of award
either at first application or on renewal. It should not be seen
as a replacement for entitlement. Historically, some of the barriers
to people claiming benefits are that they are vilified and that
they do not have a right to claim. It cannot be right to ask clients
to take on tenancies with the commitment to pay rent when they
do not know how much they will be able to pay or whether they
will be able to meet the payment if the DHP is not awarded or
renewed. Not only does this make it extremely difficult for people
on fixed income to budget, but with possible changes to the amount
of LHA payable on renewal claims it must make it difficult to
achieve stability. This can only lead to a less favourable climate
between landlords and tenants.
Another encouraging element is the proposal to include
a room for a non-resident carer in the calculation to award LHA,
but we would suggest that in situations where a couple need to
sleep in separate rooms due to disability, those cases should
be included. A colleague interviewed a client who was doubly incontinent
and so she and her husband need to have separate sleeping arrangements.
Currently they are only entitled to the LHA rate for a one bedroomed
property as there are no other family members in the home.
A related matter of great concern involves security
of tenure for people of working age. The proposal to restrict
housing entitlement to the size of their family has been mooted.
The thinking is to reduce under-occupancy of social housing. This
appears to penalise people who rent a property, turn it into their
home and decorate it investing time and money on the home and
whereas they may currently enjoy a secure tenancy, this proposal
could mean that that in future they could lose this. Should the
state effectively be telling people who may have lived in a property
for many years that they have to move because their family composition
has changed, perhaps because of bereavement? We refer the committee
to the examples given in this paper and ask that the future of
people like the young man with autism and the couple who need
separate sleeping arrangements are not penalised because their
rent is too high for Housing Benefit/LHA to cover or because the
couple are deemed only to need a one bedroomed property is not
compromised due to a fallacious argument for economy.
If the proposals really are intended to safeguard
the public purse, surely registering rents would be a more equitable
means of doing so? It is difficult to imagine that landlords will
reduce the rent on their property to let to benefit claimants
and if rents are so high, many more people are going to have to
claim Housing Benefit. As can be seen from the comments from the
landlord-forum website, no distinction is made as to whether a
tenant is working, merely whether s/he claims Housing Benefit
and this feeds into the public criticism of benefit claimants.
Many colleagues have reported advising clients who
have taken their own lives due to benefit being stopped, and Housing
Benefit has been one of the benefits which has been a trigger
for this. To people who are already marginalised, stopping their
benefit does not encourage them to look for work, particularly
in the current economic climate where jobs are scarce even for
the best motivated. It merely increases the gap between the "haves"
and "have nots" who are least able to help themselves.
It must be clear then that in such times as these, funding high
quality independent advice is more important than ever if we do
indeed believe that we are all in this together and people who
need to depend on benefits for however short a period are not
made to feel like workless scroungers.
If we consider that clients have a right to family
life, can these proposals comply with the Human Rights Act?
Maureen Arthur
on behalf of NAWRA
6 September 2010
REFERENCES
i www.landlord-forum.co.uk
ii www.london.gov.uk/rebntsmap
| 
