The local impact of recent welfare reforms
The Head of Health and Housing will give a presentation on recent welfare reforms and the latest information on the local impact.
A representative from South and Vale Citizens’ Advice Bureau will attend to answer questions and give the Bureau’s view of the local impact of the reforms.
There is no accompanying report.
Minutes:
The committee heard a presentation and answers to questions on the impact of the recent welfare reforms on residents of the district. Ms Anna Badcock, Cabinet member; Mr Paul Staines, Head of Health and Housing; Mr Paul Howden, Revenues and Benefits Client Manager; Mr Tom Fox, Director of South and Vale Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB); and Ms Maureen Adams, representing South Oxfordshire Housing Association (SOHA) spoke to the committee.
The main points of the discussion are summarised below.
Benefits changes
1. The £26,000 cap on total benefits affected a small number of tenants (around 50) significantly. The average reduction in benefits per household was £2,000 over the year, and a £99,000 reduction in the total benefit bill for the district. The cap applied to the total of all benefits not just housing benefit.
2. The spare room subsidy affected about 400 housing association tenants; 312 had a 14% reduction and 92 had a 25% reduction in housing benefit (HB). The average reduction was about £1,000 per household and could be a significant cut in already low incomes.
3. All the people discussed received other benefits as well. The CAB saw a small increase in clients but not the significant increase in debt or benefits enquiries that they had been expecting.
4. However, foodbank vouchers issued in Didcot had increased by 30% and by 100% in Thame, often because income support had stopped or not yet started. Unemployment had fallen. While awareness of foodbanks had increased, people had to be referred by the same agencies who had made referrals since the banks opened.
5. The main changes affecting clients were in the main income supporting benefits. The DWP seemed to be under increasing pressure and delays in payment, sanctions, and claims for maladministration were all more frequent.
Housing stock and transfers
6. 34% (about 1700 properties) of SOHA’s stock was under-occupied, but 60% of these (about 1000 properties) were occupied by pensioners who were exempt from the spare room subsidy reduction.
7. The committee were advised that the over-60s had less financial incentive to move from a family home. The majority of households were under-occupied by one bedroom and there were too few suitable two-bed houses available. New affordable housing would include two-bedroom properties to address this shortage. There were also too few one-bedroom houses and a shortage of all types of social housing.
8. SOHA had a relocation budget; helped with finding employment and budgeting; and facilitated transfers via the housing register.
9. Those under-occupying and wishing to transfer were given the highest priority. This had an effect on others on the waiting list as their ability to bid for houses was reduced because of the increased activity.
10.SOHA had contacted all affected tenants before the changes came in and discussed their options. There was strong interest in exchanges and transfers but it was difficult for people in rural areas to move because of the disruption to schooling and family life. Moving a few streets was easy; ... view the full minutes text for item 17