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; moving a few villages was expensive and disruptive. SOHA confirmed that information on taking in lodgers was available and they helped with applications for DHP. Most tenants who could feasibly move were doing so; some decided not to. Ms Adams emphasised that there was a difference between those who would not and those who could not move and their approach needed to be tailored in this context.
11.There were limited properties available to move to, especially if there was a restricted choice of location. SOHA were working to match tenants and suitable houses within communities but the lack of availability was causing difficulties. They tried to dissuade tenants from swapping from one too-large house to another, although there was less control over mutual swaps.
12.The committee asked about reducing rents. Ms Adams confirmed that to reduce rents for all affected tenants, SOHA would have to rewrite their business plan and renegotiate terms with the government. However there were discretionary powers to reduce rents in specific cases, and therefore each case was assessed individually. While SOHA had to follow their policy on arrears, they were considering action carefully, and to date no-one had been taken to court over arrears solely as a result of the spare room subsidy.
13.Arrears had to date increased by 2.5% over last year and about £20,000 due to the spare room subsidy changes, and were expected to rise.
Discretionary housing payments (DHPs)
14.Discretionary housing award budget for 2013 had been doubled to £122,000. The council could add to this if it was required. Cabinet had agreed revised award criteria in March 2013. There was an increased demand but this appeared to be levelling off within the budget, although applicants who had not been able to move yet may ask for a further six-month award. About half of all applications were given an award.
15.Council officers worked with the registered providers when making DHP awards and assessed each case carefully on its merits in line with the council’s policy.
16.The CAB helped people with DHP applications and considered these were fairly awarded by the council. In some cases a six-month award was not enough time to allow people to make changes, and it could take 10 months for a benefits appeal to be heard. SOHA anticipated individuals’ rent arrears rising when their DHP awards ceased.
Other points
17.Mr Howden chaired the registered providers’ forum where these problems could be discussed. The council worked closely with providers to prevent homelessness and seek solutions, with a 90% success rate to date.
18.SOHA expressed a view that universal credit was likely to cause more significant problems as tenants may not pay rent at all and direct payments were difficult and took longer to set up. The pilots showed high numbers running up rent arrears. SOHA was beginning work with their tenants, and the CAB had a role to play in offering budgeting education.
19.Cabinet members were concerned with the impacts of welfare reforms and housing changes on residents and have informally discussed how to manage these.
Councillor’s comments and requests for information
· There were positive impacts – for example people in overcrowded housing were able to move to more suitable houses and the limited housing stock could be better used.
· Policies should be designed to help and be fair to all sections of the population not just penalise one group of people.
· Could SOHA provide information as to the total number and value of discretionary rent reductions resulting from the welfare reforms?
· Could Housing quantify the shortfall in two-bedroom and one-bedroom houses across the district?
· Was there evidence that time taken by the DWP to pay income-related benefits had increased?
The committee thanked all the speakers for their presentations and answers to questions, and for giving their time to attend the meeting.
The committee requested a further update in six months and regular updates thereafter.