I'm
signed up with gov.uk to receive alerts of any press
releases relating to social security matters: when they publish reports they
are normally keen to let people know straight away. Oddly enough, though, they
made no mention of a report they published on 15th July. The report's name is
'Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Interim report'. The 'Spare
room subsidy' is, of course, what other people call the 'Bedroom Tax'.
You
can see the report yourself here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-housing-allowance-monitoring-the-impact-of-changes
The
report is not an opinion document: it just gathers facts and presents them. The
facts, though, are damning. It's not surprising that the government wasn't very
happy about it.
(Remember,
first, that what the bedroom tax does is this: in effect, it reduces the amount
that counts as rent for Housing Benefit purposes by 14% if you have a 'spare'
bedroom, or by 25% if you have two or more 'spare' bedrooms. If you want more details, check out my information on it at http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html.)
The
report found that five months into the scheme, only 41% of tenants had paid the
full shortfall: 39% had paid some, and 20% had paid nothing at all towards the
bedroom tax.
For
those who did manage to pay some or all of the increase, how did they manage
this?
57% of claimants reported cutting
back on housing essentials;
26% said that they had had to
borrow money (mostly from family and friends, but also using credit cards and
payday loans);
10% had used savings;
9% had been given money from
family members;
Let's
just stop there for a moment, and note, firstly, that you're in trouble if
you've got no family members with spare cash, and, secondly, that those with
savings will soon not have any.
Moving
on again, what about taking the government's suggested route, downsizing to a
suitable property. Unfortunately, the report records that only 4.5% of affected
tenants have done this. But maybe this is just because people are reluctant to
move? Well, no. It turns out that in local authority areas where only a few
people are affected by the bedroom tax, many more (up to 16%) are able to
downsize. In other words, as the report puts it, 'this suggests that
landlords with the highest proportion of affected tenants will have more
difficulties in meeting the demand for downsizing'.
Furthermore,
it is reported that although 19% of affected tenants had registered for
downsizing, social landlords said that 'they had not yet been able to
accommodate most of those who wanted to move to a smaller home'.
Unsurprisingly
(at least to me) only 1.4% had moved to the private rental sector; where the
discrepancy between the rent charged by the landlord and that met by Housing
Benefit tends to be even higher. Don't forget, for example, that single adults
under 35 can only get enough Housing Benefit to cover living in a room in a
shared house.
Apart
from there being nowhere to move to (as we've now established), why didn't
people want to move? Many of the reasons are easy to imagine, but here's one
that hadn't occurred to me (nor, I imagine, to the government): 'knowing that
they would soon cease to be affected by the [bedroom tax] - for instance
because a child would turn ten or 16 and would require their own room'. Yes. It
makes lots of sense to move to a smaller property when in a year's time you'll
be entitled to the home you've just left...
The
report also looked at of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs), the extra
housing benefit available for claimants with additional needs, who ask for
it, and whose requests are granted by their local authorities. A key
concern raised was that some claimants were refused because disability benefits
they were getting (i.e. Disability Living Allowance, Personal
Independence Payment, etc) were treated as extra income that reduced their need
for help. A further concern was that more than half (56%) of the claimants
surveyed who had not applied for a DHP were unaware of them.
Finally,
what about the main declared purpose of the bedroom tax (freeing up properties
for large families who needed them)? 41% of social landlords surveyed said that
they were having difficulty filling their larger properties. Landlords and
local authorities also reported that waiting times for smaller properties had
increased: don't forget that many of the people on these waiting lists will be
there precisely because they are trying to do what the government wants them to
do, downsize, and therefore will be forced to pay the bedroom tax for longer.
What
do the main political parties want to do about the bedroom tax?
The
Conservatives want to keep it, obviously, although even some of their number
are expressing concerns. Somewhat startlingly (to me, anyway), Norman Tebbit
has come out against it. The Huffington Post, for example, reports his
comments: 'I worry about what Labour chooses to call the bedroom tax.
Because so often what is a spare room is in fact a vital part of the looking
after an elderly person. It enables their relatives to come, it enables carers
to be there...I think we introduced that rather without thinking it through
very well, and I think that's costing us.'
Labour
want to scrap the tax: in fact they have an online petition about it. It's only fair
to point out, though, that the previous labour government brought in the first
bedroom tax, by limiting Housing Benefit to claimants renting in the private
sector according to how many bedrooms they needed (amongst other factors). It
was called the 'local housing allowance', was brought in in 2008, and is still
in force. Furthermore, Hansard clearly indicates that it was the
Labour government's intention to extend something similar to the social rented
sector.
The
Liberal Democrats have recently stated that they are committed to reform the
bedroom tax. They say that they plans 'will see those already in the social
rented sector only lose their benefit if they are offered a suitable smaller
home and turn it down' and 'would also permanently exempt disabled adults'. This isn't in
line with their previous statements. The Huffington Post eloquently illustrates
six opportunities when Nick Clegg could have opposed the bedroom tax but,
instead, defended it. The Lib Dems don't exactly have an perfect record of
keeping pre-election promises.
Take
your pick...
No comments:
Post a Comment