The number of people needing extra cash to help pay their rent has risen by 530% over the last three years, but the amount of money available is now being cut.
There has been a dramatic 570% rise in cash paid out by Caerphilly County Borough Council in Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) since the introduction of the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Last year, more than £428,000 was given to over 1,200 people who struggled to pay their rent, compared to £74,500 to 239 tenants in 2012 to 2013.
The payments are to help people “adapt” to welfare reforms, according to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
They are made based on need and are funded by the DWP, but now the Government is cutting these funds by £40 million.
The cut means the council has £381,973 to spend helping vulnerable tenants this year.
Jamie Insole of South Wales Against The Bedroom Tax said the cut will cause “massive difficulties”.
He said: “DHP is a fantastic way of keeping someone in a house, it’s a pot of last resort.
“But, what it doesn’t do is address the housing shortage. There’s not enough one or two bedroom properties so DHP is just a sticking plaster.
“Now we are going to see a rise in evictions, but also a rise in communities fighting back, because people won’t watch their neighbours being evicted.”
Caerphilly MP Wayne David said: “[The cut] is adding insult to injury because, as we know from previous figures, Caerphilly County Borough has been really badly hit by the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
“At least the DHP has been there to help some of the worst-off and now that’s being cut.
“The local authority is in no position to build new council housing and, in fact, what the government is doing is introducing a policy that is going to force housing associations to sell their housing stock.
“The Conservative government is heaping misery on the people and will be for some time yet.”
As part of the Welfare Reform Act, the UK Government cut housing benefit according to the number of spare rooms in a home.
Prime Minister David Cameron said the reform was to bring the housing benefit budget “under control”.
Introduced in April 2013, it means social housing tenants who are seen to be ‘under-occupying’ have their housing benefit cut.
Direct council tenants in the county borough were forced to pay an extra £2.1m in rent between April 2013 and October 2014.
A DWP spokesperson claimed throughout Britain the removal of the spare room subsidy is “saving taxpayers over £1m every day”.
They said: “We have provided almost £500m in transitional funding to local councils since 2013, including £1m to Caerphilly, to support people adapting to our reforms.
“We know that the number of people affected by our reforms has decreased as people have taken action and moved into work, downsized or reduced their housing benefit claim.”
Plaid Cymru also attacked the Government for reducing the amount of DHP available for 2015 to 2016.
Councillor Lyn Ackerman, Housing Spokesperson for the Plaid Cymru group on Caerphilly Council said: “The way that this issue has been handled by the Tory Government is cynical and smacks of hypocrisy.
“Several government ministers have said that DHP’s represent a safety net to fill the gap left by Welfare cuts. We have seen this massive increase in the need for these payments and we now find that the Westminster Government is actually cutting the funding. Tenants who would like to move to smaller accommodation are unable to due to the lack of one and two bedroom properties.
“This proves yet again that the often quoted statement ‘We’re all in it together’ is totally untrue.”
A Caerphilly County Borough Council spokesperson said: “Last week the council’s cabinet endorsed a policy on this subject matter, which will help the council ensure that all claimants are treated fairly, and those in most need are given the financial assistance they require to support them to maintain or achieve a solution to their tenancy.”
If the rent money was automatically taken from the total amount of welfare money the people receive this figure would be far, far lower. The increase in people needing extra money also comes from an inability to properly manage money. I raise:
1. When was the last time these people ate chocolate? (The answer should be never as it is a luxury that should not be be indulged in if someone is struggling with money)
2. When did these people last watch TV? (Answer same as above)
3. Do these people have smartphones? (A simple mobile will suffice)
4. What food do these people eat? (it is possible to meet GDAs and still live on £18 per week for food).
5. What car do these people drive? (Used, second hand vehicle it should be)
6. How many children? (Depending on the circumstances it should be no more than 3 unless they are triplets and twins)
The fact I see Range Rovers in poor wards, Sky dishes on the side of council houses, the people claiming to be poor having an iPhone is evidence money management is their biggest fault.
I will be fair to them, if a person is still struggling and gives the answers in brackets to my questions above, then the welfare state is not working for them. Welfare payments should therefore be revamped to focus on a means-tested system which gives those struggling more and those not struggling less.
If the rent money was automatically taken from the total amount of welfare money the people receive this figure would be far, far lower. The increase in people needing extra money also comes from an inability to properly manage money. I raise:
1. When was the last time these people ate chocolate? (The answer should be never as it is a luxury that should not be be indulged in if someone is struggling with money)
2. When did these people last watch TV? (Answer same as above)
3. Do these people have smartphones? (A simple mobile will suffice)
4. What food do these people eat? (it is possible to meet GDAs and still live on £18 per week for food).
5. What car do these people drive? (Used, second hand vehicle it should be)
6. How many children? (Depending on the circumstances it should be no more than 3 unless they are triplets and twins)
The fact I see Range Rovers in poor wards, Sky dishes on the side of council houses, the people claiming to be poor having an iPhone is evidence money management is their biggest fault.
I will be fair to them, if a person is still struggling and gives the answers in brackets to my questions above, then the welfare state is not working for them. Welfare payments should therefore be revamped to focus on a means-tested system which gives those struggling more and those not struggling less.
The so called bedroom tax is neither a tax or being charged on all bedrooms, it is simply a surcharge on those who receive housing benefit. Would Wayne David rent out a 3 bedroom house for the same price as a 2 bedroom house…No of course not, and the under occupancy surcharge is a Labour policy that was introduced by Labour in 2008 as an incentive for those in receipt of housing benefit to find cheaper accommodation so those Labour hypocrites should get their facts straight, and if over the past 15 years wonderful Welsh Labour had actually built some houses then there wouldn’t be the shortage that there is at the moment. If you wish to live in a house with a spare bedroom then pay for it, just like normal working home owners have to, as a low paid worker with a spare bedroom I rented it out to make ends meet. Dean is correct – the majority of those whining about the under occupancy surcharge can still afford to smoke, drink, watch sky TV and surf the net on their shiny new ( Brighthouse ) iPads!
The so called bedroom tax is neither a tax or being charged on all bedrooms, it is simply a surcharge on those who receive housing benefit and are living in a house that is larger than their needs. Would Wayne David rent out a 3 bedroom house for the same price as a 2 bedroom house…No of course not, and the under occupancy surcharge is a Labour policy that was introduced by Labour in 2008 as an incentive for those in receipt of housing benefit to find cheaper accommodation so those Labour hypocrites should get their facts straight, and if over the past 15 years wonderful Welsh Labour had actually built some houses then there wouldn’t be the shortage that there is at the moment. If you wish to live in a house with a spare bedroom then pay for it, just like normal working home owners have to, as a low paid worker with a spare bedroom I rented it out to make ends meet. Dean is correct – the majority of those whining about the under occupancy surcharge can still afford to smoke, drink, watch sky TV and surf the net on their shiny new ( Brighthouse ) iPads!
Hard working home owners across the U.K agree with the under occupancy surcharge and that’s why they went out and voted for David Cameron and not that useless sack of hot air Miliband.
All this claptrap about how some citizens would dictate how others must
live has nothing whatever to do with the issues of the levy applied to
`some` tenants and not others.
The gross unfairness of this situation is based on the fact that the levy was brought in, and the rules on housing benefit altered, half way through the game.
Tenantswho fall within the rules of having the levy applied to them had, and
have in most cases, no options than to pay it or go into rent arrears,
the Government failed to ensure that suitable, smaller, more appropriate
housing units were available for such tenants to move into. It invented
a `regulation`, which in most areas placed responsible and aquiecent
tenants into a catche 22 position. That is what is not fair.
How would the commentators who deride and disrespect tenants of social
housing who find themselves in the situation of struggling household
budgets etc.feel, if the government decided to apply a similar levy on
owners of all carsover 12 feet in length, say, £20 per foot, per
month. because they take up more room on our roads than other family
cars, or, an additional levy on working families, with children, say £20
per child per week, to top up education budgets, and in order to
totally eradicate the education levy in the local Authority Council
Taxes to tenants and Council tax payers who have no children, why should
those without children to educate pay anything at all to educate other
peoples children, those with children `Choose` to have them so you pay
for them, Correct? much the same as those tenants who decide to remain
in homes too large for their needs pay for the privilage, according to
you. .
All this claptrap about how some citizens would dictate how others must
live has nothing whatever to do with the issues of the levy applied to
`some` tenants and not others.
The gross unfairness of this situation is based on the fact that the levy was brought in, and the rules on housing benefit altered, half way through the game.
Tenantswho fall within the rules of having the levy applied to them had, and
have in most cases, no options than to pay it or go into rent arrears,
the Government failed to ensure that suitable, smaller, more appropriate
housing units were available for such tenants to move into. It invented
a `regulation`, which in most areas placed responsible and aquiecent
tenants into a catche 22 position. That is what is not fair.
How would the commentators who deride and disrespect tenants of social
housing who find themselves in the situation of struggling household
budgets etc.feel, if the government decided to apply a similar levy on
owners of all carsover 12 feet in length, say, £20 per foot, per
month. because they take up more room on our roads than other family
cars, or, an additional levy on working families, with children, say £20
per child per week, to top up education budgets, and in order to
totally eradicate the education levy in the local Authority Council
Taxes to tenants and Council tax payers who have no children, why should
those without children to educate pay anything at all to educate other
peoples children, those with children `Choose` to have them so you pay
for them, Correct? much the same as those tenants who decide to remain
in homes too large for their needs pay for the privilage, according to
you. .
It really is a pity that those commentators filled with bile and vitriolic vomit when refering to hard working families who just happen to live in Social Housing will not use their real identity so that they can be recognised for who they are, for all we know they live in social housing themselves, they may be up to thier necks in milking the benefit system, or, they maybe opposition, right wing, political people aspiring to become public reps who are simply hiding their identity, for fear of the comments they make backfiring.
It amazes me that people who subscribe to the `Katy Hopkins` mindset will not honestly identify themselves and be recognised for who they are. If they did it may make for better reading, comments coming from the heart. Such comments would certainly have more credability.