The Housing Benefit rip-off

Scan page 4

fryhtback FIGHTBACK 10p LoD introduced in April 1983 to combine local authority rent/rate rebate schemes and the supplementary benefit rent addition, so that all 'housing costs', where appropriate, would be paid by the local authority.

The scheme, though introduced as a simplificatiuon, has been horrendously complex. It is too early to discuss the longer-term implications of it; however, even now there are important points to raise.

Sepplementary Benefit = Caimants must now deal 1 Class Fighter pamphlet 10p ptus postage from Sickert Court. ion N| 2SY.

BARBARA BROOKS, an Executive member of the civil service union SCPS, writes here in her personal capacity on the implications of the new Tory Scheme.

with both DHSS and the local authority. Unemployed claimants must also deal with the Department of Employment.

There is evidence that many do not understand that the local authority now pays their rent and it is to that authority that relevant changes should be notified. Many that do understand believe that all departments automatically pass on information - this is not the case.

Consequently, although it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of the problem, many claimants are receiving incorrect amounts of housing benefit.

2. Even if the information is fully recorded, there is anecdotal evidence that local authorities are not fully equippped to deal with it.

In one case a summons was issued for non-payment of rates and only days before the court case it was discovered that payment of rates was the full responsibility of the local authority. They had been unable to amend their action on receipt of further information once the scheme had been initiated.

Obviously, for a system where constant reappraisal is necessary, this is unacceptable.

3. Many claimants retain responsibility for some part of their rent or rates (e.g. because a charge for heating is inclusive ir. the rent, but is not covered by the scheme, or whether another adult living in the household is expected to make contribution, etc.)

It is apparent that there is great confusion ovér this, and that many are incurring debts simply because they are unaware of the charges which remain their responsibility. This can result in prosecution and eviction.

4. Little or no explanation of the individual entitlement to Housing Benefit is provided to the claimant.

5. Claimants in various local authorities in Oxfordshire used to receive 'free rent weeks' -often at Christmas. Although supplementary benefit was averaged over the full year, most people paid a few extra pence each week and therefore had the full benefit of their rent allowance as spending money during the free weeks.

We do not know how many depended on this as additional 'savings' and will now face hardship over the Christmas period.

6. There is no evidence as to whether housing benefit supplement is being paid to those entitled, or not paid. Staff shortages in DHSS and general pressure of work make it likely that the latter is the case.

Rent and rates rebates or allowance There is little evidence of the impact of the scheme on people previously receiving rent or rates rebates. However, the application form is considerably more complex and this must cause problems.

One local authority issued payment by crossed cheques, and claimants without bank accounts were unable to cash them. The scheme generally 1. Introduction was delayed due to industrial action at DHSS, but even when this ceased the local authorities had problems with the numbers of people involved.

2. Some councils provide a good information service (as in Oxford). Others do not. One denied that there was such a system.

3. There are problems with obtaining quick payments of benefit to secure housing. Other points 1. Supplementary benefit claimants and local authority tenants are now unable to go on rent strike. This freedom was withdrawn by direct payment.

2. Many people are aware that their neighbours now know that they are receiving housing benefit, as they no longer 'pay rent' '. This parțicularly upsets pensioners.

3. The system was introduced at a 'no cost' basis — i.e., some winners, some losers. At poverty level we can afford no losers.

4. Civil servants are covered by the Official Secrets Act and the Disclosure of Information code. This means, in effect, that they may not discuss cases unless as part of an investigation of a serious crime.

As far as I am aware, no such rules cover local authority staff despite their acquisition under the scheme of large amounts of personal information on those claiming.

Other points There are many but I think it must that the introducti benefit was not simplification of oth points, be c ıcluded lousing elcome the benefit system.

It has been complicated, disorganised and haphazard. The purpose of the scheme can only be seen as a jobs-cutting exercise. 2000 civil service jobs have been cut, despite the additional work that it engenders.

Finally, and perhaps most cynically, despite the pledge to reimburse local authorities for both the actual and the administrative costs of the scheme, many believe that after the joint audit which will soon take place, the administrative costs at least will be returned to the local authority.

If this occurs we will once again endure a system of 'parish relief' ', and the fear must remain that central government control of the welfare state will diminish and we will truly return to the days of the poor law.

September No. 27 1983 the women's Paper of for Women's

Scan page 5

Socialist Organiser no 152 October 27 1983 Page ACT. -PICKET Say WORKER VICTIMIZAION EFFCIA

----- pull-quotes -----

Scrap the bosses! Stop the Bomb!

Women won't wait!