'Out of borough' Brent housing placements increase by 426% as housing crisis deepens

The report on Housing Supply and Demand LINK going to the Brent Cabinet on Tuesday 26th August starkly sets out the extent of the housing crisis in Brent.

AST= Assured Shorthold Tenancy DV=Domestic Violence

Homelessness is on the rise and largely attributable to the ending of Assured Shorthold Tenancies in the private sector.  It is particularly high in Brent compared to other West London boroughs.

The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) cap has seen landlords withdrawing from renting to those families in receipt of benefits. It also means that the Council is unable to procure properties in that sector for homeless families.

The report says that the caps make it unaffordable to rent in the South of the borough for families who require two bedrooms or more, unless they are in receipt of Working Tax Credit and therefore exempt from the Overall Benefit Cap. Lack of supply means that there are not properties available in the South for working families and landlords in the North of the borough are unwilling to let to people on benefits.

This has meant that the number of private rented properties the Council has been able to find to prevent homelessness has fallen from 548 in 2010/11 to 164 in 2012/13.

The Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) introduced in August 2013 for workless households limits the benefit payable to families to £500 per week and £350 for a single person.  Brent has been one of the boroughs in the country most affected with 1,340 families capped by the end of 2013-14.

Approximately 950 had the cap removed during the year, predominantly through securing employment and qualifying for the Working Tax Credit.

Because of the high rents in London, the reports says that the Council will not be able to procure affordable housing to meet the demand from homeless households in Brent. They are instead looking for accommodation which 'is most likely to be outside of the borough and to a significant extent outside of London'.

The report states categorically:

If a household refuses an offer of suitable accommodation in the Private rented sector (under the provisions of the Homelessness [Suitability of Accommodation ](England) Order 2012) in the private rented sector the Council will consider that it has met its duties under homelessness legislation, and if the household are being accommodated in Bed and Breakfast accommodation, they will be given a reasonable period in which to make their own housing arrangements.

Couched in official language this seems inoffensive but it is the provision that sees families separated from relatives, friends and community and moved miles away with the resulting disruption to support networks and schooling. But see 4 below.

However households with children can then ask for help under the Children Act, which then puts the pressure on the Children and Young People Service. During assessment under the Act the family will be kept in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. The report notes that if applications increase 'additional assessment resources' may be required by the Children and Young People department,

At the end of March 2014 Brent had a total of 3,341 households living in temporary accommodation, a 3% increase during 2013-14.  Currently the Council is retendering the Housing Association Leased Scheme (HALS) which expires in February 2015. This currently provides 1,800 units of temporary accommodation, primarily in Brent.

The Council is also working with 18 private sector accommodation providers to provide housing units in 'cheaper parts of the country'. This has resulted in increased out of borough placements, particularly for larger households.

Out of borough placements have risen from 120 households in February 2012 to 632 in May 2014 (a 426% increase).  The report states:

This figures is expected to rise further due to the increasing demand pressure and the shortage of affordable supply in the borough.

All these pressures means, as local newspapers have reported LINK, that Brent is not compliant with legislation which restricts a family's stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation to 6 weeks.  The number of households in B&B has increased to an average in 2013-14 of 299 per month. The report says this is due to the 'rising number of newly accepted homeless households and existing homeless households evicted from leased temporary, predominantly because the Landlord wants the property back.'

Another financial pressure on the Council is the 460 households living in temporary accommodation who are affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. This means their current accommodation is unaffordable and the Council has to make it up with Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP).

The report states: 'This is not sustainable position for the households or the Council, with no guarantee that the DHP budget will remain at the current high level in 2015-16 and beyond.' The Council is looking to address the issue through helping householders find work, securing affordable housing or 'by sustainably being able to cover the shortfall.'

As you read the report you cannot avoid feeling angry at the dire housing situation successive government have left us with. The selling off of council housing, the failure to build new social housing, the house price inflation induced by banks, estate agents and governments have combined to leave many families facing an impossible situation. I have seen at first hand in the schools where I am a governor what this means in real terms. Some of you may have seen the families, complete with suitcases, sitting in the glitzy foyer of Brent Civic Centre waiting to hear their fate.

Faced with this impossible and deteriorating situation, exacerbated by another round of severe cuts to come in the next few years, Brent council puts forward some ideas to address the problems. These include:

1. The Council will use 'proxy bidding' for capped householders who have been waiting longer than average for social housing to maximise their opportunities.   This means bidding on their behalf when possible housing comes up.

2. Consultation has begun on the possibility of making direct offers to those affected by the Overall benefit Cap provided they have been waiting longer than average.

3. Households affected by OBC in temporary accommodation and who have not secured employment will be relocated to more affordable and suitable accommodation as 'it will not be possible to sustain them in their current temporary accommodation using limited DHP funding.'

4. Before households with children are located outside the borough there will be a review of each individual case.'If a household is identified as having to remain in Brent due to exceptional social care, welfare, medical or other exceptional circumstances, then DHP funds will continue yo be used to meet the shortfall in rent while a longer term solution is sought.'

Clearly 4 leaves a substantial area of potential debate over what constitutes 'exceptional needs' with budgetary constraints always lurking in the background.

The report states that in 2014-15 there will be a projected 673 lettings into social housing (Council and housing association) but this will meet only around 14% of the current total demand from Bands A to C on Brent's Housing Register.  The majority will be through re-lets of existing  social housing stock but the Council expect another 180 to be delivered via the new build programme.

The Council plans to increase the numbers of lettings to homeless households to 80% of the total. They say this is necessary to mitigate the impact of the OBC on households temporarily in homeless accommodation that is no longer affordable, and to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation generally.  40 units have been set aside for the decant needs of South Kilburn regeneration.

The Council will be consulting over a 4-6 week period on the following amendments to its Allocation scheme:

1, Auto-budding - which would set the system to automatically to bid for property, at the council's discretion, once the  households falls into a target group, for example, the top 10% by waiting time, per property size.
2. Restore household's right to retain their Band C Housing register status and continue to bid in Locata, after accepting a Qualifying Offer in the private sector.
3. Increase Council and housing associations' ability to make direct offers.
4. In homeless households adult children (over 21) will be expected to share a bedroom with a same sex sibling of any age.
5. Possibility of including adult children  as part of a transfer/down sizing incentive package.
6. Acceptance of change of circumstance through starting and sustaining work (9 out of 12 months) to be given additional waiting time.
7. The residency criteria ('continuously lived in Brent for the period of 5 years or more prior to joining the housing register') would also apply to households in temporary accommodation. This would 'dis-incentivise homeless approaches'.
8. Over-crowding to receive equal priority as homelessness.

(Full version in Appendix D of the report)

Some of these proposals are bound to be controversial but whatever one thinks of them, they can only nibble at the edge of the problem - the Council, and local authorties in general, do not have the resources to dealwith such an enormous and escalating crisis.

The housing crisis outlined by the report makes it essential to tackle the housing crisis at national level and increase the amount of social housing new build.  Locally surely it should mean no more new developments with luxury house aimed at overseas investor but instead the provision of properly affordable housing.

How the reduced Overall Benefit Cap will impact on Brent residents

A report going to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee tomorrow demonstrates how the lowering of the Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) to £23,000 will impact on residents, with a particularly severe impact on single parents and single people.

According to the report the impact  of the cap so far

...in Brent has been lower than initially anticipated, although it has still had significant impacts. Among these, the relocation of families outside of Brent has been high profile, but affects only a minority of OBC cases (22 in 2015/16); there are generally broader factors including the wider welfare reforms (especially Local Housing Allowance caps) and the lack of affordable accommodation in Brent which have impacted on homelessness and the need to rehouse families outside the borough; OBC itself has played a relatively small part in this and the majority of resolved cases have been through employment.

  Lone parents represented over half (53%) of the cases capped and households with dependants accounted for over 77% of all cases. Single claimants were less likely to be capped as they were likely to be living in smaller properties and so entitled to less benefit. In terms of ethnicity, claimants from the black ethnic group were disproportionately impacted by the OBC, relative to their proportion of the overall Housing Benefit  caseload.

  The council currently has just under 3,000 households living in temporary accommodation, the fourth highest in the country, and including over 5,000 children. This includes the use of expensive and unsuitable Bed & Breakfast accommodation, hostel accommodation with shared facilities, and other nightly paid accommodation which is not fully covered by Housing Benefit and is subsidised by the Council at an unsustainable cost.

  Efforts to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation are made more difficult by the lack of social housing lets and the difficulty and expense of securing affordable private rented sector accommodation at LHA level rents.

  The effect of austerity and public sector cuts generally means that the Council is now less able to take an interventionist approach with affected claimants and the new Welfare Reform Strategy reflects a greater need to work together with partners, with the Council fulfilling more of a strategic and co-ordinating role, though there will still be intervention on a targeted basis towards the most vulnerable claimants; however, there will be a greater expectation on non- vulnerable claimants to take responsibility for their own outcomes (with appropriate signposting). [my emphasis] Finally the Council’s limited discretionary funding will have to stretch further and therefore provide less of a safety net for residents in future

The reduced cap will exacerbate an already difficult situation:

However, the planned lowering of the Cap from Autumn 2016 will present greater challenges to a larger number of claimants; in particular single people will be impacted who will generally not be statutorily homeless if they present to the Council, so there is potential for increased sofa-surfing, street sleeping, mental health and related social issues. The lowering of the cap elsewhere in the country will even make relocating out of London a less viable option. 


A comparison of the two charts below demonstrates the impact:

Click on charts to enlarge

 The table below shows the new limits per week.  Greater London rates apply in Brent.

The table below shows the Council's Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in 2015-16

 

The Council's DHP budget has been reduced from £4.8m in 2013-14 in 2013-14 to £2.6m in 2015-16 .

The full report can be found HERE

Does this report REALLY tackle Brent's housing crisis?

Click on image to enlarge

A report going before the Brent Executive on Monday July 15th lays bare the extent of Brent's housing extent and how it has been exacerbated by the Coalition's changes to benefits.

The graph shows that Brent has been much more affected by landlords ending tenancies than our neighbouring boroughs. 47%of homeless acceptances in 2012-13 were homeless due to the ending of a private letting in the wake of the changes in the Local Housing Allowance. The private rented sector itself continues to grow with 31,784 households living in private rented accommodation in the 2011 Census, compared with 17,043 in 2001. The sector accounted for 28.8% of Brent households.

Unmet demand for housing assistance stands at 10,366 households. This excludes those on Band D who are assessed by the Council Allocations Scheme as having no housing need.

Current demand on the Housing Register, including the homeless in temporary accommodation and those on the Transfer list is just over 19,000 households. In contrast the Council expect to make just 844 lettings of permanent social housing tenancies by the end of 2013-14.


These are allocated thus:

Looking ahead the Report notes the pressures that will be experienced:

1. Local Housing Allowance changes will continue to impact and make it harder for the Council to procure private rented accommodation as landlords will be unwilling to 'engage with tenants in recipet of benefits'.
2. The changes in LHA payable to single people under 35, which limits payment to a single room in a shared house, will mean they will find it increasingly difficult to find accommodation in the private rented sector.
3. From 12th August 2013, over a five week period, the Overall Benefit Cap will limit the total amount of benefit payable to a non-working couple or a single parent to £500 per week, and £350 per week for a non-working single person. The OBC was expected to impact on 2,700 Brent households, but some have taken measures so as to be exempted and the DWP assesses the total as 2,267 now. The bulk of these are in temporary accommodation or the private rented sector.
4. The Bedroom Tax will reduce benefit for rent  for social housing tenants by 14% (average £17.50 pw) with one 'spare room; and 25% (average £32.66 pw) for those with two 'spare rooms'.
5. Many households will be making a minimum contribution of Council Tax for the first time when they are also faced with  financial pressure from other welfare reforms.
6. The DWP is predicting that approximately 40% of claimants currently receiving Disability Living Allowance will not qualify to receive the replacement Personal Independence Allowances. The report notes: 'these claimants will be a high priority for receiving support from the council to cope with changes in circumstances' as receipt of DLA by a member of a household previously exempted them from  the Overall Benefit Cap and Council Tax charge.

The consequences of all this, the report says, is that families are likely to live in over-crowded and poor quality accommodation in the borough rather than move out to cheaper and better quality accommodation outside Brent. 'Unscrupulous' landlords may take advantage of families affected by Welfare Reform by refusing to deal with disrepair issues, knowing that the families will be reluctant to report them for fear of losing their accommodation. Brent Council has therefore drafted a Private Housing Action Plan to deal with these issues.

The report confirms actions already approved by the council including:

1. The introduction of fixed term tenancies by the council with partner housing providers determining their own policies as long as they are 'broadly consistent with the council's priorities'.
2 To use Flexible Tenancies (fixed term tenancies at either social or affordable rent) on the same basis as approved for other social landlords.
3. Introductory or starter tenancies of 12 months will be used for all new tenants in concert with fixed-term tenancies as relevant, 'Five years normally but with shorter and/or longer periods for specified groups/circumstances'.
4. Changes in the Allocation Scheme which means the residence qualification is established through living in Brent at the time of application and continually throughout the last five years. (NB this is a tightening of the previous proposal of living in Brent for three of the last five years).
5. The definition of 'living in unsuitable accommodation', which gives priority under the Alllocation Scheme will be tightened so that 'households with only minor disrepair issues are not being given priority for rehousing'.
6. Households who are over crowded by 'just one room' should not automatically be given priority in the new scheme - each case will be considered 'on its individual merits;.

The Mutual Exchange scheme, originally aimed at providing an incentive to 'under-occupiers' to downsize as as a result of the bedroom tax, will be extended to cover for example those over retirement age who are not affected by the current benefit changes.

The maximum payment for someone wishing to downsize would be £1,000 plus assistance wit removal costs and access to a handyman service. Full payment would be made for a 'perfect fit' exchange and pro rata for others.

It does seem to me that while the Private Housing Action Plan to protect private rented tenants is welcome much of the report is really fiddling while Rome burns. Changing definitions and tenancy arrangements is not dealing with the underlying issue which is a shortage of social housing and the failure (cf Quintain Wembley Regeneration, Willesden Green Library development, Queensbury development, and the Bridge Park/Unisys development) to build truly affordable housing.

The full report can be found HERE

Teather: 'Some families are being targeted over and over again' by welfare changes

This article by Patrick Wintour appears in the Guardian today:

Almost 440,000 families will see their income cut by £16.90 a week as they are hit by both the “bedroom tax” and the changes to council tax benefit, according to research by the New Policy Institute.

The cumulative impact of the welfare changes prompted a former Lib Dem minister, Sarah Teather, to urge the coalition to review its reforms. She said: “My concern is that some families are being targeted over and over again.”

The MP for Brent Central added: “Hitting the same people repeatedly means it adds up to a very significant cut in income. I am not sure how they are supposed to manage, where they are supposed to live, or whether the government has looked at the cumulative impact.”

Her warning came as the chief executive of a leading social housing provider warned some tenants were panicking as the reality of the bedroom tax began to bite.

Research by the New Policy Institute reveals that of the 660,000 families hit by the bedroom tax, or spare room subsidy in ministers’ parlance, 440,000 will have their council tax discount reduced as well. It adds that, on average, this group will be £16.90 worse off a week.

The three main reforms introduced this week are:
• The replacement of council tax benefit by council tax support, estimated to cost 2.4 million families in England an average of £2.60 per week. The coalition says the council tax benefit bill rose by 50% under the last government.
• An under-occupation penalty (commonly known as the bedroom tax) is expected to cost 660,000 families an average of £14 per week. The government says 1.8 million people are on council house waiting lists.
• An overall household benefit cap, set at £500 for a family with children, is expected to affect 56,000 households with an average cut of £93 per week.

In addition there has been a below-inflation rise for those on tax credits and benefits. The NPI estimates a total of 1.3 million families will be affected by the lower-than-inflation benefit uprating, council tax changes and the bedroom tax. It said it had been impossible to calculate precisely which categories of people will also be hit by the absolute cap on housing benefit, due to be introduced later this month in four pilot areas and then phased in nationwide in the autumn.

Teather says the benefit cap is the single reform that worries her most in her north London constituency, adding that larger families are already preparing to move out of the area.
The NPI estimates that around 63% of families affected by one of the cuts are already in poverty. This rises to 67% for those affected by both council tax benefit and the bedroom tax. In total 1.6 million families already in poverty – as officially defined by the government – now have to cope with further reductions in income.

The NPI said: “Three-quarters of those affected are out of work. When their benefits are cut, they do not have other sources of income to fall back on. To someone receiving jobseeker’s allowance of £71.70 a week, even the smallest of these cuts (for council tax) represents a 3.5% drop in disposable income.”
Just under two-thirds of families affected by the bedroom tax include a disabled adult. It has been argued that the bedroom tax is particularly unfair on disabled people who require adapted accommodation. While not all disabled people will require specialised accommodation, the NPI says its figures suggests that the dilemma facing the disabled will not be uncommon.

Meanwhile, the chief executive of social housing provider Riverside – which owns or runs more than 50,000 homes – has also warned of the fear felt by some of its 7,000 tenants affected by the bedroom tax.
In an open letter to David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Carol Matthews warns that “most of those affected are precisely the people government should be helping ‘get on’ rather than ‘get out’”.

Matthews goes on to say that those who will be worst hit are: “Families with teenage children who need their own bedrooms to enable them to study; fathers who have split from their partners and are trying to do the right thing by sharing responsibility for bringing up their children; grandparents who are helping their own children to work by providing low cost childcare for their grandchildren.

“In addition there are the thousands of tenants who are now deemed to be able to share, when the reality is that they need to sleep in separate rooms as a result of disability or illness.

“These are not minor exceptions that can be regulated away, or helped with small amounts of discretionary payments. Rather they illustrate that the line has been drawn in the wrong place.”

Council Tax Support: 3 days to respond to Brent's 'hidden' consultation

I wrote a little while ago about the hidden away Brent Council consultation on Council Tax support in which the council indicates it wants to continue the present scheme despite the furore over vulnerable residents unable to pay  receiving summonses to Willesden Magistrates Court and incurring extra court charges as a result.

An official complaint is being lodged on the grounds that the consultation has not been well puiblicised (not even to the Citizen's Panel), that it is on-line only making it less accessible to those who it affects because they are less likely to have access to a computer at home, and the very short consultation period. The consultation ends on Friday December 6th.

As one activist said: 'It is almost as if Brent Council doesn't want anyone to respond.'

You can access the consultation here LINK

Meanwhile Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (ZK2 ) LINK has made a response to the consultation.  ZK2000 started as a Christian organisation campaigning against the poll tax.It is s a London-based charity addressing poverty issues caused by unfairness in the law, legal and benefits system.

ZK2000 blogged:

As we have explained previously Z2K is totally opposed to the abolition of Council Tax Benefit and the government’s 10% funding cut, but we also think that local authorities that have tried to make up this funding shortfall by introducing a minimum payment are simply heaping further misery on their poorest residents.

In Brent the minimum payment has led to over 3,500 residents who formerly paid no council tax at all being taken to court with threat of almost £100 in legal fees being added to their debt. In our experience these people aren’t refusing to pay but simply can’t. We believe this just the beginning and expect that many more will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budgets unmanageable.

Here is their submission to the Council's consultation questions:
 

1. With reference to the 6 key principles listed above, please indicate how important these are to you? (Please rank each area according to importance: 1 being most important and 6 being least important)

Please click the options below in order of preference.

 Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

 Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected” (from the minimum contribution)

 Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

 Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

 Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

We will rank Principle 2 as number 1 and leave the rest blank.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing “No Change” in its CTS scheme for 2014-15, except for including an additional group to be classed as vulnerable (see question 3)?

Z2K strongly objects to Brent’s proposal for maintaining its current CTS scheme. We believe, and our experience supporting Brent resident’s shows, that the minimum payment required by the scheme is pushing some of Brent’s most deprived resident’s further into poverty.

Benefits are supposedly calculated on the basis of providing the minimum necessary to live on, yet they fall far short of Minimum Income Standards (the amount required for a minimum acceptable living standard, for more information see http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis). For a single person over the age of 25 the £71.70 weekly Job Seekers Allowance is only 38% of their minimum income standard and for a couple with two children their benefits only provide 58% of what is required for an acceptable standard of living.

This already insufficient income level is being further eroded by the government’s programme of welfare reform. In Brent 1,688 residents have had their housing benefit reduced by the ‘Bedroom Tax’ while 1,177 claimants have been hit by the Benefit Cap. Overall Brent is the local authority worst affected by welfare reform in London and research by Sheffield Hallam University has shown the cuts will result in residents losing £150m.

On top of this councillors have decided to introduce a minimum council tax payment that is amongst the highest in London, only Harrow is charging more (22.5%) and three other boroughs are charging the same amount (Ealing, Hillingdon & Newham). For the vast majority of CTS claimants this minimum payment has to come out of benefits which are already insufficient to provide for the basics of life, and in many cases have already been reduced by other welfare reforms. This means that just under 25,000 Brent residents have been placed in the impossible situation of trying to cut down their food, utility bills or other house essential costs in order to pay their council tax.

Unsurprisingly many have been unable to do so, resulting in almost 3,500 Brent residents being issued with court summons for non-payment of council tax so far this year. Our experience providing advice to some of those summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court on 5^th November and others over the summer demonstrated they are not ‘refusing to pay, regardless of support offered’, as the authority has previously claimed. We found a number of very vulnerable individuals and families who simply couldn’t pay, several of whom were in a state of serious anxiety and visibly distressed by the threat of legal action.

In our opinion these 3,500 summonses are just the beginning. We expect that many of those who have hitherto been managing to meet the minimum payment will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budges unmanageable, particularly as utility bills increase  with the onset of winter and the need to heat their homes. We are also concerned that those claimants who have previously been summonsed will not manage to pay off their arrears before the end of the financial year, creating the potential for a cycle of debt when they receive their 2014/15 bills.

As such we question the councils assumed collection rate of 80% of the minimum payment, upon which rests the supposed financial neutrality of the scheme. Given that the 80% target was not based on proper modelling and is effectively a guess, as well as the failure to take into account the costs of enforcement to the council, we question the financial viability of the minimum payment in making up the cut government funding.

Indeed any assessment of whether the proposal to maintain the current system for 2014/15 is correct should be undertaken on the basis of the fullest possible information. It is important the council takes into account the experience of the first year using evidence on arrears rates, cost of collection and impacts such as any increase in homelessness. Without providing this information the authority has prevented Brent residents from making an informed decision in their consultation responses. We can only hope that such evidence is provided to councillors in a thorough going impact assessment of the 2013/14 scheme before they make the decision for next year.    

Ultimately although we understand that financial pressure of the 10% funding cut has placed Brent in a difficult situation, we still believe it is possible to find a way not to pass this cut on to your poorest residents. As we have pointed out previously, six London authorities have maintained 100% council tax benefit while a further four have made changes to their scheme but have not implemented a minimum payment. 

We note that not all the boroughs that have chosen to retain 100% benefit are ‘affluent’ as is sometimes claimed by local councillors. Tower Hamlets for example is the 3^rd most deprived local authority in the country and has a similar number of CTB claimants to Brent, yet councillors there have chosen not to pass the cut onto their residents and found the money elsewhere.

In light of this we call for Brent to abolish the minimum payment and reinstate 100% council tax support, as well as joining the campaign against this iniquitous policy.

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing to protect customers on Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit by classing these customers as being a vulnerable group in its CTS scheme for 2014-15?

While we believe that only the abolition of the minimum payment will create a fair and just Council Tax Support scheme we welcome any expansion of the exemptions to the minimum payment. In this regard, we agree with the authority’s proposal to class Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit claimant’s as a vulnerable group and thereby exempt them from the minimum payment from 2014-15 onwards.

However we note that in response to our highlighting the issue of Incapacity Benefit in regards to a client of ours the council agreed to apply the exemption to their 2013/14 account and waive their summons costs. We believe it would be unfair to not apply the same decision to other Brent taxpayers in the same situation as our client, whether they have been hitherto meeting the payments or struggled to do so and received a court summons and incurred additional costs. 

4. With reference to Principle 2 set out above, please give details of any other groups that you believe should be protected apart from those already proposed and give reasons why.

It is our belief that any individual or family that is forced to rely on state benefits is by definition vulnerable, particularly in a financial sense, and should therefore be exempt from paying council tax. That is why we argue for the abolition of the minimum payment. However if the council continues to refuse to do so, there are a number of particular vulnerable groups that could and should be protected.  

First among these are Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants. We note that Brent has previously stated that it is not necessary to exempt ESA claimants as disabled people are already covered under the DLA and disability premium exemptions.  However, this fails to take account of the fact that not all ESA claimants also claim DLA. 

Indeed the council has already recognised the need to exempt those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit meaning it would be inconsistent not to extend this exemption to ESA claimants. This is because Incapacity Benefit is in the process of being abolished and replaced by ESA. There are no new claims for Incapacity Benefit allowed and claimants are gradually being migrated to ESA. This means that if an Incapacity Benefit claimant is migrated to ESA and doesn’t also receive DLA or a disability premium they will then lose their exemption to the minimum payment, although their circumstances will have otherwise remained unchanged. Such a situation is surely inconsistent with the principle of exempting those on Incapacity Benefit and should be remedied immediately.

Brent Kilburn Connects to discuss air pollution, proposed parliamentary constituency changes & benefit cap tomorrow (Wednesday)

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

7pm
London Interfaith Centre, 125 Salusbury Road NW6 6RG
(Modern building with glass frontage and dome on top between Queens Park and Brondesbury Park stations) 206 bus ir walk down from Brondesbury Park station

Agenda

• Air pollution in Brent: what’s being done about it? Councillor James Denselow – Chair
  Aaron Kiely, Campaigner – Friends of the Earth, Tony Kennedy, Head of Transportation – Brent, Jennifer Barrett, Senior Regulatory Service Manager – Brent, Oliver Lord, Principal Policy Officer (Air quality / green transport) – Greater London Authority 

• Soapbox 
•  
• Draft proposals for new parliamentary constituency boundaries for England: what does this mean for Brent? Sean O’Sullivan, Electoral Services Manager - Brent
• Overall Benefit Cap changes from November 2016: be prepared!
  Are you aware of options available to you and sources of potential support and assistance?
  Neil Gann, Welfare Reform Project Manager - Brent

For further information please email brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

Council responds to complaint over Council Tax Support Scheme consultation

Brent Council has responded to the complaint by Robin Sivapalan on behalf of residents that its consultation on the Council Tax Support Scheme was not advertised widely enough and gave inadequate time for responses. The council wants to keep the controversial current scheme with some small statutory changes.

Here is the Council's reply:

Dear Mr Sivapalan,

I refer to your complaint about the way we are consulting on Brent’s Local Council Tax Scheme for 2014/15. Firstly, I would like to make you aware that we have extended the consultation period to 13 December.

The consultation that is currently under way is on the proposal not to change the Local Council Tax Scheme agreed by full council last year (except for statutory changes to the prescribed scheme for pensioners and a minor amendment to explicitly include a specific group as vulnerable and therefore protected from paying at least 20% of their council tax which had not been made clear in the original scheme for 2013/14). There
is no requirement for an Authority to consult each year on its local scheme if there are only statutory changes, but we felt that we did want to give residents an opportunity to make comments so decided that we would run a web-based consultation.

Although we had made a number of stakeholders aware of the consultation process during network and partner meetings over recent weeks, we hadn’t formally written to advice agencies before this week. As you acknowledge, this was due to a genuine oversight for which I apologise, however on that basis, we have extended the consultation period for a week as mentioned above to allow those that had been unaware on the consultation an opportunity to comment.

I regret that it is not possible to extend the consultation to the end of January, as you request, as the Council is required to determine its scheme for next year before the end of January.

As your complaint makes significant reference to those affected by the current scheme, I consider it appropriate to comment on the current scheme and how we have tried to help our residents during what we all agree has been a difficult time. Firstly, I must point out that there cannot be a reinstatement of the previous Council Tax Benefit (CTB) scheme as this was a national scheme funded by central government that has now been abolished. The scheme that we are proposing to carry forward into 2014/15 was the subject of extensive publicity and consultation last year including the following::

 · Publicity on the Council’s website and a special email account set up for queries;
· Text messages to 2694 existing Benefit claimants;
· Emails to 1770 Benefit claimants;
· A leaflet issued with 13,000 Council Tax bills;
· Meetings and presentations to over a dozen organisations including Mencap, Citizens Advice Bureau, Help Somalia Foundation, Private Tenant Rights User Group, Older Persons Partnership Board, Brent Housing Partnership, Brent Mental Health User Group, Willesden Mosque and representatives from Lynton Close Travellers Site;
· Emails to 600 Area Consultative Forum members and 640 Citizens Panel members;
· Paper copies of leaflets and documentation in all Brent libraries;
· Features on the consultation in both the May and July 2012 editions of the Brent Magazine and publicity in the local media including the Harrow Times and the Brent and Kilburn Times;
· Presentations to 267 residents at the five Area Consultative Forums;
· Letters and emails to all partner organisations in the borough;
· A wide range of posters and other publicity throughout the borough.

Following the consultation period and full council’s agreement for the scheme, we wrote to all our customers in advance of the start of the scheme, and included a special advice leaflet in all our year end bills where CTB was in payment. Officers embarked on an extensive exercise to speak to as many of the customers affected as possible especially those who were likely to have to pay something towards their council tax for the first time. Where we were unable to contact the customer by phone, we wrote to residents affected inviting them to contact us so that we could explain the scheme and how it affected them and also to discuss how best they could meet their financial obligations. We also made arrangements to allow council tax to be paid in 12 instalments rather than the normal 10 to help spread the cost.

We have continued to try and engage with residents since the introduction of the scheme and take a sympathetic view with customers who are trying to pay their council tax.

Where residents are also affected by other aspects of the government’s Welfare Reform programme – the overall benefit cap or the bedroom tax restrictions - we have often been able to offer assistance with their housing costs.

Finally, in respect of the current consultative exercise, I do not believe that the process has been unreasonable and certainly meets or exceeds our statutory obligations.

We shall treat all responses seriously but will be subject to both time and financial constraints when considering any proposals for changes.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Monkley
Subsidy & Policy Manager

 

How the poor will be hit by Council Tax Support scheme

The Special Meeting of Brent Council on Monday will be making decisions on the new Council Tax Support scheme that will leave many residents worse off. This follows the Coalition handing implementation of the schemes to local councils whilst at the same time reducing the money available by at least 10%.

The overall result in Brent is that residents who used to receive Brent will now generally  have to pay double the contribution to Council Tax that they used to pay.   These residents will also be hit by other benefit changes including the Housing Benefit cap and the Universal Benefit cap. 24,604 residents will be affected by the changes which can only have the effect of pushing more people into poverty.

The following table gives an overall picture but the full document needs to be read for detail on excemptions and the means-testing involved.
 

Description of deduction	Amount of weekly deduction 2012/13	Proposed weekly CTS scheme deduction	Annual change in 2013/14
Adult in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit or savings credit	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of employment support allowance (income related) main or assessment phase	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of job seekers allowance (contribution based) or employment support allowance (contributed based)	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult  in remunerative work is less than £183	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £183 but less than £316	£6.55	£13.10	£340.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £316 but less than £394	£8.25	£16.50	£429.00
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £394	£9.90	£19.80	£514.80
Adult in receipt if job seekers allowance (income based)	Nil	£6.60	£343.20
Adult in receipt of income support	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult working less than 16 hours per week or is on maternity, paternity, adoption or sick leave	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Any other adult not included in the above descriptions	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60

There are likely to be difficulties concerning collection of council tax where resident are already financial pressed or where they have not paid anything before.

A second decision that the Full Council will have to make is on changing the amount of tax paid on empty properties. Owners of such properties will now have to pay more Council Tax and in the case of long-term empty homes this could be a 150% tax after two years.

These are the proposals set out in the report:
 

• Class A empty properties (requiring major repairs or undergoing structural alterations) – reduce the current 100% exemption to 50% discount for the first twelve months.

• Class C empty properties (vacant and substantially unfurnished) – reduce the current 100% exemption to zero so that the owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability with immediate effect from the date of vacation.

• Second Homes – Remove the current 10% discount so that owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability

• Long term empty properties – charge a 50% premium after they have been empty and unfurnished for 2 years so that the Council Tax liability for such properties is 150% (after two years).

This is the full report: