Agenda item

Report of the Interim Director of Resources

Presented by the Corporate Portfolio Holder

The Corporate Portfolio Holder presented the report to Members.

He advised Members that the payments were to provide extra help to tenants who received housing benefits, but needed extra financial help and that the Council decided how long the payment should be made. He informed Members that for the current year the funding that was received from Government was supplemented by the Housing Revenue Account and from the General Fund.Option two in the report was the proposed option to be approved.

Councillor R Adams submitted the following question to the meeting

“Given the fact that proposed changes to Discretionary Housing Payments will affect the most vulnerable and often disabled people in our District would the Portfolio Holder:

1. Agree that Discretionary Housing Payments are an essential lifeline for those desperate enough to claim them and that payment should continue for as long as they are needed to prevent further difficulties.
2. Agree that a drop from 100% of the benefit to 50% in the second 6 months even with notice is still going to give some people difficulties and that a more graduated decrease would give people more time to adjust, plan and manage any unexpected changes that might come their way during the transition.
3. Consider an alternative option based upon a sliding scale of 100% for the first 6 months, 75% for the next 3 months and 50% for the final 3 months in all cases.”

The following response was provided:

“Discretionary Housing Payments are exactly what they say – discretionary. They are used to provide extra help to claimants who are already in receipt of Housing Benefit, who need further assistance with housing costs.

We need to be mindful of the annual funding available and I would draw your attention to the number of claimants increasing as working-age benefits are frozen for four years from April 2016. The Government has recognised this pressure and nationally increased funding from £125m to £160m; and this Council will see its funding increase from £103,700 to £115,000.  But even allowing for that and an additional sum from the Housing Revenue Account of £10,500, it is estimated that there will be an overspend in the region of £33,500 if we continue with 100% discretionary payments for the whole year. So we are recommending that we pay 100% for 6 months and then reduce to 50%. This is likely to give a break-even position.

This Council welcomes support mechanisms such as Discretionary Housing Payments that allows us to support the most vulnerable tenants, but we also want tenants to take responsibility for their future by obtaining employment to reduce dependency on benefits, or moving to different accommodation. I would also point out that the proposed option has a safety net for officers to award 100% grant to Council tenants for the full 12 months if that is deemed necessary.

I have considered the alternative option based on the sliding scale of 100%, then 75% and finally 50% - but this is likely to require the Council to meet a shortfall through the General Fund – and I cannot commend that as good practice.

Councillor R Adams stated that he was extremely disappointed with the response and advised that many residents would suffer as an effect

Councillor R D Bayliss stated that option two would allow tenants to make adjustments to their circumstances with a lead in time and highlighted that there were legal cases that had been won at appeal following challenges to payments and that it was proposed that officer discretion be applied to similar cases within the district.

Councillor R Blunt thanked Councillor R Adams for putting forward his question, but felt that it was wrong that the payments were supplemented from the General Fund.

Councillor N J Rushton agreed with Councillor R Blunt adding that it was not fair that an additional £30,000 was paid for by all the tax payers.

It was moved by Councillor N J Rushton, seconded by Councillor R D Bayliss and

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    The financial implications of the two options in relation to DHP be noted; and

2.    Option 2 of delivering DHP to tenants be approved.

Reason for decision: To Allocate DHP to claimants of Housing Benefit who need further financial assistance with Housing costs.