Category: Uncategorised

In recent months, the government have signified an increased commitment to recovering fraudulent benefit payments. Notably, this includes plans to use artificial intelligence (AI) to scan the bank account of every benefit claimant to look for suspected benefit fraud and trigger an investigation. Aside from the implications for privacy on these proposed measures, fraud investigations typically result in the suspension of a benefit pending the outcome of. Given the length of time these investigations can take, this has serious ramifications for the people behind the process; the families struggling to get by.

A recent report published by Citizens Advice has laid bare these harsh realities. We know that people on Universal Credit can struggle – 70% of people on UC waiting for their first payment go without essentials like food or fuel whilst waiting. 10% of people who have their benefits suspended pending investigation (in cases of suspected fraud) will have it reinstated.

Noted in the report was that more than half of those affected were households were someone had a health condition or disability; a section of the population who are already more likely to be living at or below the poverty threshold and so least able to weather the storm of a substantial loss of income.

How do these people cope in the interim? Benefit suspensions in cases of fraud do not affect many of the clients we deal with day to day, but we know that where they are affected, they are acutely vulnerable to hardship. As mentioned above, the government are seeking to widen the surveillance powers afforded to allow them to use artificial intelligence to scan benefit claimant’s bank accounts for characteristics associated with fraud. Without proper safeguards in place, there is a significant risk that more and more people find themselves ‘caught in the net.’

For example, the report highlighted how those who face investigation for fraud can face requests for evidence to prove their entitlement but that they can often have evidence refused with no reason given as to why it was unsuitable (thereby allowing them to act on it), or simply that they were asked for in excess of 20 pieces of evidence yet were given only a single link that only allowed them to upload 5 pieces of evidence and so extending the length of time it takes to resolve the investigation and by default the time the claimant must survive without that income. Similarly, it was noted that people face significant difficulty in even engaging with the investigation. They received an initial notification listing the general Universal Credit Helpline number, then contacted them and were told to wait for a callback from the ‘Enhanced Review Team’ often taking several days. In all of this time, they have no way to meaningfully engage with the investigation.

If a person’s benefits are reinstated following suspension, they do receive a backdated payment – but again, how does this support them in the interim? Is a claimants landlord going to wait until the investigation’s end before starting eviction proceedings for rent arrears?

The report also noted that more than half the households affected by benefit suspensions included foreign nationals. Over the same period, where Citizens Advice helped people with broader UC issues only 17% were recorded as foreign nationals. If we apply this results more widely, it suggests that foreign nationals are disproportionately more likely to be subject to benefit suspensions.

On the back of this report, and the hardship it exposes for various groups of society, often those who have the least, Citizens Advice has made several recommendations:

• The establishment of a baseline vulnerability criteria for claimants that would be at disproportionate risk of destitution can be identified and proactively supported
  Conclude investigations more quickly, particularly where claimants are fully engaged in the process
  Offer alternative support for those who might struggle to provide evidence (for example through lacking digital literacy) as well as the provision of a hardship fund for those who might struggle without payments.

The government has a right and an obligation to ensure that public money is used fairly – but that shouldn’t mean that people should be at risk of being caught out by an inflexible system that can’t support them when they’ve done no wrong.

As the deadline of December 2024 fast approaches to move legacy benefit claimants onto Universal Credit, Society Matters trainer Chris Errington discusses what claimants need to know to avoid being financially worse off.

The current rollout to move legacy benefit claimants onto Universal Credit is picking up pace. Through a process called ‘Managed Migration’, the government are sending letters to everyone still claiming legacy benefits, such as tax credits, income-based Job-Seekers Allowance or income-related Employment Support Allowance (among others).

For those receiving one of these letters, they must apply for Universal Credit by the deadline shown on the letter (usually 3 months from the notice) or risk losing their current benefits.

According to the DWP 1.7 million households were claiming legacy benefits as of November 2023.

Migration notices are being sent to over 500,000 claimants in 2023/24 for those in receipt of tax credits only. By September 2024, the DWP will be contacting 440,000 households that claim tax credits and receive income support, income-based jobseekers Allowance and Housing benefit.

For those claiming income related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) by itself or with housing benefit, the deadline has been delayed until 2028-29. This is impacting around 600,000 claimants.

When moving over to Universal Credit some claimants will be worse off than others. This is due to certain premium additions that can be added to legacy benefits but are not available on Universal Credit. A common example would be the Severe Disability Premium. When claimants on legacy benefits are moving to Universal Credit, the Severe Disability Premium will be part of the calculation.

If you have a lower entitlement, you will be eligible for ‘transitional protection’ payments. This is a top up to make up the shortfall in your benefits so that you are not in financial detriment. This is only available to those who have received a ‘Managed Migration’ notice.

If the claimant misses the deadline stated on the letter they would not miss out on the transitional protection as they also have a ‘Final Deadline’ date which would give them an additional month to make the application. This would be the last day of the first assessment period. For example, if the deadline on the migration notice is set at 7th March, the final deadline would be 6th April. Due to Universal Credit being backdated, the claimant shouldn’t see an interruption to their benefit.

Claimants will be at risk of losing the transitional protection if they do not make a claim before the final deadline. This could make a claimant significantly worse off financially. In addition, Their legacy benefits will have ended from the day before the deadline day. There would be no Universal Credit award until they submitted a claim (subject to the usual rules on backdating a Universal Credit claim by up to one month), so there could be a gap between their legacy benefit award and their Universal Credit award.

If a claim for Universal Credit is not successful, and the claimant makes another claim then they could be at risk of losing the transitional protection.

Two types of transitional protection exist under Universal Credit; a capital disregard and a Student Exemption.

The capital disregard is for claimants claiming benefits that allow savings and capital to be over £16,000. Universal Credit has an upper capital limit of £16,000, meaning that you would not qualify for a claim if your capital were above this. Those subject to managed migration will have any capital above £16,000 disregarded when assessing the eligibility. Any capital up to £16,000 is treated in the normal way in the Means Test. This could result in the Universal Credit award being lower than the amount the client was receiving on Working Tax Credits, for example. The client would be entitled to the transitional protection to make up the shortfall when they first move over, however this is something that would be taken away when circumstances change. In addition, the capital disregard is only available for a maximum of 12 assessment periods. A claimant may be at risk of losing their Universal Credit entitlement if their savings dip below £16,000 and later rise above it.

The student exemption is relevant where a client does not meet the basic conditions for UC because of being a full-time student on the day their legacy benefits stop. That basic condition will not apply whilst the client is undertaking a full-time course. The exemption will only last until the course ends. If they decide to undertake another course, then the student exemption will no longer apply.

In some circumstances all types of transitional protection will end. This will happen if:

• The client has a consistent drop in earnings.
• If the clients’ earnings drop below the administrative earnings threshold for 3 consecutive assessment periods. The administrative earnings threshold is currently £743 for a single claimant or £1,189 for a couple.
• If a couple separates or a new couple is formed.

The Transitional element could be subject to ‘erosion’. This means that the award could be reduced by increases in the Universal Credit standard allowance or other elements (excluding the childcare element). It is important to note that this will not be impacted by increases in income, an increase in income however will reduce the award in the usual way.

It is important that claimants are making a claim during the 3-month period to avoid missing out on the transitional protection they may be entitled to. A report published by the National Audit office found that 31,000 of the cases closed by the DWP resulted in claimants having their legacy benefits stopped because they did not make a Universal Credit claim on time. We at Citizens Advice Gateshead know all too well just how difficult the move from legacy benefits to Universal Credit can be. Ensuring people get that transitional protection wherever possible is key if we are to best support people in ‘weathering the storm’ of moving to a whole new system.

https://citizensadvicegateshead.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Managed-Migration-A5-leaflet.pdf

The Spring Budget represents one of the key points of the fiscal year, directly impacting the lives and livelihoods of people all around the United Kingdom. It sets out the priorities of the Government moving forward. In the wake of Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s announcement, focusing on the more ‘social welfare-oriented’ measures, Gareth Newman, a Social Welfare Trainer at Society Matters cic, sets out what this means in practice for us all in these uncertain economic times.

First, the Chancellor has announced the extension of the Household Support Fund. This will be a welcome announcement to people up and down the UK who are struggling to cope with the increasing cost of living, whether that be rents, mortgages, food, fuel, or indeed any other expense. Over 160 councils have called on the government to extend the HSF, which represents a vital lifeline to alleviate hardship and put people back onto a more sustainable financial footing. Originally due to end March 31st, this has now been extended for 6 months. Unfortunately, unless further support is announced in the meantime, it seems we may face the same cliff edge that so many councils and other organisations have faced previously.

The Chancellor also announced the abolition of the Debt Relief Order charge. Debt Relief Orders are a debt solution available to people who have limited assets, typically having no less than £75 per month left after paying their debts to pay household expenses (among other eligibility criteria). When applying for DROs, a flat fee of £90 is charged. Whilst financial support may be available from charitable organisations, for those who are already in difficult financial circumstances then finding £90 for that charge can be a tall order. Indeed, a report published by Citizens Advice in March 2023 indicated that 60% of people referred for a DRO had an average monthly deficit of £95, meaning their income doesn’t actually meet their essential household bills. We commend the Chancellor for taking a positive step forward to help people manage and move on from their debts, though it’s worth noting that no additional financial support was forthcoming for those applying for bankruptcy, who face much higher fees of £680.

—

Further support was announced for people in relation to Universal Credit who take out ‘budgeting advance’. Budgeting advances are available to people on UC who face one-off unexpected expenses for example, replacing broken appliances, repairs, funeral expenses or other ‘essential’ items like clothes. Ranging from £100 up to £812 (depending on a person’s circumstances, these are typically repaid over a 12-month period. As of March 2023, nearly 1 million UC claimants, of around 6 million in total, were having deductions taken to repay a budgeting advance. Similarly, a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that nearly 90% of UC claimants are going without at least one essential. Whilst lengthening the repayment period does mean more manageable deductions over a longer period, perhaps a conversation needs to be had about whether this simply represents lengthening the person’s poverty.

One of the more well-trailed measures announced was a further 2% cut to the rate of National Insurance contributions. This is in addition to the 2% cut recently brought in, meaning NI rates will have fallen from 12 percent last year to 8 percent moving, representing a total £900 saving for someone on an ‘average’ salary (taking into account both cuts to NI rates). Whilst a move to help people keep more of the money they earn should be welcomed, in the context of rising prices – food, energy, housing costs, council tax (suspected to largely go up by the maximum 4.99% rate across the country), it remains to be seen what impact this really has on people who may already be struggling.

Finally, the Chancellor also announced some key reforms in relation to child benefit. Expected to commence from April 2026, the High Income Child Benefit Charge will be assessed on a household rather than individual basis. The High Income Charge is currently payable when an individual claims Child Benefit but earns over £50,000, meaning that they can claim it but need to pay it back as part of the Self-Assessment process. The move to assess household income rather than individual income suggests that the Chancellor has listened to feedback on this front; in the past, the system has been criticized for ‘penalising single parents.’ For example, a couple can earn £49,000 each and receive child benefit in full whilst a single parent earning £60,000 will be faced with the loss of that income. In light of this, the threshold will immediately rise from £50,000 to £60,000 individually (having not been uprated since its introduction in 2013). The government estimate this will be worth a saving of over £1000 to eligible families.

—

As the cost of living crisis continues to rage, all eyes were on the Chancellor today to see what support would be available to ease the financial burdens facing people up and deal with the challenges that our parent charity Citizens Advice Gateshead deal with on a daily basis. Whilst some measures are certainly welcome, it’s difficult to escape the view that this represents a ‘tinkering at the edges’ when more direct intervention is needed.

For a full breakdown of what was included in the budget, you can visit the gov.uk webpage on the link below: Spring Budget 2024

With the government’s long promised ban on Section 21 evictions, sometimes known as no-fault evictions, once again returning to the front pages, we wanted to take some time to unpack this. What does it mean for tenants? Why are they necessary? What protection, if any, is there currently from a no-fault eviction?

The government first promised a ban on no-fault evictions in 2019, which has thus far failed to materialize. A Section 21 (S21), or no-fault eviction, is an eviction for which a landlord does not have to give a reason. As long as they have followed the correct process (more on this later), then there is little that a person do to halt it.

Figures released by housing charity Shelter estimate that since the ban was first promised in 2019, more than 26,000 S21 evictions have since taken place [1]. Going further, Shelter estimates that more than a third of tenants take longer than two months to find a new home once they receive that no-fault eviction notice. With landlords only required to give a minimum of two months’ notice, that leaves thousands of people at risk of homelessness.

Society Matters prides itself on our ability to think of the people behind the process; behind every statistic is a person and a family that faces being uprooted, losing the roof over the head and finding themselves in a housing market where rents are increasing at a rate fast outpacing peoples wages or benefits. Indeed, Shelter estimate that one person over 55 is served with a S21 eviction notice every 16 minutes [2].

The government have themselves described their Renters Reform Bill, with which they promise to outlaw S21 evictions, as ‘bringing in a better deal for renters.’ This is an implicit recognition of the challenges renters face. The government have stated that insecure housing (like being susceptible to a no-fault eviction) demonstrably worsens children’s educational outcomes, makes it more difficult for people to hold down employment and establish roots in their local communities [3]. We have to ask ourselves, if this system is recognizably unfair, why has it taken so long for this to be acted on?

When someone faces a Section 21 eviction, by its very nature, there is little we can do to challenge; if there’s ‘no fault’ then there is no reason. But there are avenues by which we may be able to challenge the validity of a S21 notice. For example, your landlord must:

• Have protected your deposit in an approved Tenancy Deposit Scheme
• Have provided with a copy of your Energy Performance Certificate for the property.
• Have provided a copy of your Gas Safety Certificate for the property.
• Have provided a copy of the How to Rent guide available from the government.
• Have given you the correct notice period of 2 months (though this can be more in some cases)

In the event that a landlord hasn’t done this, we can challenge the validity of a notice. However, the landlord can correct the error (e.g. giving you a copy of your EPC if you haven’t had one already) and re-issue a S21 notice. This won’t stop the eviction altogether, but it does allow people more time in their property to perhaps think about their plan for moving on to a new property. Whilst someone issued with a Section 21 notice doesn’t necessarily need to leave the property by the end of that 2 month period, tenants often don’t see it that way. The difficulty then is that if they do seek homelessness support from the local authority, they run the risk of being found ‘intentionally homeless’ and impacting their chance of accessing that crucial help.

Recently, Michael Gove promised during an interview that Renters Reform Bill would pass by the time of the next election (scheduled for January 2025 at the latest), providing that ‘better deal’ for renters. The sad truth is that every day that that is delayed costs more and more people their homes, stability and independence.

If you want to find out more about Section 21 evictions, or housing/homelessness more generally, be sure to check out Society Matters’ CPD-accredited course on Housing and Homelessness [4].

---

[1] Shelter – More than 26,000 no-fault bailiff evictions since government pledge to scrap Section 21

[2] Inside Housing – Shelter warns over-55s served Section 21 eviction notice every 16 minutes

[3] GOV.UK – Guide to Renters (Reform) Bill

[4] Housing and Homelessness workshop from Society Matters cic

You might remember hearing in December 2020 of the death of a two-year old boy, Awaab Ishak. The death of a child is always heartbreaking; a reminder of a life lost, potential wasted and a family no doubt torn apart. What made Awaab’s death all the more shocking was that he died as a result of exposure to what the coroner described as ‘extensive’ mould throughout his parents social housing property, which it then came to light his parents had made their landlord aware of on multiple occasions though no remedial action was ever taken. Sadly, this culminated in the loss of a little boy’s life.

Awaab’s death and the idea that a child, in Britain and in the 21st century could die from exposure to mould rightfully horrified the nation.

In response to this tragedy, the Housing Secretary Michael Gove, has this month launched a consultation on what the government are calling ‘Awaab’s Law,’ which aims to introduce new reforms in social housing to prevent this injustice from reoccurring. Largely these focus on the introduction of new binding timescales under which landlords once becoming aware of a need for repairs (i.e. mould), need to investigate, start and subsequently complete repairs.

Following Awaab’s tragic death, the Awaab’s Law Campaign organized to force the government to bring in legislation around binding timeframes for the reporting and repairs of mould and damp. However, the consultation proposes to go further than this and invites views on providing these repairs under binding timescales for all 29 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), for example, damp/mould, extreme temperature or pests to name a few.

In terms of timescale themselves, the government propose that ‘emergency repairs,’ that is, those that pose an imminent risk to health or safety, such as exposed wiring, loss of gas/water, or the presence of mould to the extent it affects a person’s ability to breathe, should be repaired within 24 hours of reporting. For any repairs that fall under the 29 hazards as set out in the HHSRS (a full list can be found via the link at the bottom of the article), the government propose that social landlords have a 14 day timeframe to launch an investigation and provide a summary of its findings including outlining interim next steps as well as a permanent solution. The landlord will have 7 days from providing that summary to launch the repair works and be expected to provide a schedule to the complainant, with consideration given to their needs, if for example they need to vacate the property.

This is a commendable aim; data by the English Housing Survey suggests that 4% of socially-rented homes have a ‘category 1’ hazard (the most serious hazards under the HHSRS). However, separate date from the Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Housing suggests that 3.6% of private-rented homes were estimated to have category 1 damp and mould hazards. It raises a question of why, if the incidence rates of these risks are broadly similar, does Awaab’s Law apply only to the social-rented sector and disregards the private rented sector?

Its worth noting however that this is not the only proposed exemption to Awaab’s Law. A recently published article by the Guardian highlighted that governments intention is for Awaab’s Law to apply to landlords who are registered providers of social housing and if the dwelling under the lease is classed as social housing – something asylum-seeker accommodation is not often classed as. Charities have criticized this heavily, arguing that it will in effect create a two-tier accommodation system of standards with asylum seekers then more likely to be put into properties that remain hazard to health (whether that be through mould, damp or vermin, for example) but without the binding timeframes of Awaab’s Law to force landlords to take corrective action.

What the government aim to do here is laudable – giving tenants a concrete timeframe on which they can expect their repairs to be done. Previously, the (1985) Landlord and Tenant Act has stipulated that repairs should be done in a reasonable and timely manner with the vague nature of that wording opening tenants up to lengthy and unnecessary delays owing to mixed interpretations of what is ‘reasonable.’ As part of Citizens Advice Gateshead, we know all too well the issues people can face in having their repairs completed in a timely manner. These reforms have the potential to be a landmark moment in tenants rights in regards to repairs and so it beggars belief that these are limited to apply to the socially-rented sector only.

What happened to Awaab Ishak was a tragedy and whilst we welcome any attempt to ensure that lessons are learnt, it would be a mistake to think that the problems associated with getting a landlord to take concerns seriously and action them accordingly are unique to the social-rented sector; we at Society Matters know this  isn’t always the case.

If you would like to learn more about landlord’s responsibilities in social housing we recommend jumping on board our CPD accredited Housing and Homelessness Matter course.

The consultation runs for 8 weeks, closing at 11:59pm on March 5th 2024; if you’d like to give your views, you can do so, and find more information about Awaab’s Law, here https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/awaabs-law-consultation-on-timescales-for-repairs-in-the-social-rented-sector