Think tank calls for direct payment extension
Direct payments of housing benefit should be extended to social tenants, an influential think tank has argued.
A report from Demos on welfare reform suggests housing association and council tenants should receive the same individual choice and control over their rent payments as those renting privately.
Authors Rob Harvey and Rob Murdoch from employment contractor A4e said reforming housing benefit would be key to improving the welfare system ‘due to its central role in creating work disincentives, its poor support for individuals seeking to move from unemployment into work, and the problems caused by the way the benefit is administered’.
They recommend that in the long term, the local housing allowance system of direct payments to tenants should also apply to social tenants. The report says: ‘In the longer term there is a good case for considering the extension of the LHA model of individual choice and control – and broad housing allowances based on location not property – to the social rented sector.’
The National Housing Federation said providers would be very concerned about the effect this would have on their viability, as 65 per cent of their rental income comes from housing benefit.
Sam Lister, policy and practice officer at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said it would be extremely difficult to pilot an introduction of LHA to the social sector as protecting landlords from any losses would confuse analysis of how effective the scheme is.
‘If adequate safeguards over arrears were put in place, there is no reason why LHA should not be rolled out to social tenants,’ he said. ‘The whole idea of social security benefits is that people have choice and housing benefit is currently an anomaly in that respect.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (20)
Melvin Bone | 22/04/2010 9:17 am
Housing association tenants already have the option of direct pay for their LHA...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
worried well | 22/04/2010 9:36 am
In the last decade one of the real problems that has plagued the public sector is the opinions of people who have no real knowledge. Clever in the sense that they did well at school and university. No knowledge in that they come up with ideas in a room. They do not work in the system nor do they have any knowledge of the people. They are often politically aligned and they apply market concepts such as choice or the free market to problems in the belief that these solve all problems. Historically this has been proven not to be true. For every problem they come across they are looking new ways to apply choice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B.S.Townroe | 22/04/2010 9:45 am
On the basis that it's been such a runaway success in the private sector...... Demos - just which 'people' do you represent?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 22/04/2010 10:16 am
Hmmm, Right leaning ideology perhaps?? Could be a stroke of genius, get some vulnerable RSL tenants to manage their own money, get themselves into serious financial strife and get evcted - that's one less social unit you'll have to build - watch those waiting lists plummet!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
darchangel | 22/04/2010 10:23 am
I'm sorry, but a large minority of social tenants with poor money management skills will spend the money elsewhere, not pay their rent, eventually get evicted, then re-present themselves at the local Homeless Service.
All those rent arrears will eventually be written off, as the tenant has no means with which to pay them, and they end up with free accommodation in the meantime.
I agree with Frontline perspective - it's all well and good being 'clever', but the term 'common sense' is a misnomer, as it's not nearly as common as we'd like to think!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
peter | 22/04/2010 11:29 am
This will only work (not sure) if you criminalise the tenants who are receiving the benefit, do not pay their rent because they had prioritised the need to use the money they received on something else. Is this what the State wants to do? Not mention the fact, they may lose their home making themselves intentionally homeless.
This is not a new idea and had failed before. So what is the real reason to resurrect this rehashed scheme?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Howie | 22/04/2010 11:35 am
B.S. Townroe askes "Demos - just which 'people' do you represent?"
Fortunately they are a think tank and therefore do not have to represent the interests of private landlords, RSLs,banks, etc.
They are therefore free to consider how to change a system which most people recognise is at the route of many propblems in the social housing sector without having to worry about upsetting any vested interests. The solution will inevitably be difficult and will upset have unpleasant consequences for some but if the perverse incentives created by HB can be removed it most tenants will be better off.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Stokes | 22/04/2010 11:57 am
They clearly have absolutely no clue or real experience of the Social Housing sector. Anyone working in rent arrears will tell you that is the most disastrous thing that could happen and would treble rent arrears in a matter of months not to mention the exponential increase in evictions that would inevitably follow! If you want true choice then you should be asking the tax payers who fund housing benefit how they would like to see their money used!!!!! Anyone who knows anything about social housing knows this would be a complete disaster, do not listen to them please!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Senior Home Income Manager | 22/04/2010 12:18 pm
Housing Benefit payments going directly to tenants, will have a direct, negative impact on social housing across the board. Faced with a £400 cheque in the post, and other bills to pay tenants will have an agonising choice - pay the rent and risk arrears action from a decent, understanding social landlord OR pay the catalogue company, buy the kids new uniforms, or the council tax bailiffs if things are that bad. This is not giving people choice - this is giving them a huge decision to make, and then leaving social landlords to pick up the pieces. NO WAY should HB be changed in this way... let's have a proper discussion about extending benefits payments to those going back into work, and stop the madness of suspending claims for changes in benefits, when the tenants' net income is often unchanged - just switching from say JSA to IS of whatever. This causes huge stress and complications for people... and leave social landlords to do their vital work - supporting people to live and stay in their homes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
B.S.Townroe | 22/04/2010 1:49 pm
Howie, in case you don't know 'demos' is the Greek for 'people'. Any group with that word in its name is making a clear claim to represent or even be 'the people'. Malaka.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment