Funding for emergency rent help is cut by £10k

Suzy Drohan

Suzy Drohan

First published in News The Oxford Times: Photograph of the Author by , Health reporter, also covering Kidlington. Call me on 01865 425271

MONEY to support people hit by the “bedroom tax” has been cut by more than £10,000, it has been revealed.

Oxford City Council’s discretionary housing payments (DHP) grant is used to help people facing homelessness should they not be able to cover their rent.

But the pot has been cut from £525,369 in 2013/14 to £514,496 this year, 2014/15.

This is despite a council report claiming demand could rise for the payments, which are aimed at helping short-term crises.

Suzy Drohan, manager of Oxfordshire Welfare Rights, which helps people with their benefit claims, raised concerns.

She said: “We wouldn’t welcome any cuts to the most vulnerable. We know what a difference it can make.

“I view the payments not as an open-ended solution but it might buy you time to sort your issues out.

“It may be the discretionary housing payment is what they need to get by.

“Some people might not be applying for it when they should be, so there is the awareness of doing it.”

Residents can apply for the payments if their housing benefit does not cover their rent and they risk becoming homeless.

In March the Oxford Mail reported the Labour-run council had to hand back a £100,000 underspend to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – which gives out the cash – for 2013/14.

The council underspent by £200,000 last year, but was able to keep half of that.

Last year a total of 802 payments – for 498 people – were granted out of 1,006 applications.

Executive board member for benefits and customer services Susan Brown said a delay in rolling out ‘Universal Credit’ – where benefits are combined – in 2013/14 meant there were fewer claims than expected.

Related links

But demand for DHP could rise when it is introduced and some see their benefits cut, she said.

A DWP spokesman said the council had managed its budget “carefully”.

He said: “Last year we gave local authorities £180m in DHP funding to help people through the introduction of our reforms, including a £20m reserve fund which councils could bid for. Oxford City Council did not apply.

“Our reforms are bringing fairness back to a social housing system in which around 300,000 households were living in overcrowded conditions while over 800,000 bedrooms went spare.”

The report was discussed by the council’s scrutiny committee on Tuesday.

  • For details of how to apply for the paycall 01865 249811

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:41pm Fri 9 May 14

JonathanWilson says...

Wow, did the council not read or watch any of the debates or legislation prior or after the introduction of the bedroom tax (spare room penalty, its official title) the additional amounts given toward DHP's were always going to be cut year on year until no additional DHP support was given.

The idea being that everyone would have been magically moved around to fit into smaller homes by the eventual cut off point and freed up massive amounts of housing for every one on the waiting lists *snorts derisively* but none saw the massive flaw in the logic... very few single bedroom homes, not much better on the two bedroom homes, and most of the people on the waiting lists also wanting the smaller homes, who originally would have required 3 bedroom places, but due to children under ten (different sex) or under 17 (same sex) would immediately fall foul of the bedroom tax once placed in a three bedroom house *DOH!*

Cockup or deliberate?
Wow, did the council not read or watch any of the debates or legislation prior or after the introduction of the bedroom tax (spare room penalty, its official title) the additional amounts given toward DHP's were always going to be cut year on year until no additional DHP support was given. The idea being that everyone would have been magically moved around to fit into smaller homes by the eventual cut off point and freed up massive amounts of housing for every one on the waiting lists *snorts derisively* but none saw the massive flaw in the logic... very few single bedroom homes, not much better on the two bedroom homes, and most of the people on the waiting lists also wanting the smaller homes, who originally would have required 3 bedroom places, but due to children under ten (different sex) or under 17 (same sex) would immediately fall foul of the bedroom tax once placed in a three bedroom house *DOH!* Cockup or deliberate? JonathanWilson
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree