It appears that Barnet Council (via the Mayor’s casting vote) are determined to carry on with their plan to raise rents for council tenants, new and existing, to 80% of market rent or top of LHA rates, whichever is lowest.
We previously spent some time on why this was a bloody stupid idea, given the upper income limits that Barnet set on prospective new council (flexible) tenants before.
But this time, it struck me that they may be leaving themselves open to a different kind of challenge, at least for existing tenants.
Let us take an example to see why.
An existing secure tenant, a single mother with 3 kids, unemployed or working less than 16 hours per week. Benefit income of roughly £334.56 per week, not including housing benefit. Currently Housing Benefit would pay 100% of the rent on a 3 bed flat.
Average market rent on a three bed flat in Barnet – £1,660 per month or £383 per week. (Source)
Let us assume, generously, that Barnet Tory Councillor chair of housing committee, Tom Davey, is right when he says top LHA tends to be 65% of market rent. This would mean a council rent level for that 3 bed flat of £1078.78 per month or £248.95 per week.
So total benefit income and housing benefit for this tenant would have to be £583.51 per week. Except it can’t be, because the benefit cap restricts all benefit income including HB to £500 per week. So under Barnet’s proposals, our tenant would suddenly have a shortfall of £83.51 per week. This is unaffordable by any standards. (Based on current benefit cap of £26K. Of course any reduction to £23K in London as proposed by the Conservatives would make things worse).
To cut to the chase, Barnet’s proposals would make their homes unaffordable for some, perhaps many existing tenants who are subject to the benefit cap.
Now the Supreme Court in SG & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (SSWP) [2015] UKSC 16 accepted that:
The majority of non-working households with children are single parent households, and the vast majority of single parents are women (92% in 2011). A statistically higher number of women than men are therefore affected by the cap.
Granted, the Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, found the benefit cap discriminatory but justified. But that does not affect the next step in my argument.
It is clear that Barnet’s proposed rent increases for existing tenants would have a severely deleterious effect on some, perhaps many, households subject to the benefit cap. It is also clear – as accepted by the Supreme Court – that this would disproportionately affect women.
Now, the Public Sector Equality Duty requires Barnet to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.
If Barnet are proposing to carry out a rent increase, solely for the purpose of raising revenue (as they have stated), which disproportionately has a severe effect on existing tenants who are women, then prima facie there is a case that they have failed to have regard to their public sector equality duty in implementing a discriminatory policy.
So, questions:
- Have Barnet carried out an Equality Impact Assessment on this proposal?
-
If so, did the EIA address the issue of existing tenants subject to the benefit cap and the disproportionate effect on women?
-
Did Barnet obtain legal advice on the PSED as it applies to this policy (from their out-sourced legal department, as they have none of their own. (Let us not forget the report that found that “There is no-one who understands local government law in depth at Barnet. Barnet employs no lawyers.”).
If the answer to any of these questions is no, I think there might be a problem.. And a possible challenge to the lawfulness of the decision.
We can’t end without noting the utter gibberish pronounced by Tory councillor and housing committee chair, Tom Davey:
“No change is not an option. We cannot live in a world that is static.”
He added: “The less you work, the less you pay. It’s the ultimate incentive not to work. We are on the side of working families.”
Yes, he is proposing eviction and homelessness as an ‘incentive to work’, regardless of people’s situation.
The outcome of the consultation is being reported back to Housing Committee and a decision made on 22 or 27 April, depending on whether you believe the Forward Plan or the Committee Browser. A full EqIA is required (said the October Report at 5.5.3 October) to accompany the report back. Nothing is yet published.
One oddity – Barnet are supposed to be in purdah, yet this intended report must involve a report back from consultation on a politically sensitive issue.
It looks like it’s 27 April that the Housing Committee is meeting.
There are 3 current LHA rates for Barnet 3-bed flats (indeed all property); at which rates Council rent at 80% will run between £242.40 and £283.57.
Sorry – it’s not 80% of LHA – it’s 100%. So the new rent, if at LHA, would run between £303.00 and £354.46 per week. I’d guess that 80% of PRS mean is significantly higher than that. While the borough median, which you quote, is £383, the borough mean will be higher, because the upper tail of the distribution will be much longer.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that your figures make it look better for Barnet than it really is…
Yes, not sure about the mean figures, but those LHA rates as rent level would make the shortfall on a benefit cap of £500 per week very significantly worse than my first rough figures. I suspect a 2 bed for a 1 parent three child, or one parent two child household would also be facing a shortfall.
And the LHA rate will be key, rather than the 80% of market rent. So to that extent the mean/median difference doesn’t matter.
I was right – Inner North London LHA for a 2 bed £302.33 pw. A 1 parent, 2 children household benefits (less HB) £225.55 pw. So a shortfall of £27.88 per week on a two bed flat at rent of max LHA results fro the benefit cap. The other two LHA areas are *just* inside the current benefit cap total.
Report for decision on 27 April now published. It’s now purely a report back on consultation, with no recommendations for revising or approving the Strategy as it stands or revised.
Interestingly, the online survey element of the consultation doesn’t seem to have given the opportunity to comment directly on the proposed rental increases…
The written responses were “mainly against” the increase.
That report is the one from October 2014?
Sorry – I must have had both reports open and copied the wrong URL – this is the correct one.
“An initial high level outline equalities impact assessment identified the need for a full equalities impacts assessment which will be completed and reported to the Housing Committee when the final draft of the Housing Strategy is submitted for approval. Feedback from the consultation will also feed in to the equalities impact assessment.”
Hmm.
Surely this is madness from a homelessness perspective?… not IH as not reasonable to continue to occupy, under Part VII must secure suitable ‘affordable’ accommodation… no affordable accommodation in Barnet… oh, wait.
Steph: aha but they’re going to then send them all to Yorkshire ….
(I cant even pretend Im joking, I’ve seen 3 people rehoused in Leeds by London Authorities recently)
Cait