Underoccupation, Housing Benefit and the ‘Bedroom Tax’
The Impact of the Social Sector Size Criteria
The Social Sector Size Criteria
• Currently Housing Benefit paid for tenants in social housing takes no account of the size of property required
• In contrast to payment of LHA to private sector tenants
• Control on access to larger homes in social sector has been
via allocation/letting policy
•Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduces SSSC
• reduction in HB entitlement if discrepancy between size of
home occupied and size of home required
• 14% reduction for 1 ‘spare’ bedroom, 25% for 2+ bedrooms
• 670,000 affected
Why introduce the SSSC?
According to DWP:
“to contain growing Housing Benefit expenditure; encourage mobility
within the social rented sector; strengthen work-incentives and make
better use of available social housing”
However…
• HB expenditure will only reduce if people don’t move
• Better use of stock depends on people moving
…so it’s critical to understand:
• how people will behave
• the capacity to meet need/demand
Predicting behaviour: existing knowledge
“there is little research that provides any indication about the possible
behavioural impacts” (DWP)
• No direct precedent for policy
• Models based on ‘extremes’ unlikely
• Most research on downsizing focused on older tenants/owner occupiers
• Existing evidence:
• Housing moves/downsizing linked to ‘correcting disequilibrium’
• Most underoccupying tenants think their homes are the ‘right size’**
• Strong inertia – most would not move even if rents were up to £10pw
higher than if they moved**** DWP Impact Assessment, 2011** Department of the Environment, 1992*** Walker et al, 2000/2002
Tenant behaviour: the research
• Aim: understand how those affected by the SSSC might respond
• Survey of tenants who would be affected by SSSC to understand current
circumstances and likely response to loss of benefit
• Telephone survey in summer 2011
• Sample of 452 tenants of 3 housing associations
• Not fully nationally representative, but key demographics broadly
reflective of population affected by SSSC
Our research: current circumstances
Tenants and their home:
• Average length of tenancy 11 years
• Underoccupation often result of ‘empty nests’ but 41% underoccupying
from outset of tenancy
• 79% had only one bedroom in excess of the SSSC standard
• 27% claimed not to have any ‘spare’ bedrooms
• May occur if people expected to share are not doing so
• One in five had home adaptations for disability
Desire to move
• Most (82%) happy with size of current home
• Desire to move mostly linked to external factors eg dissatisfaction with
neighbourhood, rather than with the home
• Desire to downsize limited (7%) but related factors (eg stairs, unsuitable for
living with disability) given by further 15%
• Financial factors practically never mentioned (1%)
Benefits and Finances
• Majority claiming out-of-work benefits, but only 16% claiming JSA
• 19% of household include someone in employment
• 43% having some difficulty getting by financially
• 72% ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever’ have money left over at the end of the
week/month
• 41% run out of money before the end of week/month always or most of the
time
• Difficult to predict who is most likely to be struggling financially
• Not correlated with household composition, employment or receipt of
benefits
Impact of the SSSC
• Average loss of £13pw – most will lose less than £15pw
• 52% state will be ‘very difficult’, 31% ‘fairly difficult’ to pay this extra
towards rent
Response to the SSSC
Very likely Quite likely Unsure Quite unlikely
Very unlikely
Fall into rent arrears 18% 17% 16% 37% 35%
Seek to move to a smaller property
13% 12% 15% 10% 50%
Earn money through work to pay rent
15% 14% 11% 6% 53%
Ask for support from someone else in household to pay rent
4% 6% 4% 2% 84%
Ask for support from someone else outside household to pay rent
5% 9% 5% 7% 74%
Move in a family member 3% 8% 11% 8% 70%
Take in a lodger 2% 3% 8% 5% 82%
Likelihood of downsizing due to SSSC
% quite/very likely to consider downsizing due to SSSC
All tenants (n=452) 25%
Tenants with 1 bedroom in excess of bedroom standard (n=356)
23%
Tenants with 2 or more bedrooms in excess of bedroom standard (n=96)
34%
Tenants with one or more spare bedrooms in property (n=330)
31%
Tenants without a spare bedroom (n=122) 17%
Tenants who believe home too big (n=54) 74%
Tenants who believe home the right size or too small (n=398)
18%
• Relationship between desire to move in general and willingness to downsize
• No clear relationship with financial impact of SSSC and willingness to
downsize
Implication for landlords - Allocations
• Survey findings on underoccupancy since start of tenancy backed up by
allocations data (CORE)
• 36% of singles/couples allocated 2 bed+ property*• Shortage of one bedroomed properties, relative the demand from single person/couple households.
• Two bedroomed bungalows best suited to the needs of the elderly – mostly singles/couples
• Small bedrooms only suitable for one occupant each, but large numbers of families with young children to
accommodate
• To try to reduce child densities on a problematic estate.
• To support a household to accommodate part-time children (such as those who visit at weekends) or to
foster children.
• In anticipation of an increase in family size or needs
• To incentivise downsizing by offering a property that still allows one spare bedroom
• Decants offered a like for like swap for their current home.
*CORE 2009/10
Implications for Social Landlords - Rent arrears
Average weekly shortfall £14
Estimated % tenants failing to pay*
42%
Potential weekly arrears £3,292,800
Potential annual arrears £171 million
*Estimated from survey data
Case Studies – Local Impact
• Local mismatches between demand and supply are likely
• Up to 8 years of relets required to accommodate those who may wish to
downsize
Case Studies – Local Impact
• In many areas supply of smaller properties will be greatly less than required
• Either for potential demand for those affected by SSSC wishing to
downsize
• Or to meet need from HB-dependent households waiting for social
housing
• This cannot be redressed in the short-term
Case Studies – Local Impact
• Alternative accommodation in the Private Rented Sector liable to higher rents
Case Studies – Local Impact
Focus groups identified potential impact on households and communities:
• Those unable to move required to live on below benefit-level income
• Risk of increase in doorstep lending and severe financial difficulties
• Loss of flexibility in living arrangements
• Disruption to settled communities and support networks
Conclusions
• Policy outcomes will be heavily dependent on constraints on exercising choice
• Financial impacts significant:
• For tenants - but difficult to predict who will be hardest hit
• For social landlords – especially in areas of high underoccupation and low supply of smaller properties
• Extreme pressures on available 1 bed properties
•Wider impact beyond 670,000 directly hit – on allocations, older people etc.