Temporary Accommodation and UC

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #43422
    Andrew Eland

    I have seen the releases about Supported/Exempt accommodation not going in UC but have I missed something about temporary accommodation.

    Is this going to stay with LA's or not. Have been told the level of subsidy for management fee may decareas to £40 (London rate) for all from £60 if it does.


    At the HB Info conference on Monday, Bill Hern from the HB Strategy Division of DWP simply said this re temporary accommodation. This is quoting from his presentation slide:

    “- We are currently developing our options for how temporary accommodation will operate from April 2013.

    – Our aim is to reform temporary accommodation to simplify provision ahead of the introduction of Universal Credit and to limit the impact of the benefit cap on local authority funding streams. ”

    In other words – We don’t know yet!


    Lord Freud has not passed over his fag packet yet.


    Are there any indications that claimants in Temp Accommodation will remain with LAs for their housing costs?


    Well if the DWP can’t cope with exempt accommodation they sure as hell won’t be able to deal with temporary accommodation. Expect another lump sum thrown at housing authorities to use as they see fit

    Rob Hawes1

    [quote=Chris Dring]Expect another lump sum thrown at housing authorities to use as they see fit[/quote]
    A lump sum which, cunningly, won’t come anywhere near meeting our expenditure.

    Lee Fearon

    Here’s an idea. Why don’t we use our DHP funding.


    The Council is already picking up the tab for temp acc without dipping into DHP funds: the rent is nominally passed to the claimant who gets a rebate based on the full amount, but the Council’s subsidy is limited according to the LHA plus fee formula.

    The benefit cap might increase the amount of local funding required in temp acc cases, but excluding them from UC will not in itself increase any burden on LAs – if UC covered temp acc up to some sort of standard rate and/or until the benefit cap is breached, the Council would still have a duty to provide the accommodation under 1996 Act and would therefore have to cover the difference between what it costs to procure the accommodation and what the DWP will pay.

    Lee Fearon

    I know Peter. It was just a facetious response to the light hearted suggestion that the current funding formulae would be replaced with another limited discretionary fund.

    I say “light hearted” but as things stand, we’d be foolish to rule anything out


    “18. From April 2013 HB subsidy for all temporary accommodation cases will continue to be based on the current arrangements. That is, in most cases, 90 per cent of the appropriate January 2011 LHA rate for the property (not the household size), that the LA places the claimant into; plus £40 (for London authorities) or £60 (for non-London authorities). All the detailed rules set out in the circular HB/CTB S1/2011 will continue to apply.

    19. UC claimants housed in temporary accommodation will receive their housing support as part of their UC. This will be based on the appropriate LHA rate for the household.

    20. The management element for temporary accommodation cases in UC will be separated out and paid directly to LAs in order to protect this funding stream.

    21. We are still considering how the separate management element will be paid for UC claimants, but our preferred option is to provide additional funding through top-ups to LAs discretionary housing payment (DHP) pots with a mechanism to reflect changes in local caseloads.”

    Quoted from Bulletin G10 which has just come out!


    I’m possibly being a bit stupid here, but how will it be possible to award a DHP to these tenants if they are not in receipt of HB? Are the DHP regs being amended to also allow awards where the housing element of UC is in payment?


    I’ve been asked to double check what will happen with LA owned temp accommodation – the circ mentions the privately leased properties LA use to house homeless families.

    I am assuming that we will continue to get 100% subsidy on these even if the LAs charges exceed LHA + £60 (though the cap from April 2013 will certainly have an adverse effect on the amount of the charge covered as some of our LA owned properties have very high charges).


    [quote=Stalbansbenefits]I’m possibly being a bit stupid here, but how will it be possible to award a DHP to these tenants if they are not in receipt of HB? Are the DHP regs being amended to also allow awards where the housing element of UC is in payment?[/quote]

    My understanding from the draft DHP guidance available is that the regs will be amended to allow DHP where UC is in payment. It is after all the panacea for all ills…….

    david farrar

    Just been reading G10, and am not sure it will be on a cost neutral basis.

    A large proportion of our homeless claimants are single under 35s.

    Taking the £60.00 management costs out of the equation…

    HB subsidy is currently based upon 90% of LHA rate for a 1 or 2 bedroom propery (depending upon size of property they are placed in.

    Under UC, housing support element will be based upon LHA rate for shared accommodation.

    This is substantially lower than existing subsidy levels.


    I’m more concerned about the logistics of this under UC:

    a) Some of our TA claims are transitory to say the least so by the time the UC claim is processed the claimant will have moved. This gives the clt no incentive to ask for a DHP to make up the management cost element (even if they are aware they aren’t getting it). (I’m assuming here the DWP are paying the clt direct)

    b) As above, the Council is going to end up seriously out of pocket here because the UC will never get handed over

    c) If we pay a DHP we are effectively paying ourselves, but more importantly Peter (who tried to maintain this is cost neutral) if we award ourselves a DHP there is less money for somebody else – it’s a cash limited budget. At the moment the subsidy loss doesn’t impact on individual claimants’ future DHP

    This is a dog’s breakfast, or cunningly disguised cuts, or both. I seem to be saying this a lot lately.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.