Show Hide image Politics 20 March 2015 Iain Duncan Smith's universal credit: bad for landlords, worse for tenants Iain Duncan Smith's universal credit is bad news for tenants and landlords alike – and I should know. Print HTML “Very little progress has been achieved on the front line.” That was the damning conclusion of Margaret Hodge, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee following the committee’s most recent report on the roll out of the Universal Credit Programme. It is a conclusion that sadly private sector landlords will concur with. Over 25% of tenants in the private recent sector are in receipt of housing benefit and as an organisation, the Residential Landlords Association supports the principles behind Universal Credit. For too many years the benefits system has become a complex minefield to navigate and so simplification is an aim we can and should all be working to. The question however is whether Universal Credit, as it is currently designed, achieves this aim. Based on results from an RLA survey of its members, the answer is, not yet. Of those private sector landlords who had tenants on Universal Credit, 63% said that those same tenants were in arrears on their rent. Of this group of landlords, 85% had contacted the Department for Work and Pensions to have the housing element of Universal Credit paid directly to them. Over 57% of this group however said that it had taken the Department over 5 weeks to respond to the request; with 65% noting that they found the process either "tricky" or "very difficult." At the time that the Welfare Reform Act was passing through Parliament, Ministers persistently refused to allow tenants in receipt of Universal Credit to opt to have the housing element paid directly to their landlord. Such a policy, they argued, was designed to help tenants learn how to budget finances in preparation for the world of work. However laudable the intentions were, as the RLA’s survey shows, along with the experiences of a number of social housing providers, Universal Credit is leading to increases in rent arrears. This is particularly difficult for the almost 90% of private sector landlords in the country who are individuals renting out just one or two properties for whom having to face a prolonged period of rent arrears can be crippling. To make matters worse, even when a tenant reaches 8 weeks of arrears, the Department for Work and Pensions still does not provide any assurances that benefit payments will be made direct to the landlord, leaving open the prospect of arrears building for an indefinite period. In short, the current system is needlessly putting tenancies in jeopardy. Faced with such compelling problems, there can be only one responsible choice, namely allowing tenants in receipt of Universal Credit to have payments of the housing element paid directly to the landlord, a policy called for within the RLA’s own manifesto for the private rented sector. Apart from it beggaring belief that a Government supposedly committed to enabling individuals to make their own decisions, it is a policy like no other in the rental market that enjoys support across the board. As the Money Advice Trust has previously told the RLA, such a policy “would enable many tenants to avoid housing benefit arrears and thus tackle their debts and manage their money wisely.” Landlords want it because it will provide certainty of income and make them more willing to rent to those in receipt of benefits. And more recently still, a recent compelling report published jointly by Women’s Aid and the Trades Union Congress on the problems of women who face financial bullying at the hands of their partners argued that direct payment of housing benefits to landlord could play a part in addressing such a concerning problem. It’s a policy that the Government in Northern Ireland is introducing and if it is good enough for tenants and landlords there it should surely be good enough for them across the rest of the country as well. There is more that needs to be done to support the majority of private sector tenants who are under the age of 35. According to the English Housing Survey, almost half of all households aged between 25 and 34 were renting in the private rented sector. Yet despite this, Ministers have presided over a welfare system that means benefit claimants in this age group can claim only for a room in a shared house, whilst simultaneously allowing local authorities to introduce planning rules that are restrict the growth of such housing. It is time that the next Government got a grip of these contradictory policies and commit to a full review of whether there is enough shared housing to meet the increased demand that they themselves have created. If it does not, the consequences for those in need of somewhere to live could be very serious as landlords conclude that renting to those on benefits is simply too risky to continue. A DWP spokesman said: Universal Credit is paid to claimants directly each month giving them responsibility for managing all of their money, just as other people have to who are already in paid employment. This measure will help them to develop simple budgeting skills in preparation for moving into the world of work themselves. Our research has shown that 78 per cent of claimants are confident that they can manage their own finances. › Britain's climate sceptics' dishonest tactics need to stop Alan Ward is Chairman of the Residential Landlords Association and a landlord himself. The RLA tweets @RLA_News. More Related articles Diane James quits Ukip seven weeks after quitting the leadership too Theresa May just scrapped her own brilliant pro-business idea Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent? Subscription offer 12 issues for £12 + FREE book LEARN MORE Close This week’s magazine
Show Hide image The Staggers 21 November 2016 No, John McDonnell, people earning over £42,000 have not been "hit hard" by the Conservatives The shadow chancellor's decision to support this tax cut is as disappointing as it is innumerate. Print HTML John McDonnell has backed Conservative plans to raise the point at which you start paying the 40p rate (that’s 40p of every pound earned after you hit the threshold) to above £45,000 by April 2017 (part of the Conservative manifesto pledge to raise the 40p rate so that it only covers people earning above £50,000 by 2020). Speaking to the BBC, the shadow chancellor said that those affected “need a tax giveaway at the moment because the mismanagement of the economy by the Conservatives is hitting them hard”. Is he right? Well, let’s crunch some numbers. Let’s say I earn £42,000, my partner doesn’t work and we have two children. That puts our household in the upper 30 per cent of all British earners, and, thanks to changes to tax and benefits, we are 1.6 per cent worse off than an equivalent household in 2010. Have we been “hit hard”? Well, no, actually, in point of fact, we have been the least affected of any household with children of the coalition. The pattern holds for every type of household that will feel the benefit of the 40p rate hike. Those with children have seen smaller decreases (1.0-2.3 per cent) in their living standards that those in the bottom three-quarters of the income distribution. The beneficiaries of this change without children, excluding pensioners, who have done well out of Conservative-led governments but are unaffected by this change, have actually seen increases in their tax-home incomes already under David Cameron. There is no case that they need a bigger one under Theresa May. But, nonetheless, they’re getting one, and it’s the biggest bung to higher earners since Margaret Thatcher was in office. For context: a single parent family earning £42,000 is in the top 15 per cent of earners. A family in which one person is earning above £42,000 and the other is working minimum wage for 16 hours to look after their two children is in the top 13 per cent. A single person earning £42,000 is in the top 6 per cent of earners. That’s before you get into the big winners from this policy, because higher earners tend to marry other higher earners. A couple with one person earning £45,000 and the other earning £35,000 is in the top three per cent of earners. A couple in which both are earning £45,000 with one child are in the top four per cent. (Childless couples earning above average income are, incidentally, the only working age demographic to do better since 2010 than under New Labour.) And these are not cheap tax cuts, either. To meet the Conservative proposal to raise the 40p rate to £50,000 by 2020 will cost £9bn over the course of the parliament, and giving a tax cut to “hard-pressed” earners on £42,000 will cost around £1.7bn. The political argument for giving up on taxing this group is fairly weak, too. Hostilty to tax rises among swing voters extends all the way up to the super-rich, so Labour’s commitment to the top rate of tax has already hurt them among voters. To win support even for that measure, the party is going to have to persuade voters of the merits of tax-and-spend – it makes no sense to eschew the revenue from people in the top five per cent of earners while still taking the political pian. Which isn’t to say that people earning above £42,000 should be tarred and feathered, but it is to say that any claim that this group has been “hit hard” by the government or that they should be the target for further tax relief, rather than clawing back some of the losses to the Exchequer of the threshold raise and the planned hike in the higher rate to £50,000, should be given extremely short shrift. Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics. More Related articles Diane James quits Ukip seven weeks after quitting the leadership too Theresa May just scrapped her own brilliant pro-business idea Is Francois Fillon Marine Le Pen's dream opponent?