discretionary housing payments

  • DHPs – principle and practice

    Issue 250 (February 2016)
    article

    Gwyneth King considers the role of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) in mitigating some of the effects of cuts contained in welfare reform measures.

  • Discretionary housing payments policy note

    January 2015
    briefing

    This policy note considers the role that discretionary housing payments (DHPs) have played over the last four years in mitigating the impact of ‘welfare reform’. Specifically, it considers the extent to which DHPs have provided sufficient time and space for families to adapt to reduced levels of state support reducing risk of homelessness, as well as the role that DHPs have played protecting vulnerable groups from unlawful implementation of key provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

  • Families on the brink: welfare reform in London


    page

    London has the highest child poverty rates and highest housing costs in the UK. This means that the capital has been hit particularly hard by changes to the benefits system, particularly cuts to housing benefit. London households have lost almost £7 per week more than the average UK household.

  • Guide to welfare reforms for local authority staff and their partners


    page

    A (long) plain language guide to welfare reforms for local authority staff and their partners

    A wide reaching programme of welfare reform is underway that will have a significant impact on child poverty levels across local authorities. The scope of the welfare reform programme is broad, and a number of reforms will affect a variety of family types, and for many households, these effects will be cumulative.

  • Welfare reform – early impacts

    Issue 231 (December 2012)
    article

    Kate Bell looks gives an overview of what early research has uncovered about the future impact of welfare reform.

  • CPAG criticises housing payments cut

    January 30, 2015
    press release

    Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has strongly criticised the government’s decision, announced today, to cut local authorities’ budgets for discretionary housing payments by 24% (from £165m in 2014 -15 to £125m for 2015-16)1

    • 1. Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 SI No. 11167 p1599
    Read more
  • Looking for families affected by the benefit cap

    9 August 2016
    news

    This autumn the benefit cap will be cut, squeezing low-income families even further and pushing more people into poverty. We are looking for test cases to legally challenge the benefit cap.

    Read more
  • Plugging the gap? DHPs in the light of housing benefit cuts

    Issue 224 (October 2011)
    article

    Edward Graham takes a look at discretionary housing payments (DHPs) and considers their scope to help claimants meet their rent in the light of the cuts to housing benefit (HB).

  • Supreme Court to decide on ‘unlawful’ bedroom tax


    Share

    Following last month’s victory in the Court of Appeal, the battle continues for Paul and Sue Rutherford and their severely disabled grandson, Warren. The Court held that the ‘bedroom tax’ (or under-occupancy penalty) is in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, unlawfully discriminating against disabled children requiring overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in Sanctuary Scheme Homes (in the case of ‘A’). The Government was quick to appeal this decision. We have been representing the Rutherford family since 2013 and will be in the Supreme Court defending the Court of Appeal’s decision from 29 February. SSWP v Rutherfords has been joined with other bedroom tax cases, MA & Others and A.

  • What is happening to discretionary housing payments?


    Share

    If you had heard the Minister for Disabled People, Mark Harper, reassuring MP on Monday this week about future funding levels of Discretionary Housing Payments (which help vulnerable families hit by housing benefit cuts to meet their rent payments and prevent homelessness), you would be forgiven for believing that, on this issue, the Government was making adequate resources available to meet needs. And no-one would blame you for not realising that funding for this lifeline has been cut by 24% for next year.