HOUSING BENEFITS

Derby's housing benefits backlog has been declared among the worst in the country, two months after the city council boasted it had beaten national standards. In a quarterly report on the benefits system released this month by the Government's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Derby was listed as taking an average of 70 days to deal with every new claim. In May, a performance monitoring report was presented to the council's cabinet declaring all new housing benefit claims were being dealt with in less than 36 days, the target set by the DWP.

At that time Don McLure, the council's assistant director of revenues and benefits, hoped the standard would be maintained. But the department has found it difficult to cope after external agency Middlesex-based Barony Backlog Busters, brought in to deal with department's massive backlog of 7,400 claims, left in May. It currently takes an average of three weeks for a new claim to be appraised once it arrives in the department.

Marilyn Osborn, benefits manager, said, "Obviously we're fully self-sufficient now. We have appointed new staff but they're in training. And some staff are on holiday. While three weeks to look at a claim is not good, it's better than it was." The department now has a backlog of 3,615 claims. Of these, 1,309 are waiting for additional information from tenants. Of the remaining 2,306 claims, 379 are more than three weeks old. Mr McLure said, "We still need to make improvements but we are keeping up with things."

The DWP has given the council £13,000 to speed up the way it deals with claims in order to meet its targets. This funding will be used to create a mini call-centre to go into the housing benefit department - it will buy new telephone lines and equipment. The lines will be open between 8.30am and 5pm rather than 1.30pm. The changes will be introduced in September and are due to be fully operational by the end of the year.

Housing benefit applications are to be speeded up. New changes will mean tenants can fill in their forms at their local housing office before these are sent to the authority's housing benefit service. The Regional Director for the Home Housing Association Sue Cook said, "The real benefit is going to be for the tenants because they shouldn't have the delays that they've had in getting all the housing benefit processed when all the information isn't there."

A couple living on state benefits enjoyed a luxury lifestyle in a council semi. Janis Gabriel, husband John and their seven children had a heated pool, sauna and conservatory. There was also a £3,000 home cinema system, £3,000 42-inch plasma TV, four-poster water bed, bathroom with spa pool, two cars, two scooters and CCTV surveillance system. Around £18,000 in cash was stashed at the family's home near Burnley, Lancs. And they held hundreds of pounds in four bank accounts.

Gabriel, who received about £2,000 a month in state benefits, is accused of funding the family's lifestyle through the proceeds of criminal activity. She denies two counts of being in possession of criminal property. The jury was given a "guided tour" of the house in a video taken by police when they raided the property in July and September 2003. Prosecutor Paul O'Brien said. "Oh look, a chandelier." But Gabriel, who is defending herself, described the swimming pool as a glorified paddling pool and said the four-poster water bed was to help her husband's bad back.

The conservatory was DIY-built and the automatic garage door taken from a skip. When police raided the house, they found £10,000 in £20 notes wrapped in plastic bundles of £1,000 in a bag under the mattress. Gabriel claimed her husband saved benefit money to pay for household goods. She added, "He is a penny pincher." Mr O'Brien told her, "Gordon Brown would be very envious of your husband." He added that it was "perfectly obvious that the money came from some criminal activity".

A family living on benefits is being housed in a seven-bedroom home at a cost to taxpayers of £147,000 a year. The rent, of £2,827 a week, is being paid to the owner of the London property by Brent council, which negotiated the deal. The ultimate bill is picked up by the Department for Work and Pensions. The claim is the biggest uncovered in an investigation into housing benefits, which cost taxpayers £15 billion a year. Other findings reveal that 550 families across the country are receiving payments worth more than £30,000 a year.

The family in the £147,000-a-year property moved in last July, after they were assessed as needing to live in a home with at least seven bedrooms due to the size of their family group. Brent council has not disclosed the address of the property or the identity of the tenants, but the scale of the rent payments has prompted the Lib Dem-led authority to protest about the way the Government insists that rents levels are set. Until last year, adults who were unemployed or on very low incomes were able to claim means-tested Housing Benefit (HB) to cover their rent in either council-owned or privately-rented properties.

Last year a new benefit, Local Housing Allowance (LHA), replaced HB for tenants in privately-rented properties. In the current financial year, a total of £2.6 billion is expected to be paid out in LHA. The two benefits together support 4.4 million tenants and their dependents. This year the total sum handed out in welfare benefits is expected to reach £165 billion, significantly more than the £140 billion that the state will raise from workers in income tax. Brent council blamed the change in the benefit system for the setting of unreasonably high rents for some tenants on benefits.

A council spokesman said, "The rent and the amount of housing benefit payable for private sector tenants are determined by Government policy and not Brent council. The Department for Work and Pensions changed the rules for calculating housing benefit for new claims from private tenants made after April 2008 and introduced LHA. We believe that LHA works reasonably well in terms of properties up to the five bedroom size. However we feel that above this size there are not sufficient properties for the rent officer to cope with reasonable averages. We have raised our concerns with the Local Government Association." (Source: Daily Telegraph, Jun/09)

Next >>>