MPs demand better protection for disabled claimants on DLA/PIP who claim DHPs

Mon,11 January 2016
News

Work and Pensions Committee's report on the local welfare safety net

Read report

This report examines local authority provision under the local welfare safety net, defined as:

  • Council Tax support
  • Discretionary Housing Payments
  • Local welfare assistance schemes

With regard to Discretionary Housing Payments the report says

“7. It was not the Government’s intention that the removal of the social sector spare room subsidy or the Benefit Cap should penalise disabled people and their carers. We believe that, in cases where these people cannot reasonably be expected to work or earn more, or be helped to move to cheaper accommodation, they must either be suitably protected from unintended effects by DHPs or exempted from the reforms. (Paragraph 54)

8. We recommend that the Government put on to a statutory footing guidance which makes clear that local authorities must not take into account DLA/PIP awards in their calculations of applicants’ income in relation to DHP award decisions without also taking into account the extra costs incurred by the applicant as a result of their disability. The guidance must also prohibit local authorities from requiring DHP applicants to demonstrate that they have actively sought to move to cheaper accommodation in cases where the applicant in question is disabled and lives in a specially adapted home. (Paragraph 55)

9. We recommend that parents or guardians who care full-time for their adult disabled children, who are in receipt of DLA/PIP and consequently not considered part of the same household for benefit purposes, be exempted from the Benefit Cap. We further recommend that the DWP conduct research—to be completed within six months—into the characteristics of people affected by the Benefit Cap and the removal of the spare room subsidy whose options to remedy the effects—i.e. working more or moving home—are severely limited. It was not the Government’s intention to affect such people and time-limited DHPs are clearly inadequate to protect them. (Paragraph 56)”