Since January this year new rent supplement eligibility rules have been in place. One will only qualify for rent supplement if one has a six month rental history, unless one has been assessed as homeless or having a housing need or is in receipt of one of the qualifying payments for an exemption. Similarly, a person whose spouse is working over 30 hours a week is no longer eligible, nor is a person who refuses two offers of local authority housing within a continuous 12 month period.
The report was commissioned in response to the changes in the eligibility rules for rent supplement in the previous budget. The purpose of the study was to identify issues arising in the first six months since the changes were made. Above all, the study shows the human impact of the changes and that there is a story behind every refusal.
On 2 December the Minister for Social and Family Affairs answered a parliamentary question by saying "the purpose of the supplementary welfare allowance is to deal with emergencies and short-term needs that arise when a person has a change in circumstances, for example when a tenant becomes unemployed and can no longer afford their rent". However, in practice, this is not the case. A case highlighted in our study proves this.
A young man became ill, lost his job as a result and began receiving disability benefit. While he was sick, friends cared for him. He has now fully recovered and wishes to move into a private rented house and get a job. However, he has been refused rent supplement as he has no history of renting. This man cannot understand the reason he has been refused as he had a history of work and paid taxes for seven years and only wishes to receive assistance with his rent payments until such time as he gets back on his feet. The irony is that if he was in receipt of disability allowance, he would be exempt from the rules.
One should look at the changes from the point of view of someone who is working and earning a decent wage and who loses his or her job after renting for four months. Under the six month rule, someone will lose his or her home as well as his or her job. Nobody has savings in reserve to pay the high rents charged, particularly in Dublin. Many must uproot themselves and move in with family or friends until their circumstances improve. The requirement for a six month rental history is proving to have adverse affects in many situations, including on people who are homeless, particularly those in situations of hidden homelessness or who may be at risk of homelessness.
Many people are living with parents, siblings or friends where they are unwanted but cannot satisfy the six month renting rule and more than likely will not be assessed as having a housing need by a local authority. A young pregnant woman plans to leave home after she has her baby. Problems have developed with her parents and she wants a stress free environment for the child. However, obtaining her own place is impossible as she cannot get rent supplement without a six month rental history. Must she make herself homeless before she can improve her situation?
The study highlights the difficult situations people get into when they find themselves having to deal with an unexpected crisis in their lives. One woman, wishing to leave her husband because their relationship had badly deteriorated, wanted to get rent supplement until such time as she got her life back on track. She was refused until such time as she underwent a housing needs assessment. It is very unlikely that she will be assessed as having a housing need unless the person carrying out the assessment is aware of her domestic circumstances. This is often not the case. The woman concerned will also have to remain in the family home until such time as the assessment is carried out, which can take a number of weeks, if not months. She fears she will not be able to stay that long.
Similarly, a young man discovered that his wife was having an affair and left the family home. He had nowhere to stay and resorted to sleeping in his car. Again, he was told he would have to have a housing needs assessment carried out before he would be able to receive rent supplement. Therefore, he has no choice but to continue sleeping in his car. These are some of the most severe cases information centres were faced with. What alternatives do the people concerned have?
The changes may be working in reducing the cost and the numbers in receipt of rent supplement but it is not working for people in crisis. As information and advice organisations, it is our responsibility to tell policymakers about the impact of policy changes. The basic premise of a social welfare system is that it acts as a safety net for people in crisis and living in poverty. In its current restricted form, rent supplement is not acting as a safety net for everyone who needs it. In the cases outlined we ask what alternatives do the people concerned have?
In the short term we are calling for the rent supplement rules to go back to what they were before January 2004 and community welfare officers to be given back their discretionary powers. This system was not ideal but it caused fewer crises. For the relatively small amount the changes are saving, compared to other wasted expenses, there is a huge human cost involved. We appeal to the committee to do its best to have them reversed until an alternative has been put in place.