11.12 We are already working to improve the delivery of Housing Benefit. We are making sure that local authorities have the tools to administer Housing Benefit effectively.
11.13 Two key initiatives are underway which will enhance information sharing and significantly improve the transfer of data from the Benefits Agency (and its successors) to local authorities:
•
We have provided local authorities with on-line access to relevant information on customers’ Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance claims held by the Benefits Agency through Remote Access Terminals. This means local authorities can immediately see whether thesebenefits are in payment rather than waiting for the Benefits Agency to send the details clerically. This has the potential to improve accuracy and cut down delays. In a recent DSS survey, local authorities reported that the use of Remote Access Terminals has had a positive impact on Housing Benefit administration. Virtually all local authorities now have at least one Remote Access Terminal, or have applied for one. Many local authorities have found them so helpful that they have asked for further terminals; and
•
We are building on the Remote Access Terminals programme to transform the way we send information to local authorities. Every year the Benefits Agency sends up to 20 million forms with details of benefit awards, changes of circumstance and notifications of the end of claims, through the post to local authorities. This is slow and things go missing. By September 2000 nearly all of this information will be sent electronically. In an early trial it took just 2 days (instead of 6 days) for local authorities to get information from the Benefits Agency.11.14 We have brought in changes to the Housing Benefit scheme to improve the service, and reduce the administrative complexities. For example:
•
We have made special provision for homeless people seeking hostel accommodation to ensure that the legal requirement to provide verified evidence of identity does not create a barrier to helping them off the streets. We are also supporting Westminster City Council in a pilot scheme offering a short claim form for hostel residents to act as the trigger for initial payment of Housing Benefit for up to six weeks; and•
We have simplified the processes of rent officer determinations to make it a speedier process for people claiming Housing Benefit for private rented accommodation, by requiring rent officers to notify fewer determinations to local authorities.11.15 We are introducing legislation which will replace Housing Benefit review boards with a new appeals structure, in line with the rest of the benefit system. This will help to ensure claimants are dealt with consistently and fairly.
11.16 We also plan to consolidate the Housing Benefit regulations – replacing the many existing amending regulations with a single set – and update, and put into electronic format, the guidance we provide on interpreting the law. These improvements should help local authorities administer the scheme more effectively.
11.17 More generally, we are driving up standards in local authorities’ performance in delivering Housing Benefit using the Best Value regime from April 2000. Under Best Value, and following work with local authorities, we have introduced a set of performance indicators for the delivery of Housing Benefit covering speed, accuracy, security, cost and customer
service. In Scotland, the Accounts Commission has introduced analogous indicators under their separate powers. The indicators are the main yardstick against which local
authorities’ performance is judged. Local authorities are required to set challenging targets against the indicators in order to secure continuous improvements in the standards of service they provide.
11.18 We have also put in place a robust sanctions regime to apply to local authorities who fail to deliver to required standards. Following a report by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, an authority may be asked by the Secretary of State to submit proposals for improving its performance and remedying any failings identified by the report. After considering the report, and the local authority’s proposals, the Secretary of State has powers under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to give directions to the authority as to the future standards it is to attain. Such directions are legally enforceable and, where an authority fails to comply with them, the Secretary of State has powers to impose a
financial penalty, or to require the authority to contract out its administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.
11.19 A similar range of powers is available under the Best Value arrangements in the Local Government Act 1999 where there is evidence that an authority in England or Wales is failing to comply with the requirements of that Act. Where necessary, the Secretary of State may take away from the authority the responsibility for carrying out the relevant function. The Government will have no hesitation in exercising these powers where there is evidence that poorly performing local authorities are failing to improve to the standards required.
TAKING THIS FORWARD
11.20 Better integrated Information Technology links across benefit systems have enormous potential to increase the speed, accuracy and consistency of service for all customers. The national administration of Housing Benefit by 409 local authorities has meant a fragmented service. We believe that new technology together with local authorities committed to high standards could help us overcome these difficulties. But Housing Benefit claimants should get a consistently high level of service wherever they live, and if our current delivery mechanisms cannot provide this, then we will need to look at other options.
11.21 Recent announcements of organisational changes to focus services on client groups (a pensioner unit and a working age service agency), also mean that we must make sure that Housing Benefit is delivered as part of the client group approach. Our priority for Housing Benefit is to ensure that the service to customers improves as part of these other changes. One option would be to split the Housing Benefit caseload into age-related groups to integrate them into the work of the respective service delivery units. It would also give us the opportunity to adapt Housing Benefit to the specific and differing needs of the two groups. But changes of this magnitude, which would affect Housing Benefit customers, local authorities and landlords take time, planning and money, and require a focus both on the future and on maintaining and improving the current service. So whilst we welcome views to start this debate, we would want to be persuaded that such an organisational change is, overall, beneficial.
11.22 We also need to consider whether there are potential benefits to be gained from encouraging local authorities to make greater and more productive use of private sector partnerships. Such partnerships have the potential to deliver both efficiency gains and improved customer service. At present only a small minority of authorities contract out support functions for their benefit services. However, many of these authorities have experienced difficulties with the standards of service provided by their contractors and the expected benefits have not materialised. Best Value nevertheless requires local authorities to plan positively for diversity and secure the most efficient and effective means of delivering their services. We need therefore to examine further issues surrounding the involvement of private sector contractors in benefit administration and whether more could be done to promote improved performance through this route.
11.23 One option that could make a significant difference to customer service is to integrate the evidence gathering and claims process. At the moment working age customers may have to complete up to 5 forms to get the benefits they are entitled to (including Jobseeker’s Allowance and Housing Benefit). Most of the forms ask for the same information and this causes confusion and frustration for claimants. A single claims process would reduce duplication and shorten processing times.
11.24 We also need to consider how we can continue to improve information sharing. Remote Access Terminals allow local authorities access to some information about Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance, but often local authorities also need information about other benefits such as Incapacity Benefit or Retirement Pension to assess the Housing Benefit claim. Enhancements to data sharing would improve service delivery by reducing duplication of effort by both customers and local authorities.
11.25 The complexity of rules in the current Housing Benefit scheme works against its effectiveness, not least the speed of delivery. However, many of the complex rules are included to focus help on particularly vulnerable groups. This is true of income related benefits in general. There is an essential choice to be made between making the Housing Benefit system simpler (and at an affordable price), and adapting the basic Housing Benefit system to give specific help to particular claimants – many of whom, without Housing Benefit, would have great difficulty meeting the rent that they are paying.
11.26 Areas of complexity where change has been suggested highlight the tensions between competing objectives – there is not an easy, nor a cost-free solution (for claimants, or taxpayer). Examples of simplification options include:
•
Reduce the number of transitional protection schemes that different Housing Benefit recipients are on – local authorities have to understand 4 different schemes topay out Housing Benefit to tenants in the private rented sector alone. But the risk of simplification in this area is that claimants who have been on Housing Benefit (and by definition with a low income) for a long time could lose income;
•
Fix Housing Benefit awards for a set period so that local authorities do not need to make reassessments each time a change of circumstance occurs – this might reducethe administrative burden, and provide claimants with a more certain income stream. But costs might increase if Housing Benefit is adjusted to ensure that claimants do not find themselves in hardship should their circumstances worsen. Also, this type of scheme increases the risk of abuse of the system as claimants might manipulate their circumstances to get the most out of the system for the fixed period. However, there
might be merit in applying this type of scheme to pensioners where income is reasonably stable;
•
Simplify the Non-Dependant Deduction scheme which can reduce Housing Benefit totake account of the contribution towards the rent that other members of a household should make. The scheme increases complexity by requiring Housing Benefit claimants to give additional details about non-dependants. But non-dependants should make a contribution to the rent of tenants claiming Housing Benefit, and it is desirable that this contribution should increase as earnings of the non-dependant rise. We do not believe that we should abandon these two guiding principles in the benefit scheme. This means that it is difficult to avoid complexity; and
•
Simplify the rent limitations mechanism in the private rented sector which aredesigned to prevent Housing Benefit being used to fund unreasonably high rents or over-large accommodation. Currently Rent Officers make individual assessments of rent limitations depending on a number of factors, some of which are not clear to the tenant. One way to make sure claimants know how much rent Housing Benefit will meet in a clear and predictable manner might be to publish the details of rent limits for each type of accommodation and area at regular intervals. One of the risks of this approach is that landlords might see these rent limits as the basis for setting rents. 11.27 We welcome views on these options.