Archive

The Prime Minister has reiterated the government's intention to legislate to withhold housing benefit from antisocial claimants. In a speech to the Labour Party conference on 1 October 2002 Tony Blair said: "Parents of truants who refuse to co-operate with the school will be fined or lose benefit. Antisocial tenants and their antisocial landlords who make money out of abusing housing benefit, while making life hell for the community, should lose their right to it."

Populist measures, such as imprisoning or fining the parents of truants or removing child benefit or housing benefit, might cause more problems than they solve. Looked at dispassionately, there are several concerns about the impact such an approach would have on impoverished families and, consequently, social services departments.


These counter-arguments are based on both moral and practical grounds. First, we have to ask whether it is right for a whole family possibly to lose their home in such circumstances. Second, and perhaps more tellingly, there are serious doubts as to whether such measures would work.

For example, what would be the impact of withholding housing benefit? It could lead eventually to eviction if the sanction was applied for long enough. But surely "innocent" tenants want a quick solution to the problems caused by antisocial neighbours, not the lengthy process that leads to eviction? This is not an argument for supporting rapid evictions for anti-social tenants, but it illustrates how relatively ineffective withholding housing benefit would be in practice. It would also make it impossible for an evicted tenant to find alternative accommodation, even in the private sector, as removal of housing benefit would make them "untouchable" for almost all landlords.

On the other hand, if a tenant responds to the sanction by amending their behaviour within three to four weeks, all that would be achieved is an additional three to four weeks' arrears. They will probably never be able to clear these but it will often stop them ever getting a transfer to more suitable accommodation or simply seeking a fresh start elsewhere.

The punishment also bears little relationship to what may be causing the anti-social behaviour. If a parent is unable to control their 14-year-old son, will removing their child benefit or the family's housing benefit have a deterrent effect when other sanctions have already failed?


And what if it is the benefit authorities who are responsible for "antisocial behaviour" - who punishes them and how?

In a recent column ("Appeal for Speed", page 44, 1 August), I criticised the performance of The Appeals Service (TAS) over how it is coping with its new responsibility for administering housing benefit appeals. This provoked a wounded response from TAS in a letter to Community Care saying I had been unfair and that the service was getting better not worse. I accept that the average time (in weeks) from receipt of a TAS1 to the first hearing for housing benefit and council tax benefit was better in April-June 2002 than in the previous quarter; but who will be punished for the fact that they are still taking five to seven weeks longer to clear appeals than they were a year previously? How antisocial is that?

Gary Vaux is head of money advice, Hertfordshire Council. He is unable to answer queries by post or telephone. If you have a question to be answered please write to him c/o Community Care.