Contact Officer: Paul Wilding, Benefit Operations Manager.

Tele: 01865 252461

Email: pwilding@oxford.gov.uk

The Head of Customer Services submitted a report (previously circulated now appended)

Susan Brown, Board Member for Customer Services, attended the meeting, introduced the report and provided some background and context to it.

Councillor Brown clarified paragraph 26 of the report.  This related to unsuccessful claims by applicants for Disability Living Allowance. The Oxford Welfare Rights (OWR) group had a good reputation for winning appeals on this – 9 out of 10 appeals it represented were successful. Where OWR thought an applicant had a good case, the City Council would assist them to represent a client.  The Council was keen to ensure that those entitled to Disability Living Allowance could get it.

Paul Wilding (Revenues and Benefits Manager) and Helen Bishop (Head of Customer Services) guided the Committee through the report and provided some background and context.

Questions and issues raised by the Committee

The Committee raised the following :-

Applicant profiles

The Committee was keen to see more hard data in future monitoring reports. It would like to know more about applicants’ profiles and any reasons for refusal of DHP.

It noted concerns expressed about digging too deep into applicants’ profiles. This was not the intention of the Committee – it did not wish to know personal details, but rather information about numbers affected by the benefit cap, bedroom tax and other reforms; and how many and what sort of households were affected (people with children? Older people? Couples?)

The Committee noted an offer to provide case studies next time. It felt this could be helpful to its understanding of this complex subject. It wished to know how DHP worked in practice for people living in Oxford.

Conditionality

There was interest in any conditions attached to grants of DHP. What would happen if any conditions imposed on applicants were not met? What happens if applicants cannot meet any conditions within 3 months?

Of especial interest was a requirement to find smaller and/or cheaper accommodation, which was particularly difficult in Oxford. Perhaps this condition should say “look for” such accommodation rather than “find” it within 3 months.  Paul Wilding agreed that in reality people had to try to find alternative accommodation, by bidding on other properties, for example.

The Committee felt that for some people the chances of finding somewhere else to live would be almost impossible. There were big decisions for the Council leading from this, as the Council was not going to be able to top up payments forever.

The Committee noted that officers had to make judgements about who was and who was not likely to apply for and receive another award. Officers were aware that for some people there was no other option, and that there was likely to be a small number of people who would need on-going support.

The Council could suspend awards if conditions were not met; or the applicant would simply not receive another award.

Reasons for refusal of an award of DHP

The Committee noted that there were 2 reasons for the refusal of an award:-

(1)  Where people have a shortfall which is affordable within their current budget;

(2)  Where people are unwilling to work with the Council in finding a solution to their difficulty.

There was an appeals process if an application was unsuccessful.

Utility Bills

The Committee was concerned that many people were hit by high utility bills.  It noted that there were many reasons for this. They could be on too high a tariff, or they could be paying back past arrears. They could be helped find a smaller tariff, or perhaps agree smaller arrears payments with their utility provider.

Publicity for DHP

The Council promoted DHP through many channels, including Housing Associations, face to face with customers, home visits to those affected by the benefits cap and hand delivered letters. People affected byu the bedroom tax had also been contacted by letter. All options were tried in order that potential applicants were informed of this – the Council sought to be proactive.

Future grants

The Council expected to receive further DHP funding for next year, but it expected it to be less than at present. This should be known in November.

Further information

The Committee appreciated that this scheme was quite new, that it was at an early stage and that this was the first monitoring report. It accepted that it was currently within budget, but it needed to know what would happen if that budget ran out.  The Committee did not wish to explore people’s personal circumstances, but it did need to know who (in general terms) was using the scheme and if it was focussed in the right direction.  For that, it would like to see more data as well as case studies.

The Committee agreed that it would like the following information in future

·         Information about applicant profiles, family make-up, where they live and the type of property in which they live;

·         Information on the benefits cap – most difficult cases and how many may need to be paid on a continuous basis;

·         Reasons for non-payment of DHP by the Council;

·         Information about the number of payments withdrawn because of failure by the applicant to meet conditions;

·         Case studies;

It welcomed the offer from Helen Bishop to see an overview of the processes behind DHP and the type of conversations that officers were having; so that it could see how the Council dealt with its clients.

The Committee further agreed that the Principal Scrutiny Officer should talk with Councillor Coulter (Scrutiny Lead member on DHP), Paul Wilding, Helen Bishop and Councillor Susan Brown in order to formulate future reports that would provide the depth and scope of information that the Committee required.

The Committee thanked Councillor Brown, Paul Wilding and Helen Bishop for their attendance and useful input.