The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness. In a recent interview, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a "severe impact" on low-income families.

Estimates by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut.

From 1 April, changes to housing benefit (HB) affecting working-age social housing tenants deemed to have spare bedrooms will mean a 14% cut for those with one extra room and of 25% for those with two or more. On top of this, changes to Council Housing Benefit have meant many of the most vulnerable have, or will soon receive Benefit notices informing them of a substantial reduction in the amount they receive each week.

The controversial measure - which will see affected tenants lose an average of £14 a week - has been dubbed the "bedroom tax" by Labour, though the government has been at pains to argue it is not a tax but a curb on "spare room subsidies". A “tax” or a “curb”, it makes no difference. The long and the short of it is that, according to ther Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), 600,000 of the poorest social housing tenants are having to pay for the luxury of keeping this cruel government in power.

In an interview, Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee said:

"The DWP says it can't accurately predict the effects of its housing benefit changes either on individuals or on the housing supply. Instead it will rely on a 'wait and see' approach and monitor changes in homelessness, rent levels and arrears so that, where there is a need, it can intervene and respond ….. Even small reductions in housing benefit can have a severe impact on the finances of the poorest people."

Stay or go?

In response, the Tory government has argued the change brings housing benefit for social housing tenants in line with its provision in the private sector, where size criteria already apply. But let’s cut to the core, the policy is simply designed to reduce the £21bn annual housing benefit bill and encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.

The consequences will be catastrophic. Take for example Riverside Homes, with 51,493 properties and an estimated 6,602 households affected by the cut. In their estimation, 1584 - 24% of affected tenants – will be forced to move from their home.

Similarly, Glasgow Housing Association - with 41,400 homes - estimated that of 6,100 affected tenants, 1,300 - 21% - will be forced out of their home. In Wales, Community Housing Cymru Group (CHC), representing 70 housing associations in Wales, estimated that of 40,000 affected claimants, more than 4,000 - 9% - will have to leave their homes 'National shortage'

Many housing associations have argued that moving large numbers of people considered to be under-occupying social homes was unachievable simply because there were not enough smaller homes available.

As evidence for this, CHC said that 88% of housing associations in Wales would have a mismatch of properties if they tried to downsize all under-occupying tenants facing a benefit cut.

"Not because tenants are needlessly under-occupying larger homes, but because there is a national shortage of affordable homes, especially one and two-bed properties,"

With the vast majority of affected tenants expected to try to find the extra rental money themselves, housing associations raised concerns including:

Increased financial difficulty for tenants

Tenants running up rent arrears

Increased costs to housing associations of rent collection and evictions

A rise in doorstep lending

Damage to communities from increased turnover in social housing

Less affordable, larger homes remaining empty

They also warned that people who responded to the benefit cut by leaving social housing could end up claiming more housing benefit in the costlier private sector.

The DWP points out that with one third of working-age social housing tenants receiving housing benefit for homes larger than they need, that amounts to one million extra bedrooms currently being subsidised. It hopes its measure will enable better use of available social housing stock, and improve work incentives for affected tenants.

"We expect people to respond in different ways to the changes to the Spare Room Subsidy - some will move and some will make up the difference in their rent by moving into work, or increasing their hours. But when in England alone there are nearly two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants are living in overcrowded homes, this measure is needed to make better use of our housing stock." If this wasn’t such a serious issue, the DWP response would be almost laughable. The reality is that, courtesy of Thatcher’s sell-off of the social housing stock, aided and abetted later by Blair and New Labour, there are now less houses available for those in greatest need. We do not have the luxury of being able to facilitate mobility within social housing. Indeed, we cannot house all those who need a home, much less move them around.

Once again we are seeing the government has no idea of how to help and support the most vulnerable. All they are interested in is helping the fat cats get fatter while the poor are forced to pay the price. Why am I reminded of Marie Antoinette’s supposed comment “… then let them eat cake”?