NextDoor is a dedicated project working to raise awareness of the impact of welfare reform on the private rented sector in London, and acting to mitigate the worst effects of these changes for low income households. We currently offer a range of services, including a specialist Housing Benefit Helpline (0808 964 0961), casework and advice service, training sessions, access to information packs and materials, and a private rented sector access scheme which aims to help those moving within the private rented sector to access sustainable tenancies with reputable landlords.
Author Archives: ben
Comment on the Riots Communities and Victims Panel report
The following letter was published in the Guardian last week:
The Riots Communities and Victims Panel calls poverty a key factor that can lead to a person’s involvement in crime. The panel recommends that efforts are made to improve young people’s resistance to the peer pressure that leads them astray. That does not get to the bottom of the problem. Nowhere in the report is there any mention of the actual level of weekly income at which young people live in poverty.
A single unemployed parent has to live on a shrinking jobseeker’s allowance of £67.50 a week, or £53.45 for those aged 18-25, or on the national minimum wage, a poverty wage in London that is also shrinking. The word “debt”, and its debilitating effects on parents and children in poverty, never appears in the report. It damages nutrition, an essential ingredient of healthy babies and a good education, which is likewise ignored. Blaming the schools misses the target. Parliament needs to wake up to the fact that the current system of social security is not fit for purpose.
There will continue to be impoverished young people who, because survival and inequality are massive issues in this very expensive economy, will turn to crime.
Rev Paul Nicolson
Z2K wins amendment to LAPSO Bill
Thanks to the hardwork of our Chairman, Rev Paul Nicolson, an important change to the LAPSO Bill has been achieved that will help vulnerable debtors when persued by bailiffs. He explains:
Z2K proposed an amendment to the Legal Advice, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (LAPSO) which was table by Baroness Lister supported by Lord Thomas QC. It was supported by CAB, AdviceUK, Money Advice Trust and other NGOs. It was intended to allow bailiffs to return the disproportionate fines of vulnerable and impoverished defaulters from their doorstep to court for the Magistrates Court to reconsider and to withdraw the bailiffs warrants; also to return fines if there has been a mistake, when there was a change of circumstances since the fine was set or if the defaulter was not in court. It was also intended to reinforce the guidance about vulnerable situations Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/bailiffs-enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf
At a meeting with ministers the government accepted the point. The relevant government amendment was passed by Peers on Tuesday 20th . The amendment is long and available on the Parliamentary website. There are important clarifications by the government recorded in Hansard which by can be taken into account by the courts should they need clarification as to the intentions of the law. I have highlighted them in the relevant parts of the Hansard record of the debate shown below.
With best wishes,
Paul
Baroness Northover for the Government
“It is clear that the government amendment allows for the withdrawal of a warrant where there is a mistake in the decision to issue the warrant in the first place. The amendment covers the case where an offender is not in court when the warrant is issued, which results in the court not having the full information before it. This, in effect, amounts to a mistake. I hope that that also helps to reassure my noble friend Lord Thomas. If there has been a change of circumstances that, had it been known to the court, would have had an impact on the decision to issue a warrant, it is open to the debtor to argue that the warrant had been issued by mistake.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of bailiffs dealing with debtors who find themselves in hardship or appear to be vulnerable. It is important that we strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable—she is right about that—and ensuring that fines, where appropriate, are paid. Noble Lords will have seen recent criticisms of fine payment rates. The fine is by far the most used sentence of the criminal courts.
In practice, however, when bailiffs come across hardship as defined in the guidance they should not execute the warrant and return it to the court. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I must say that we would welcome any further information on this matter and on the effectiveness, which she has queried, of the guidance. It is very important that that is monitored. The Government do not think that it would be appropriate for a bailiff simply to withdraw a warrant in regard to a fine issued by a court. This could undermine the decision made by the court, which is why such a power is not included in the amendment, although I realise that that will disappoint the noble Baroness. If, however, the fine was imposed because the full facts were not made clear to the court, or they had changed, the provision in the Bill could apply.
In the case of changed circumstances since the fine was imposed, the debtor can contact the court at any time to speak to a fines officer to have the matter reviewed. The Government would encourage any debtor to contact the fines officer or court about a change of circumstance, which is clearly a better approach than waiting until a bailiff seeks to execute a warrant, but it is important that we separate the two parts in that respect.
As I said in Committee, the Government think it is important that bailiffs are dealt with via effective guidance, national standards and contractual obligations. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are consulting on the operation of bailiffs, and we will carefully consider responses to that consultation. I hope that the noble Baroness and the organisations with which she is associated will feed into that consultation.
Pro- Housing Alliance: House Owners Recieve More From Taxpayers Than Tenants
The Pro-Housing Alliance have started publishing weekly articles housing policy as part of thier campaign for increased housing supply. Read the latest contribution, from our chairman Paul, here.
The Wednesbury Principles
The following letter from our Chairman, Rev Paul Nicolson, was published by the Guardian this morning.
The abolition of legal aid for social cases will leave the poorest citizens at the mercy of the wide discretion of thousands of jobcentre and local authority officials making decisions about welfare eligibility, sanctions, civil penalties and the enforcement of overpayments. They now have similar powers to magistrates imposing fines and enforcing council tax. It is thus vital that they get their decisions right, otherwise the consequent debts, enforced against the poverty incomes of welfare claimants, will cause misery, ill health and homelessness.
Checking whether officials know the Wednesbury principles, which underpin in law their decision-taking, has been depressing. Anecdotal evidence is that some have not heard of the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1947), which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions that render them liable to be quashed on judicial review. Officials’ decisions must take into account all relevant facts, ignore irrelevant facts and be rational.
The minister for welfare reform highlighted these principles when debating the welfare reform bill, assuring peers that officials will abide by them; but there will be no quashing of their decisions when solicitors cannot afford to consider whether to challenge in judicial review the legal inconsistencies which happen in new laws or the inevitable errors and inefficiencies.The right of all citizens to challenge over-mighty government is being carelessly undermined by welfare reform.
Rev Paul Nicolson
Chair, Zacchaeus 2000 Trust
NextDoor: Amelia Gentleman Article
NextDoor is an advice line and casework service for households effected by reductions to thier housing benefit. Last week we were very pleased to be mentioned in a front page story of the Guardian. It highlighted the number of families in Westminster to be affected by the policy and schools that are now likely to close as children are forced from the area.
Welfare Reform and Tax Havens
The following letter from our Chairman, Rev Paul Nicolson, was published in the current issue of the Church Times
Sir, — Lord Carey believes that “the public debt of £1 trillion is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today” (News, 27 January). I suggest that there is another and greater.es.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that £11.5 trillion of cash and investments is parked in overseas tax havens. The Sunday Times estimates that £100 billion of central-London property is registered overseas out of reach of the taxman. Private landlords have received billions in housing benefit every year, rising to about £7 billion in 2010, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. Continue reading
False Document Covered by Hackney Gazette
Last week we reported on a false rent book used by Hackney Council in a case against one of our clients. Z2K are still assisting Mr O’Shaughnessy to pursue a formal complaint, and to seek an explanation.
Paul Nicolson – The Poverty Trap
Our Chairman, Rev Paul Nicolson, had the following letter published in The Times this morning.
Sir, Maria Miller (letter, Feb 7) claims that the Universal Credit will lift 350,000 children and 550,000 adults out of poverty — but she comes to this conclusion by using the income threshold before housing costs have been deducted (BHC), below which people are deemed to be in poverty. However, poverty is at its harshest when measured after housing costs have been deducted (AHC). Using the latter measure the Universal Credit cap will add to the misery already created by the housing benefit caps. The higher the rent which is capped, the worse the misery. The level of a single adult’s Job Seekers Allowance is now £67.50 a week and will continue at that level as the Standard Allowance in the Universal Credit in 2013. The two caps create rent arrears which have to be paid out of that £67.50, if the children’s or disabled people’s additional benefits are not to be reduced by the debt. It is already half the governmental poverty threshold and is expected by the Centre for Research in Social Policy to be reduced by £1 a week every year as a result of the coalition moving the annual uprating from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that a healthy diet costs £47.31 a week. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that poverty and debt are trigger factors for, and part of, the experience of those with poor mental health. It is an impossible struggle to pay bills as prices rise and AHC welfare incomes fall.
Explanation Sought for False Document Used by Hackney Council
Zacchaeus 2000 Trust has helped Hackney resident win an appeal before the Valuation Tribunal England against a five year-old council bill which should have been paid by his landlord in 2004.
David O’Shaughnessy rented a single room at a now-demolished house of multi-occupation at 1G Seal Street in Hackney between 2002-2004. Five years later, in August 2009 Hackney Council demanded he over £2000 owed in council tax on the property, even though it was the responsibility of the landlord in law.
Mr O’Shaughnessy disputed his liability but Hackney Council continued to pursue him despite the law requiring that owners – not residents – must pay council tax on houses in multiple occupation.*
Finally, after a two year battle and an appeal, the Valuation Tribunal England sitting at Whitechapel has upheld Mr O’Shaughnessy’s case with a judgment issued on January 20th 2012.
Mr O’Shaughnessy has already been awarded £200 from an initial complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman – although Hackney Council has failed to pay this. But Z2K are now backing Mr O’Shaughnessy in a further complaint regarding the conduct of the Revenues and Benefits section and the use of pages of a false rent book to try and attribute liability to him.
Alan Murdie, senior lawyer at Z2K who represented Mr O’Shaughnessy at his appeal before the Tribunal stated:
“It has been the law since 1992 that owners, not occupiers, are liable for council tax on houses of multiple occupation. We cannot explain why Hackney Council were so relentless in trying to pin on Mr O’Shaughnessy, rather than the landlord concerned.”
“We are also particularly concerned that Hackney Council tried to rely on pages from a false rent book against Mr O’Shaughnessy. These documents purported to show him paying rent at 1G Seal Street in 1999, when he did not even live in Hackney until over two years later. Either the landlord was some kind of clairvoyant or there is another explanation for this document which has not yet been given. We hope that the complaint will get to the bottom of this mis-use of Mr O’Shaughnessy’s name and identity.”
“Meanwhile, the Valuation Tribunal England has now upheld Mr O’Shaughnessy’s case and I hope that any other council taxpayers who have dispute liability or calculations with their council will also be prepared to appeal there.”
*See the Council Tax (Liability of Owners) Regulations 1992 SI 551 -
For more information on the Valuation Tribunal England: www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk