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.

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.

None of those huge assets of wealthy groups of UK citizens are paying a penny towards deficit- reduction. That is being left to the squeezed middle and the poorest citizens with tax rises, pay- and pension-cuts in the public sector, and an estimated reduction of two per cent in every £50 of unemploy­ment benefit every year, owing to the change in uprating from the Retail Prices Index to the Consumer Prices Index in the emergency Budget in April 2011, as well as caps in housing benefit, hitting central-London tenants hard now, and the cap on the new Universal Credit due in 2013.

The greatest sadness that I feel about Lord Carey’s statement in the Daily Mail is in his complicity with the politics of turning the squeezed middle against the poorest citizens by denigrating benefit claimants with such phrases as that welfare “traps people into dependency . . . feckless­ness and irresponsibility”.

Welfare for the majority is a struggle to survive, while the debts become increasingly unmanageable, owing to low incomes and increasing prices. The poorest and the squeezed middle should unite in protest, and justified moral outrage, at the injustice of a deficit-reduction policy that hits them hard and the richest not at all.

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.

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 20^th 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

Mr and Mrs F was referred to us the day before his eviction, by his MP Glenda Jackson. The family were failed asylum seekers, with two young children. With nowhere to move to, we accompanied them to Brent social services. They said they could only help the children, and the parents would need to live somewhere separately. The parents were very upset when they heard this, and understandably said that that would not be an option.

Brent then told us the Fs would need to apply for assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948, through the Refugee Council. We went to Brixton, only to be told after a long wait that they need to make a fresh asylum claim before NAS assistance can be offered. With both tenants in tears, we then went back to Brent Council and asked them to house the children and parents together. However they had not changed their positions, they would only house the children, without Mr and Mrs F.

We asked them to reconsider, as they have a legal duty to do what is in the children’s best interest ( which involves keeping the family together whenever possible). The case was referred to ‘senior management’, only for us to wait until 5pm to be told once again that separating the parents from the children was an option being seriously considered by Brent. The mother of the children, who was already crying, had a minor panic attack, finding it very difficult to breathe or drink water. A few minutes later, the social worker from Brent returned and said that Brent had decided to house the whole family in a nearby BnB for one night only, to give them a chance to make a successful application for NAS assistance. No apology or explanation was offered as to why this offer had not been made until so late in the day, and after so much anguish on the part of the parents.

The next day, as it was clear that NAS assistance would take a week to be sorted out (at least), Brent decided to house them for a further 15 days. We referred them to another organisation which could help with their immigration and NAS applications.

Read about the amendments in Sunday’s Observer.

Please like us on Facebook.

Those who support the caps all seem to do so on the basis of misleading information fed to them by Iain Duncan Smith and the government,

No campaigners are arguing on the basis that homelessness means having to share a room and it is completely dishonest to say that they are.

The policy is expressed to be about driving people into work but of the 56,000 families affected only a proportion are capable of work. The rest are mothers of young children ,other carers or those who are ill but not long term disabled . Many are also already working part time.

Comparing £ 26000 benefit income with the gross average income of someone in work is a completely false comparison. The only kind of household which would receive that level of benefit is one with a number of children living in the private rented sector London or some other very expensive area. An equivalent family in work would be likely to receive substantial benefits on top of its earned income because it is not possible for a family of that kind to live on that income. The only meaningful comparison is between the household income of a similar household in a similar region in and out of work.

£26000 is not a lavish income for those relatively few who receive it because almost all of it goes to a landlord. A family with 3 children living in London in a 3 bed roomed property ( i.e with 2 children sharing ) would be likely to pay £340 pw ( the capped level of housing benefit) rent i.e £ 17680 in rent.. The average gas and electricity bill for that size household n London is £1200 and the average council tax £1200. That leaves them with £113 ,84 pw for food ,clothes , travel , household expenditure and phone for 5 people. It is very difficult indeed for anyone to manage on that income .

No one with any sense would come to England for our benefits ( leaving aside the fact that it is almost impossible to do that ). Our benefit levels are amongst the lowest in Western Europe and our cost of living amongst the highest .

The answer is said to be for these households to move to cheaper areas .However apart from the whole problem of breaking up support networks , disrupting children’s education etc the areas with low rents are those with no jobs which undermines the stated aim of the policy.

If Iain Duncan Smith really believes that this policy is in the best interests of the poor as he proclaims then it is difficult to understand why he describes it so misleadingly. It is also disappointing that these points never seem to be put to him in interview which is one of the reasons why there is such widespread misunderstanding about this issue

1. Lord Ramsbotham’s Amendment 62A, which will ensure that Jobcentre and local authority officials do not punish welfare claimants with sanctions and penalties,  nor enforce overpayments made in error by officials, when they know there is good reason not to, by requiring officials to examine the facts and circumstances of each case,

1. Baroness Hollins’s Amendment 62ZC, which will retain the current legal prohibition on enforcing overpayments of welfare against claimants which are made in error by officials.

The Department of Work and Pensions has been advised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that poverty is trigger factor for poor mental health, a factor in maintaining poor health and part of the experience of many with poor mental health. We know from our experience of serving welfare claimants in debt to the State how seriously depressed they are: and it hurts their families too.

Welfare incomes are already set at poverty levels to act as an incentive to look for work; but the Welfare Reform Bill,  coupled with cuts and caps on one hand and rising prices of food and fuel on the other, is creating debts without the necessary safeguards for welfare claimants or poor people in work. The Centre for Mental Health has shown that mental health problems already cost the economy in England £105 billion in 2010/11; the debts this Bill will create will increase that cost.

This comes at a time when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will remove access to legal aid for those on low incomes. When access to basic justice through the courts is being removed it is all the more vital that mistakes are not made by officials to begin with.