Evaluation of Removal of the
Spare Room Subsidy
Final Report
December 2015
Research Report No 913
A report of research carried out by by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning
Research and Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Department for Work
and Pensions.
Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and
Pensions or any other government department.
© Crown copyright 2015.
You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium,
under the terms of the Open Government Licence.
To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU,
or email: [email protected].uk.
This document/publication is also available on our website at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/about/
research#research-publications
If you would like to know more about DWP research, please email:
First published December 2015.
ISBN 978 1 911003 14 4
Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and
Pensions or any other Government Department.
3
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Summary
This report presents ndings from the evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room
Subsidy (RSRS) undertaken by Ipsos MORI and the Cambridge Centre for Housing and
Planning Research. The eldwork was carried out over the rst 20 months of implementation,
from April 2013 until November 2014. An interim report was published in July 2014.
The objectives of this project were to evaluate:
• The preparation, delivery and implementation of the policy changes by local authorities
and social landlords.
• The extent of increased mobility within the social housing sector leading to more effective
use of the housing stock.
• The extent to which as a result of the RSRS more people are in work, working increased
hours or earning increased incomes.
• The effects of the RSRS on, and responses to it of:
– Housing Benet (HB) claimants.
– Social landlords.
– Local authorities (LAs).
– Voluntary and statutory organisations and advice services.
– Funders lending to social landlords.
4
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 10
The Authors
............................................................................................................................11
List of abbreviations............................................................................................................... 12
Glossary of terms
.................................................................................................................. 13
Executive summary
.............................................................................................................. 14
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 21
1.1 Aims ...................................................................................................................... 21
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................... 21
1.3 Research methods ................................................................................................ 22
2 Implementation ................................................................................................................ 28
2.1 Numbers and prole of households affected ......................................................... 28
2.2 Degree of impact on landlords .............................................................................. 31
2.3 Administering the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy ...................................... 32
2.3.1 Payment methods ................................................................................... 34
2.3.2 Communication between claimants, landlords and local authorities ...... 36
2.4 Administering Discretionary Housing Payments ................................................... 37
2.4.1 Discretionary Housing Payments in Scotland and Wales ....................... 38
2.4.2 Awarding Discretionary Housing Payments ............................................ 39
2.4.3 The role of landlords in supporting tenants to apply for Discretionary
Housing Payments .................................................................................. 40
2.4.4 Renewal and conditionality of Discretionary Housing Payments ............ 42
2.5 The costs of implementation ................................................................................. 44
2.5.1 The costs of implementation for local authorities .................................... 44
2.5.2 Costs for social landlords ........................................................................ 44
3 The response of claimants .............................................................................................. 47
3.1 Overall responses ................................................................................................. 47
5
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3.1.1 Responses of claimants who were no longer affected ............................ 47
3.1.2 Responses of those who were still affected ............................................ 49
3.1.3 Comparing the responses of different groups ......................................... 50
3.2 Finding work or increasing incomes ...................................................................... 51
3.2.1 Support for nding work .......................................................................... 52
3.3 Moving to the private rented sector ....................................................................... 53
3.4 Claiming Discretionary Housing Payments ........................................................... 54
3.5 Taking in lodgers and family members .................................................................. 57
3.6 Paying the shortfall ................................................................................................ 58
3.6.1 How many were paying?......................................................................... 58
3.7 Managing on a lower budget ................................................................................. 61
4 Changes to the social housing stock ............................................................................... 65
4.1 Altering or reclassifying stock ................................................................................ 65
4.1.1 Altering stock .......................................................................................... 65
4.1.2 Reclassifying the number of bedrooms in properties .............................. 66
4.2 Allocations and lettings .......................................................................................... 67
4.2.1 Assessing the size of home required ...................................................... 69
4.2.2 Means testing housing applicants ........................................................... 70
4.2.3 Other changes to allocation policies ....................................................... 70
4.2.4 The impact of the changes to allocations on who can access social
housing ................................................................................................... 71
4.3 Downsizing ............................................................................................................ 72
4.3.1 Geographical variation in downsizing ..................................................... 75
4.3.1 Landlords’ role in facilitating downsizing ................................................. 76
4.3.2 Allowing downsizing with rent arrears ..................................................... 78
4.3.3 Demand for downsizing .......................................................................... 79
4.3.4 Barriers to downsizing............................................................................. 82
4.3.5 Claimants’ reasons for not wanting to downsize ..................................... 83
4.4 The impact on overcrowding ................................................................................. 86
4.5 Changes to demand for social housing ................................................................. 88
6
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.5.1 Managing turnover and voids.................................................................. 88
4.5.2 Shared housing ....................................................................................... 92
4.6 Changes to development plans ............................................................................. 95
4.7 Financing future development of social housing ................................................... 97
4.8 Rent collection and arrears ................................................................................... 98
4.9 Evictions and homelessness ................................................................................. 99
4.9.1 Evictions................................................................................................ 100
4.9.2 Homelessness services ........................................................................ 102
5 The impact on voluntary organisations, advice and support services ........................... 104
5.1 Overall impact ..................................................................................................... 104
5.2 Increasing work incentives .................................................................................. 106
6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 107
6.1 Implementation .................................................................................................... 107
6.2 The response of claimants .................................................................................. 108
6.3 Mobility and changing use of the housing stock .................................................. 109
Appendix A Claimant survey methods ................................................................................ 110
Appendix B Claimant survey – questionnaire .....................................................................118
Appendix C Qualitative claimant interviews – technical note ............................................. 141
Appendix D Landlord survey methods ............................................................................... 154
Appendix E Landlord survey .............................................................................................. 157
Appendix F Topic guides for case study work and lender interviews ................................ 167
List of tables
Table 2.1 Demographic prole of claimants (household heads) affected by the
RSRS ............................................................................................................... 30
Table 2.2 Which of the following best describes how you become aware when
tenants start or cease to be affected by the RSRS? ........................................ 33
Table 2.3 Which of the following payment methods have you encouraged for
your tenants to pay their rental shortfalls arising from the RSRS? .................. 35
Table 2.4 Has the total DHP funding (including any top up from the Scottish or
Welsh Government) been sufcient to allow DHP to cover the shortfalls
in full of all RSRS-affected tenants as long as they apply for it? ...................... 38
7
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 2.5 Which of the following best describes the system used most often for
assessing eligibility for DHP for your tenants? ................................................. 39
Table 2.6 In how many of the local authorities in which you work are you familiar
enough with the policy on DHP to advise tenants affected by the RSRS
as to whether they might be eligible? ............................................................... 40
Table 2.7 Do you have any other comments about DHP? ............................................... 42
Table 2.8 Case study landlords’ estimates of costs ......................................................... 45
Table 3.1 Overall responses to the RSRS among those still affected in autumn 2013
and summer 2014 ............................................................................................ 49
Table 3.2 Overall responses to the RSRS/actions taken by analysis groups since
autumn 2013 .................................................................................................... 50
Table 3.3 What proportion of your tenants currently affected by the RSRS are
currently in arrears/were in arrears on 31 March 2013? .................................. 60
Table 3.4 On which, if any, of the following things have you spent less since we
last spoke in October or November of last year because of the changes
to Housing Benet? .......................................................................................... 62
Table 3.5 Frequency with which claimants reported running out of money before
the end of the week or month at various stage before and since becoming
affected by the RSRS ....................................................................................... 63
Table 4.1 The original size of properties reclassied in response to the RSRS .............. 66
Table 4.2 Which of the following best describes your approach to reclassifying? ........... 67
Table 4.3 Which of the following best describes your approach to deciding/what
size of home to let to new tenants? .................................................................. 69
Table 4.4 Downsizing within the social rented sector ...................................................... 73
Table 4.5 Which two or three, if any, of these are the most important reasons you
have for staying here instead of moving elsewhere? ....................................... 84
Table 4.6 Void gures supplied by landlords .................................................................... 92
Table 4.7 Reasons for offering shared housing ............................................................... 93
Table 4.8 Reasons for not offering shared housing ......................................................... 94
Table 4.9 Total arrears held by landlords ......................................................................... 99
Table 4.10 Taking action against arrears. Of tenants affected by the RSRS: .................. 100
Table 4.11 Can I please check, are you currently up to date with the rent you owe,
or are you in arrears? ..................................................................................... 101
Table 4.12 Combined responses in both autumn 2013 and summer 2014 in
response to the question: Can I please check, are you currently up to
date with the rent you owe, or are you in arrears? ......................................... 101
Table 4.13 Claimants’ self-reported frequency of being in arrears at various points
before/since becoming affected by the RSRS................................................ 102
8
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table A.1 Target and actual interviews by case study area ............................................112
Table A.2 Sampling Tolerances for wave 1 (autumn 2013) .............................................115
Table A.3 The prole of the affected cohort, waves 1 and 2 ...........................................116
Table D.1 The size of landlords responding to the survey .............................................. 154
Table D.2 Prole of social landlords responding to survey ............................................. 155
Table D.3 Social rented dwellings managed by location of landlord, and location
of social rented stock in Britain ...................................................................... 156
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Analysis groups and their status in autumn 2013 and summer 2014 ............. 25
Figure 2.1 Numbers of households affected by the RSRS by month, as a proportion
of those initially affected in May 2013 ............................................................. 29
Figure 2.2 Change in the number of RSRS-affected tenants reported by landlords
April 2013 to October/November 2014 ............................................................. 32
Figure 2.3 Which of the following processes of applying for DHP apply to your
tenants? ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.1 You told us that you are NOT CURRENTLY affected by the changes
to Housing Benet but were PREVIOUSLY affected/are no longer receiving
Housing Benet. From what you know or understand, why are you not
currently affected? ............................................................................................ 48
Figure 3.2 Thinking about the period since 1 April 2013, which of the following
statements best describes your situation in relation to Discretionary
Housing Payments (DHPs)? ........................................................................... 55
Figure 3.3 Proportion of tenants affected by the RSRS who have paid their rental
shortfall ............................................................................................................. 59
Figure 4.1 Have you made any changes to your allocations policy during the last
12 months to increase the priority given to potential downsizers? ................... 68
Figure 4.2 Proportion of new tenancies issued to households who are under
occupying in England ....................................................................................... 71
Figure 4.3 New tenancies issued to working-age households because of under
occupation by Housing Benet status in England ........................................... 74
Figure 4.4 Numbers of downsizers per 1,000 tenancies initially affected, by means
of downsizing and broad region where landlords stock is mostly located ........ 75
Figure 4.5 Is there a nancial incentive available to your tenants who wish to
downsize? ........................................................................................................ 77
Figure 4.6 Average size of landlords’ typical amount offered to downsizers ..................... 78
Figure 4.7 Do you allow tenants affected by the RSRS and with arrears to
downsize? ........................................................................................................ 79
9
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.8 Combined responses in both autumn 2013 and summer 2014 in
response to the question: Are you currently looking to move from this
accommodation, or not? ................................................................................... 81
Figure 4.9 Moves within the social sector because of overcrowding in England .............. 87
Figure 4.10 Relets of social housing in England (i.e. lets excluding new build)
2013–14 by number of bedrooms .................................................................... 89
Figure 4.11 Have you experienced any difculties in letting properties as a result
of the RSRS? ................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4.12 Proportion of landlords reporting difculties letting as a result of RSRS
or Benet Cap who were experiencing difculties with each size and type
of property ........................................................................................................ 91
Figure 4.13 Do you offer shared housing (i.e. groups of unrelated adults/sharing a
house)? ............................................................................................................ 93
Figure 4.14 Ways in which landlords report having altered their development plans
as a result of the RSRS .................................................................................... 96
10
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Acknowledgements
This research was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions. The project
managers were Chris Lord, Graham Walmsley, Ailsa Redhouse and Claire Frew and input
was also received from Vicky Petrie, Simon Wheeldon, Andy Brittan and Preeti Tyagi.
The authors would also like to thank the local authority staff, housing associations, voluntary
and statutory agency staff, the Scottish SCORE team and Housing Benet claimants who
gave their time to participate in this research.
11
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The Authors
Anna Clarke is a Senior Research Associate at the Cambridge Centre for Housing and
Planning Research (CCHPR) and has been responsible for the management of the local
case study work with landlords and agencies and the landlord survey. She has managed a
range of research projects in the eld of housing including past projects for the Department
for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) as well as work for housing associations on
welfare reform.
Lewis Hill is a Research Manager in Ipsos MORI’s Housing, Planning and Development
team. As part of this evaluation, he is Project Manager for the survey research with
claimants. He has managed a number of projects for Department for Work and Pensions
(DWP) on welfare reform, covering the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy and the Benet
Cap.
Ben Marshall is Research Director at Ipsos MORI and Business Manager for the Housing,
Planning and Development team. He has designed and directed hundreds of projects for
government and public sector clients. He is Project Director for this evaluation for the DWP
and worked in a similar role within a consortium evaluating reforms to the Local Housing
Allowance in the private rented sector during 2011–13.
Michael Oxley is the Director of CCHPR. He was previously Professor of Housing at De
Montfort University and a Visiting fellow at Delft University of Technology. Mike has a strong
track record in the eld of housing and planning and an extensive publication list including
his book Economics, Planning and Housing.
Isabella Pereira is an Associate Director in Ipsos MORI’s Qualitative Social Research Unit
and managed the qualitative research with claimants. Isabella has worked on a number of
projects for DWP and other clients researching welfare reform and its impacts.
Eleanor Thompson is a Senior Research Executive in Ipsos MORI’s Employment, Welfare
and Skills team. On this study, she helped design and deliver the qualitative research with
claimants. She has experience on a number of qualitative depth interviewing projects,
including work for the Welsh Government.
Peter Williams was the Director of CCHPR until December 2013 and undertook the lender
interviews of this evaluation. His long career includes academia, government and industry
and has been Deputy Director General of the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
The research team also included Michael Jones, Ros Lishman, Sarah Monk and Christine
Whitehead.
12
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
List of abbreviations
CAB Citizens Advice Bureau
CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing
CORE Continuous Recording of Sales and Lettings
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government
Defra Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DHP Discretionary Housing Payments
DLA Disability Living Allowance
DWP Department for Work and Pensions
HB Housing Benet
LA Local authority
PIP Personal Independence Payment
PRP Private Registered Provider
PRS Private Rented Sector
PSU Primary Sampling Unit
RSRS Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy
SDR Statistical Data Return completed by English PRPs
SCORE Scottish Continuous Recording of Sales and Lettings
SHBE Single Housing Benet Extract (DWP’s Housing Benet
data)
UC
Universal Credit
13
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Glossary of terms
Affected claimant Housing Benet claimant affected by the Removal of the
Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS).
The Benet Cap
The Benet Cap, introduced in 2013 and limiting the total
amount of benets that most out of work working-age
households can receive. This is £500 a week for couples
and families and £350 a week for single people
Discretionary Housing
Payments awarded by local authorities when they
Payments (DHPs)
consider that a claimant requires further nancial
assistance towards housing costs. The DWP allocates
funding for DHPs to local authorities, who decide how to
allocate it and may also choose to top up the funding from
their own resources.
Housing Benet
Financial support paid to tenants (or to landlords on their
behalf) for those who are out of work or on low incomes
to help pay their rent. It can cover up to the entire value of
the rent, depending on the claimant’s circumstances and
income.
Private Registered
Housing Associations and other providers of social
Providers (PRPs)
housing registered with the Homes and Communities
Agency, but excluding local authorities
Social landlords
Landlords who manage social housing, including local
authorities, housing associations and other registered
providers.
14
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Executive summary
This report presents ndings from the evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room
Subsidy (RSRS) undertaken by Ipsos MORI and the Cambridge Centre for Housing and
Planning Research. The eldwork was carried out over the rst 20 months of implementation,
from April 2013 until November 2014. An interim report was published in July 2014.
The objectives of this project were to evaluate:
• The preparation, delivery and implementation of the policy changes by local authorities
and social landlords.
• The extent of increased mobility within the social housing sector leading to more effective
use of the housing stock.
• The extent to which as a result of the RSRS more people are in work, working increased
hours or earning increased incomes.
• The effects of the RSRS on, and responses to it of:
– Housing Benet (HB) claimants.
– Social landlords.
– Local authorities (LAs).
– Voluntary and statutory organisations and advice services.
– Funders lending to social landlords.
Background
The RSRS was brought into effect on 1 April 2013. It entailed a reduction in HB for working-
age social tenants whose properties have more bedrooms than they need based on the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) size criteria (see below).
15
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The number of bedrooms required is worked out so that no one has to share a bedroom
unless they are:
• A couple.
• Both aged under 10 years old.
• Both aged under 16 years old and of the same sex.
No more than two people should have to share any bedroom.
An additional bedroom is also allowed in certain circumstances for regular non-resident
overnight carers, foster carers, disabled children unable to share a bedroom and people
who are recently bereaved. Bedrooms used by students and members of the armed forces
are not counted as ‘spare’ if they are away and intend to return home.
Those deemed to have spare bedrooms have had their rent eligible for Housing Benet
reduced by:
• 14 per cent for one spare bedroom.
• 25 per cent for two or more spare bedrooms.
(Source: Wilson (2015) ‘Under-occupation of social housing: Housing Benet entitlement’
Department for Work and Pensions)
The DWP’s HB data show that in May 2013, 547,000 households
1
were affected by the
RSRS
2
, which equates to 11.6 per cent of all social tenancies. By November 2014, the number
had fallen to 465,000, a reduction of 14.2 per cent over the rst 18 months of the policy.
Research methods
The research methods comprised:
• Two separate surveys of social landlords throughout Britain. The rst of these ran between
October and November 2013, and the second a year later in October and November 2014.
A total of 312 landlords replied in full to the rst survey and the second survey had 256
responses. In both surveys the landlords answering the survey (between them) managed
a stock of around two million homes, over 40 per cent of the social housing stock in Britain.
• A longitudinal survey of Housing Benet claimants both affected and not affected by the
RSRS carried out across 15 local authorities (LAs) in autumn 2013 and summer 2014.
Face-to-face interviews were carried out with a total of 1,502 HB claimants in October and
November 2013, of whom two-thirds were currently affected by the RSRS according to
DWP’s Single Housing Benet Extract (SHBE) records. A follow-up survey was conducted
among 972 respondents between June and August 2014, split between:
1
Since HB is claimed on a family household basis, the term household has been used
interchangeably with claimant throughout this report.
2
Data from https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk. DWP gures relate to the numbers on the
second Thursday of the month. Data for April were not available. The DWP’s data
from StatXplore include only people affected by the RSRS who were still in receipt of
at least some HB. Some people who would otherwise be eligible for partial HB have
been affected by the RSRS but are not recorded in the gures, because the RSRS has
reduced their HB award to zero. The DWP has not published any gures on the number
of people affected in this manner.
16
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
– respondents from the ‘affected cohort’, which included all those affected in the autumn
2013 survey. This group is split between those ‘still affected’ and those ‘no longer
affected’ by summer 2014; and
– respondents unaffected in autumn 2013 and still unaffected by summer 2014, agged as
‘never affected’.
See section 1.3 for more detailed information.
• Detailed qualitative interviews with 30 of the surveyed claimants affected by RSRS
were carried out in November 2013 in six of the 15 areas, with follow-up interviews
conducted between September and November 2014. Where possible, interviews were
conducted with the same participants from the rst wave of qualitative interviews, with
those who could not be re-contacted replaced by claimants of interest from the second
wave of the longitudinal survey.
• Case study work in ten local authority areas. This included group interviews carried
out with LA staff and social landlords in the summer of 2013 and again in early autumn
2014, and telephone interviews with a total of 47 local agencies across the ten areas in
the autumn of 2013 and again in autumn 2014, including Children’s Services, the Citizens
Advice Bureau, Job Centres and local voluntary organisations
3
.
• Interviews with eight of the major lenders to the housing association sector were
conducted during October 2013 and they were contacted again in October 2014.
• The DWP’s Local Authority Insight Survey. This was undertaken between October and
December 2013 and included questions added to assist this evaluation.
• Analysis of secondary data sources. This included data on social housing lettings
from CORE (Continuous Recording of Sales and Lettings, published by the Department
for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)) and SCORE (Scottish Continuous
Recording of Sales and Lettings, published by the Scottish Government) and DWP’s own
data
4
.
This report has drawn upon all these sources of information, using more than one source
where possible to increase the validity of the conclusions drawn.
3
LA staff interviewed included those involved in the administration of HB, as well as
strategic housing managers and (where applicable) those responsible for managing
social housing stock.
4
Department for Communities and Local Government. (2015). Continuous Recording
of Social Housing Lettings and Sales (CORE), 2007/08-2014/15: Special Licence
Access. [data collection]. 3rd Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 7604,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7604-3.
17
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Key ndings
Implementation
• The DWP’s data shows a reduction in the number of households affected by the RSRS
from 547,000 to 465,000 by November 2014, a reduction of 14.2 per cent
4
. The greatest
falls were in London, followed by the North West and East of England (StatXplore).
• There was an increase in the average age of those affected by the RSRS during the period
of the research (StatXplore): partially explained by the rising pension age, but the research
suggested that changing allocation rules are likely to have reduced the number of younger
claimants (case study work) whilst younger claimants were also more likely to have found
work or otherwise ceased to be affected (claimant survey).
• A combined 46 per cent of those no longer affected said this was because of a change
in household composition or their/their children’s ages. One in ve (20 per cent) said they
found work or increased earnings and were no longer affected (claimant survey).
• The majority of claimants from the affected cohort were still affected nine months later
(claimant survey). Of those affected in autumn 2013, 17 per cent were no longer affected
by summer 2014 (claimant survey).
• A range of systems had been devised jointly by LAs and social landlords for keeping
landlords updated about which tenants were affected by the RSRS. Landlords working
across many areas were more likely to be having difculties in knowing which tenants
were affected (landlord survey).
• Among those claimants still affected by the RSRS in 2014, 29 per cent said they applied
for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) when asked what actions they had taken to
deal with being affected (claimant survey). Comparatively few still affected claimants
were successful with their application (36 per cent of those applying, 23 per cent of all still
affected) (claimant survey).
• Awareness of DHPs increased. Those who did not apply were asked if they had heard
of DHP – 52 per cent said they had, meaning 66 per cent in total of the still affected
claimants were aware of DHP by 2014, an increase from 49 per cent nine months
previously (claimant survey).
• Setting conditions on the receipt of DHP (e.g. job seeking or registering and/or bidding
for downsizing) was something that most LAs had developed over the course of the rst
year of the RSRS. LAs were becoming better at managing DHP and predicting levels of
demand (landlord survey and case study work).
• LAs were not excluding disability benets (Disability Living Allowance (DLA), or Personal
Independence Payment (PIP)) but considered both income and expenditure relating to
disabilities when they means test to assess eligibility for DHP. There was some confusion
amongst landlords about this (landlord survey and case studies).
4
This is a net reduction. The extent of ‘churn’ of households on and off being affected by
the RSRS is not known.
18
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The response of claimants
• Seventeen per cent of claimants affected in autumn 2013 had ceased to be so by summer
2014 (claimant survey). The most common reasons for ceasing to be affected were nding
work/increasing earnings, a friend or relative moving in or a change in age of children
meaning they were no longer considered to have a spare bedroom (claimant survey).
• Twenty per cent of affected claimants say they have looked to earn more through
employment-related income as a result of the RSRS, rising to 63 per cent of those who
said they were unemployed and seeking work.
• Overall, ve per cent of respondents (or another adult in their household) in the initially
affected cohort found work between 2013 and 2014 – three per cent were still affected,
while for two per cent this meant becoming unaffected (claimant survey).
• Barriers to nding work or additional hours cited by participants included lack of
employment opportunities in the local area and employers being unable to offer additional
hours (claimant qualitative interviews).
• Most social landlords required permission for tenants to take lodgers, but only 0.3 per
cent of their affected tenants had asked for permission to take a lodger (landlord survey).
Seventeen per cent of no longer affected claimants reported the reason as being a friend
or relative moved in while two per cent said that a lodger had moved in.
• Around 12,000 RSRS-affected claimants nationally were estimated to have moved to the
private rented sector, less than 2.2 per cent
5
of affected tenants (landlord survey).
• The proportion of affected claimants who had paid all their rental shortfall rose from 41
per cent in 2013 to 50 per cent in 2014, whilst the proportion who had paid none of their
shortfall fell from 20 per cent to 10 per cent (landlord survey).
• Claimants who were still affected by the RSRS in 2014 were more likely than those no
longer affected to say they run out of money by the end of the week or month very/fairly
often (78 per cent compared with 69 per cent) (claimant survey).
• Among those still affected, claimants had paid the rent by: using up savings; borrowing
from family or friends or accruing debt (claimant qualitative interviews), although we do not
know whether they have a history of borrowing for other purposes.
• In the affected cohort cut backs were made on energy (46 per cent of those who had cut
back on spending), travel (33 per cent), food (76 per cent) and leisure costs (42 per cent)
(claimant survey and qualitative interviews).
• Overall 55 per cent of tenants affected by the RSRS were in arrears in autumn 2014,
though 43 per cent had been in arrears in March 2013 (prior to the introduction of the
RSRS) (landlord survey).
Changes to the social housing stock
• There is evidence of a declining proportion of lets to those who under occupy their new
home in England, and an increase in proportion of lets to families from 36.3 per cent in
2012–13 to 40.7 per cent in 2013–14 (CORE).
5
Precise percentage unknown due to ‘churn’ within the caseload.
19
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
• By autumn 2014, most landlords gave top priority to downsizers, with 57 per cent reporting
that they had increased the priority in response to the RSRS, but 20 per cent did not give
them top priority (landlord survey).
• The landlord survey suggests that nationally around 45,000 RSRS-affected claimants had
downsized within the social sector by autumn 2014, as compared with around 24,000 in
autumn 2013 (landlords surveys).
• In England the RSRS has resulted in a substantial increase in demand for downsizing,
compared to previous rates. The data shows a substantial increase in working-age tenants
moving within social housing via transfer lists because of under occupation from 2,755 per
year in 2009–10 (less than 0.5 per cent of all tenants) to 14,755 in 2013–14 (CORE).
• Landlords reported in autumn 2014 that around 16 per cent of affected tenants were
currently registered for downsizing – which would suggest that nationally around 87,000
tenants currently affected by the RSRS were seeking to downsize. This is a slight
reduction on the 19 per cent reported to be registered for downsizing at the time of the rst
survey (autumn 2013) (landlord surveys).
• Claimants’ reasons for not wanting to downsize were most often related to remaining close
to family, liking the area, good neighbourhoods, liking the accommodation, and particular
difculties for disabled tenants related to nding a property that meets their needs as well
as in packing and transporting belongings. For families with children, schools (48 per cent)
were the most important barrier to moving (claimant survey).
• Most LAs and social landlords reported that large numbers of people were unable to
move because of a shortage of smaller homes. Some claimants said they had not
registered because they were aware of the shortage (case studies and claimant qualitative
interviews).
• 42 per cent of landlords reported difculties in letting some properties because of the
RSRS. There was a strong correlation between the proportion of tenants affected by the
RSRS and reporting difculties in letting homes as a result. Fifty four per cent of landlords
with the highest proportion of tenants affected reported difculties letting, compared with
13 per cent of those with the lowest proportions (landlord survey).
• Data supplied by landlords does not provide evidence of any statistically signicant
increase in voids (landlord survey). There is some evidence of increased turnover since
the introduction of the RSRS in England, most notable for larger property sizes (CORE).
Case study evidence found that there were costs associated with the increased turnover
and reletting activity.
• Around half (51 per cent) of developing landlords said they have altered their build plans
as result of the RSRS, up from a third in 2013. They were building more one bedroom
homes and fewer larger ones. Some were concerned about the future of the policy at the
time of the eldwork and hence were reluctant to alter their stock prole (landlord survey).
• Lenders generally felt housing associations had responded well to RSRS and have put
resources in place. The RSRS was not thought to have impacted on the pricing of loans
made to the housing association sector. Their concerns were more focused on the wider
package of welfare reforms and Universal Credit rather than RSRS specically.
20
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
• There was no signicant change in levels of arrears held by social landlords between
autumn 2013 and autumn 2014 (landlord survey). Most landlords said they now
considered the affordability of the rent for prospective tenants before letting.
• 40 per cent of still affected claimants said they were currently in arrears in 2014, a slight
fall from 47 per cent in 2013 (claimant survey). Overall, the cause of arrears is uncertain
– as we cannot directly attribute increases in arrears to the RSRS. (The comparable
gures for non-affected claimants are 19 and 21 per cent respectively). Tenants with
arrears arising solely as a result of the RSRS were in most cases being supported and
encouraged to pay, or helped with the use of DHPs (case studies). The RSRS was
reported to have had some impact on homeless households seeking to move on from
temporary accommodation as it was now quicker to move families, due to larger properties
being freed up by downsizers, but conversely harder for singles who were now competing
with more households, including downsizers, for one bedroom properties.
• The research found no discernible increase in evictions arising from the RSRS at the time
of the autumn 2014 eldwork. Landlords reported having applied for possession on ve
per cent of RSRS-affected tenancies, though less than a tenth of this number have actually
been evicted (landlord survey). Case study work suggested most evictions by November
2014 had been of tenants with pre-existing arrears and/or who had not engaged with their
landlord (case studies). Most agencies reported an increase in demand for their services
from 2013, but the RSRS was one of several reasons for this and it was not possible to
clarify what specic impact it had, that might not be attributable to other welfare reforms
and economic changes. Agencies were concerned about the cumulative impact of welfare
reform, especially the RSRS and Council Tax liability (case studies).
21
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
1 Introduction
This nal report presents ndings from the evaluation of the Removal of the Spare Room
Subsidy (RSRS). The evaluation was led by Ipsos MORI and the Cambridge Centre for
Housing and Planning Research and the eldwork was carried out between April 2013 and
November 2014. The interim ndings were published in 2014
6
. The evaluation also examined
the impact of the Benet Cap within the social rented sector. The ndings from this strand of
the work were presented separately in the autumn of 2014
7
.
The focus of the evaluation is Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales).
1.1 Aims
This nal report presents the ndings from the study, covering the rst 20 months of
implementation from April 2013 to November 2014.
Assessing whether Housing Benet (HB) expenditure has fallen is being carried out by the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) separately, and does not lie within this evaluation.
The objectives of this evaluation were to explore:
• The preparation, delivery and implementation of the policy changes by local authorities
(LAs) (in their strategic housing role) and social landlords.
• The extent of increased mobility within the social housing sector leading to more effective
use of the housing stock with households in more suitable sized accommodation.
• The extent to which, as a result of the RSRS, more people are in work, working increased
hours or earning increased incomes.
• The effects of the RSRS, and responses to it by:
– Claimants.
– Social landlords.
– LAs.
– Voluntary and statutory organisations and advice services, including Children’s Services.
– Funders lending to social landlords.
1.2 Background
The RSRS was brought into effect on 1 April 2013. It entailed a reduction in HB for working-
age social tenants whose properties have more bedrooms than they are considered to need,
based on the DWP’s size criteria (see below).
6
See www.gov.uk/government/publications/removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy-interim-
evaluation-report
7
See www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/386213/
supporting-households-affected-by-the-benet-cap.pdf
22
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The number of bedrooms required is worked out so that no one has to share a bedroom
unless they are:
• A couple.
• Both aged under 10 years old.
• Both aged under 16 years old and of the same sex.
No more than two people should have to share a bedroom.
An extra bedroom was also allowed for:
• A non-resident overnight carer for the tenant or their partner.
• Foster carers who have fostered or become approved for fostering within the last year.
• A child whose disability or medical conditions means they cannot share a bedroom with
another child whom they would otherwise be expected to share with.
Bedrooms used by students and members of the armed forces are not counted as ‘spare’ if
they are away and intend to return home.
(Source: Wilson (2015) ‘Under-occupation of social housing: Housing Benet entitlement’
Department for Work and Pensions)
Those with one spare bedroom, according to the criteria, have had their rent eligible for HB
reduced by 14 per cent, whilst those with two or more spare bedrooms have had their rent
eligible for HB reduced by 25 per cent. People on partial HB will in some cases have ceased
to be eligible for HB as the reductions are applied to their eligible rent, not the actual amount
of HB previously received. The average reduction was projected to be around £14 (DWP,
2012
8
).
The DWP’s initial data on the impact of the RSRS shows that in May 2013, two-thirds of
tenants with one spare bedroom were seeing reductions of between £10 and £15 a week,
whilst 16 per cent had their HB reduced by under £10. For tenants with two or more spare
bedrooms, half were experiencing reductions of between £20 and £25, with 28 per cent were
seeing reductions of over £25
9
.
1.3 Research methods
There were six strands to this research:
• A survey of social landlords throughout Britain.
This survey ran between 16 October and 8 November 2013 and again between 13 October
and 7 November 2014. A total of 750 landlords were invited to take part in each survey,
comprising all stock-owning LAs and Private Registered Providers (PRPs) with over 1,000
properties, as well as a sample of smaller social landlords throughout Britain. A total of 312
responded to the rst survey and 256 to the 2014 survey.
8
DWP. (2012). Housing Benet: Under occupation of social housing Impact Assessment,
Department for Work and Pensions.
9
https://sw.stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk
23
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The survey asked for substantial numeric data relating to nances and numbers of affected
tenants. Landlords were instructed: “Draw on any data you hold wherever possible, but give
us your best estimate if not. Please leave blank any questions where you do not know the
answer, and cannot provide a good estimate either”.
The landlords who responded were representative of all social landlords in terms of their
spread between England, Scotland and Wales. In 2013, they had an average of 11.1 per
cent of their stock occupied by tenants affected by the RSRS, which was precisely the
national average as of August 2013. In 2014, the landlords answering the survey had 10.4
per cent of their stock occupied by tenants affected by the RSRS, very close to the national
gure of 10.0 per cent for August 2014. For further details, see Appendix D.
• A longitudinal survey of HB claimants both affected and not affected by the RSRS.
A total of 15 areas were selected for the purposes of undertaking primary survey research
among HB claimants in the social rented sector. These covered England (13 areas),
Scotland and Wales (one area each) and were chosen to ensure a range of housing market
circumstances, region, tenure mix, type and size of LA throughout Britain. This was not
designed to be representative in any statistical sense – and should not be considered as
such, but rather to ensure coverage of a mixture of stock-owning and non-stock owning, rural
and urban and unitary and district authorities.
Table 1.1 below shows key statistics of the 15 case study areas, as compared to the national
average:
Table 1.1 Key statistics of the 15 case study areas
15 case study areas Britain
Proportion where LA owns stock 60% 53%
Proportion rural (Defra class 4–6) 40% 51%
Mean % private rented sector tenants 19% 16%
Average overcrowded households per 100 households 5 4
Mean proportion social sector with 1–2 rooms 10% 11%
Mean estimate of proportion of tenants affected by RSRS 15% 14%
Source: 2001 and 2011 Censuses, Defra, Scottish Government and Welsh Government websites;
Estimate of proportion affected by RSRS modelled from DWP impact assessment.
10
In order to encourage frank and open discussion, the case study authorities in which
eldwork was undertaken (via the claimant survey and case study work) were selected on
the basis of guaranteeing anonymity; they have not been identied in this report.
The survey of claimants was a longitudinal one, that is to say interviewers returned to the
same respondents to research how things had changed (according to what they think had
changed and by comparing their responses between the two waves). This is distinct from
a cross-sectional study in which two matched but separate samples are built in order to
10
DWP. (2012). Housing Benet: Under occupation of social housing Impact Assessment,
Department for Work and Pensions. The Impact Assessment provided estimates of the
likely number of affected claimants by region. These were used to estimate the likely
proportion of tenants who would be affected in each region, (as the actual numbers by
LA were not known at the time of selecting case studies.
24
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
compare or detect changes with weighting applied to the two samples (if necessary) to be
sure that any differences are ‘real’ and not simply the product of variation in the samples.
Since, in this nal report, the focus has been undertaking longitudinal analysis, the data used
is unweighted. For further information about this, please see Appendix A.
The rst (autumn 2013) wave of research ran between 1 October and 24 November 2013,
following a small-scale pilot survey conducted in September. The sample was drawn from
the May 2013 Single Housing Benet Extract (SHBE), which agged claimants as either
‘affected’ or ‘non affected’ by the RSRS at the point the extract was compiled. Ipsos MORI
interviewed 100 claimants face-to-face in their homes in each area. Sampling and quotas
were structured to achieve interviews with affected claimants in a 70:30 ratio of affected to
non-affected claimants at both local and aggregate levels.
In total, 1,071 affected HB claimants were interviewed plus a non-affected sample of 431 HB
claimants. For analysis purposes, ndings focus on the 871 claimants agged in the May
2013 SHBE extract as affected by the changes
11
and who said they were currently affected
by the changes and that their Housing Benet has been reduced (‘affected’), and on the 381
claimants agged as not affected in the May 2013 SHBE extract and who said they were not
currently affected by the changes (‘non-affected’).
12
The second (summer 2014) wave of research ran between 16 June and 4 August 2014.
Ipsos MORI completed interviews with 972 respondents who took part in the autumn 2013
survey. Reecting the longitudinal nature of the survey, the focus of analysis in this report is
on certain types of claimant based on their longitudinal status at wave one and wave two:
1
Those in the autumn 2013 survey recontacted in 2014 who were agged as affected by
the changes in the May 2013 SHBE extract and who said they were ‘currently affected
by the changes and Housing Benet has been reduced’ (called the ‘affected cohort’).
Of these:
2
those who were still affected in 2014 (‘I am currently affected by these changes and my
Housing Benet has been reduced’), including those receiving Discretionary Housing
Payment (DHP) to cover the shortfall (referred to as ‘still affected’);
3
those who say they were no longer affected by 2014 (‘I am not currently affected by these
changes, but I have been previously’) (‘no longer affected’); and
4 those who were unaffected in autumn 2013 and remain unaffected in 2014 (‘I am not
currently affected by these changes and never have been’) (‘never affected’, or the
‘comparison group’)
The diagram in Figure 1.1 shows the movement of the four groups of interest between the
two waves of research.
11
This was derived from SHBE eld 21 – ‘the weekly amount of social sector size criteria/
under-occupation deduction’.
12
This allows greater certainty, but relies on respondent recall/reporting (and does not
provide precise validation of the SHBE ag). We detected some confusion on the issue
– for example, of the 1,502 taking part in the survey, 180 agged as affected by SHBE
said that their HB had not been reduced. A further 32 agged as not affected by SHBE
said that their HB had been reduced, while 10 said they believed they were affected but
their HB had not been reduced. A further 28 were unsure of their current status.
25
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 1.1 Analysis groups and their status in autumn 2013 and summer 2014
13
Focusing on these groups allows a comparison of the behaviours/responses to RSRS
among those who remained under occupiers and those who were no longer under
occupying, as well as comparing against the group of claimants who were never under
occupying/affected.
For further details on methods and the interview schedule used, see Appendix A.
• Follow-up qualitative interviews with 30 claimants affected by the RSRS
In addition to the survey of claimants, 30 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted in
autumn 2013 among those affected by RSRS (who had taken part in the original survey).
Respondents were chosen based on a range of demographic characteristics to ensure a
cross-section of affected claimants was interviewed. Interviews were conducted in six of
the 15 areas (four in England, one in Wales, one in Scotland) to ensure the inclusion of a
diverse selection of case study areas
These claimants were contacted again to take part in a follow-up interview in autumn
2014. Of the 30 who took part in autumn 2013, 22 were interviewed again in autumn 2014.
Eight interviews were conducted with claimants who had taken part in the survey but had
not taken part in the qualitative interviews in autumn 2013. These claimants were again
selected to reect a range of demographic characteristics and who had pursued diverse
responses to the RSRS.
Further details about the qualitative interviews can be found in Appendix C.
13
Please note that the ‘affected cohort’ grouping is placed across the affected/not affected
line to reect the proportion of respondents within this group who are no longer
affected.
Autumn 2013
(Wave one)
Summer 2014
(Wave two)
Affected by the RSRS
‘Affected cohort’
(n=563)
Not affected by the RSRS
Comparison
group (never
affected)
(n=204)
‘Affected cohort’
(n=563)
Comparison
group (never
affected)
(n=204)
‘Still affected’
(n=469)
‘No longer
affected’
(n=94)
26
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
• The qualitative ndings described in this report include some indications of the prevalence
of views or experiences across the sample or within subgroups, presented through the
use of words such as ‘most’, ‘many’ and ‘few’ to describe how typical views or experiences
were across the relevant group. This should be considered indicative rather than exact
due to the nature of qualitative research which is not intended to give a statistical measure
of the prevalence of different views. Rather, qualitative research is designed generate
detailed and exploratory accounts, provides insight into the perceptions, experiences and
behaviours of participants.
• Case study work in ten local authority areas.
The ten case study LAs were chosen to reect a range of housing market circumstances.
Nine of the ten areas were chosen from within the 15 areas selected above
14
. Group
interviews were held between May and August 2013 in each location with between two
and ten LA staff in attendance at each interview and these same people were interviewed
again by telephone in September 2014. In total, 26 landlords were interviewed by telephone
in summer 2013 and again a year later. These landlords between them held 89 per cent
of the housing stock in the case study areas, around 186,000 properties. Interviews were
also conducted in November 2013 and again in October 2014 with a total of over 50 local
agencies and LA departments across the ten areas, including Children’s Services, the
Citizens Advice Bureau, Job Centres and local voluntary organisations. One LA and one
housing association who both took part in 2013 declined to participate in 2014 and one
(different) housing association had declined in 2013 but agreed to participate in 2014.
The topic guides used are provided in Appendix E.
• Interviews with eight of the major lenders to the social housing sector in the UK.
Eight interviews were conducted during October 2013, and six lenders provided written
responses to questions in October 2014. In 2013, the six largest lenders were all included,
along with two others both of whom were selected because they were recent entrants to
the sector lending to housing associations. In 2014, the same lenders were contacted
again, along with others by open invitation via the Council of Mortgage Lenders’ Social
Housing Panel. This panel includes most of the lenders to the housing association sector
in the UK. Thus, although it is not a full survey of the market, the coverage does provide a
useful snapshot of views in October 2014.
• The DWP’s Local Authority Insight Survey.
The DWP carry out a survey of all LAs every six to 12 months, known as the Local
Authority Insight Survey’ (formally the Omnibus Survey)
15
. The autumn 2013 survey
ran from October to December 2013 and included questions added to contribute to this
evaluation. The questions added covered:
14
The intention had been to choose just nine from within the 15 selected for claimant
interviews, but one case study area was found not to have adequate SHBE data and
therefore was no longer suitable for claimant interviews. It was therefore decided to
include an additional tenth case study area – nine from the 15, as planned, as well as
continuing eldwork in the tenth one where claimant interviews could not be carried out.
15
For further information about the Local Authority Insight Survey see
www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-authority-insight-survey-wave-24-rr847
27
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
• DHPs and their use in relation to people affected by the RSRS.
• HB advice given to people affected by the RSRS.
• Communication with claimants affected by the RSRS.
• Whether the numbers affected had increased or decreased and perceived reasons for any
decrease.
• Other comments on the RSRS.
This report has drawn upon all these sources of information and used triangulation methods
which involve using information from more than one source wherever possible in order to
cross-check and increase the validity of the conclusions drawn.
28
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
2 Implementation
This section reports on the implementation of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy
(RSRS) during its rst 20 months of operation, until autumn 2014. The Interim Report of July
2014 covered preparedness and initial implementation of the RSRS. The second round of
eldwork in autumn 2014 focused on ongoing issues of communication between landlords
and local authorities (LAs), emerging staff training needs and ongoing communication with
claimants.
2.1 Numbers and prole of households affected
Key ndings
• The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP’s) data shows a reduction in the
number of households affected by the RSRS from 547,000 to 465,000 by November
2014, a reduction of 14.2 per cent
16
. The greatest falls were in London, followed
by the North West and East of England (StatXplore).There was an increase in
the average age of those affected by the RSRS during the period of the research
(StatXplore). This is partially explained by the rising pension age, but the research
suggested that changing allocation rules are likely to have reduced the number of
younger claimants (case study work) whilst younger claimants were also more likely
to have found work or otherwise ceased to be affected (claimant survey).
• The large majority of claimants from the affected cohort were still affected nine
months later (claimant survey). Of those affected in 2013, 17 per cent were no longer
affected by autumn 2014 (claimant survey).
• Those no longer affected were more likely to be younger and more likely to be in
households with young children (StatXplore).
• A combined 46 per cent of those no longer affected said this was because of a
change in household composition or their/their children’s ages. One in ve (20
per cent) said they found work or increased earnings and were no longer affected
(claimant survey).
The DWP’s data show that in May 2013 a total of 547,341 households were affected across
Britain, falling to 471,887 by August 2014, a reduction of 13.8 per cent over the rst 16
months of the policy. There were variations between LAs in the degree of the reduction, but a
net reduction was found in every single LA in Britain. A higher reduction was seen in England
(14.8 per cent) than in Wales (12.6 per cent) or Scotland (8.9 per cent).
Figure 2.1 shows how this reduction has occurred across the different parts of Britain.
16
This is a net reduction. The extent of ‘churn’ of households on and off being affected by
the RSRS is not known.
29
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 2.1 Numbers of households affected by the RSRS by month, as a proportion
of those initially affected in May 2013
17
17
The apparent rise in June 2013 in some regions is related to missing data from May
2013 in some authorities. No data has been published from April 2013. The fall of
around 2,000 in February 2014 and subsequent rise back up in March would appear
most likely related to the closing of the loophole that had excluded people with claims
running continually from prior to 1996.
Percentages
Source: DWP, StatXplore.
North East
North West
Yorkshire and
The Humber
East Midlands West Midlands
East of
England
London
0
20
40
60
80
100
2013 2014
May
June
July
August
September
November
October
December
May
June
July
August
January
February
March
April
30
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Proportionally the greatest falls in the number of claimants affected between May 2013 and
August 2014 occurred in London (a 19 per cent fall), followed by the North West and East of
England (both 17 per cent). Overall, the reduction in numbers happened mainly in the rst
few months of implementation, falling by ve per cent between May and August 2013.
The
numbers fell by a further nine per cent in the following 12 months (August 2013 to August
2014). With the exception of the North W
est, the reductions have been highest in the regions
where the smallest proportions of social tenants were affected by the RSRS.
The DWP data also show the differential impact on age groups, with the number of young
people affected having reduced by 29 per cent, as compared to a rise of 28 per cent for
the over 60s. This is most likely related to the changes in allocation systems reducing the
proportion of new lets to under occupying tenants (who are most likely to be young) and
the increase in the upper age limit for being affected by the RSRS, in line with increases in
women’s pension age (Table 2.1):
Table 2.1 Demographic prole of claimants (household heads) affected by the
RSRS
Characteristic May 2013 August 2014 Reduction
Age of claimant Under 25 24,843 17,615 29.1%
25 to 34 82,044 65,528 20.1%
35 to 44 110,736 87,765 20.7%
45 to 49 93,972 78,152 16.8%
50 to 54 102,883 91,581 11.0%
55 to 59 100,931 90,654 10.2%
60 to 64 31,723 40,582 -27.9%
Unknown 206 11 94.7%
Number of
dependent children
0 387,755 341,258 12.0%
1 83,500 68,470 18.0%
2 66,055 54,132 18.1%
3 5,926 4,776 19.4%
4 3,519 2,825 19.7%
5+ 584 436 25.3%
Total 471,887 547,341 13.8%
Source: DWP, StatXplore.
Table 2.1 also shows a reduction in the proportion of affected households who have children.
This may be related to the greater availability of suitable stock for downsizing for those in
need of two or more bedrooms, though may also be partially accounted for by the increased
numbers of over 60s affected, who are less likely to have dependent children.
These gures are net gures; it is not possible to tell from this data alone whether it is the
same households affected by August 2014 as were affected in May 2013, due to the churn
in the Housing Benet (HB) caseload. It is likely that somewhat more than 13.8 per cent of
initially affected tenants had ceased to be so by August 2014, whilst some other tenants are
likely to have also become affected during this period.
31
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The claimant survey provided self-reported outcomes for those who were affected at the start
of the policy. It found that the large majority (82 per cent) of claimants from the affected cohort
of respondents in autumn 2013 were still affected by summer 2014. Among this group, 17 per
cent said they were no longer affected (but had been previously), while one per cent said they
were unsure (but for the purposes of the analysis were treated as still affected).
The survey also found relatively little movement in and out of being affected by the RSRS
between autumn 2013 and summer 2014. Almost all claimants still affected by the policy
said they became affected at its inception and had been affected ever since. Some 97 per
cent said they had been affected since 1 April 2013 (as one might expect given the original
sample for the autumn 2013 survey was drawn from the May 2013 SHBE extract). A similarly
high proportion (94 per cent) said they had been affected consistently during that time,
though a small proportion (6 per cent) said they had been affected at some times since 1
April 2013 but not at others.
The majority of still affected claimants had their HB reduced by between £10 and £15 per
week (38 per cent) or more than £15 per week (43 per cent), with many uncertain about
the amount by which their HB had been reduced (16 per cent). Those with three or more
bedrooms in their property were far more likely to pay more than £15 per week of their rent
(55 per cent of them did so).
In line with the caseload analysis (but keeping in mind the smaller base size of this sub-
group of the affected cohort), those no longer affected by the RSRS were much more likely
to be in families with at least one child under 16 (54 per cent compared with 27 per cent of
those still affected).
They were also likely to be younger; 53 per cent of respondents no longer affected were
45 or older compared with 71 per cent of those who were still affected. However, those still
affected (75 per cent) were more likely to report having someone in their household with
long-term health problems than those no longer affected (62 per cent).
2.2 Degree of impact on landlords
Key ndings
• The overall proportion of tenancies affected fell from 11.5 per cent to 10.0 per cent by
autumn 2014 (various data sources). The landlord survey found substantial variation
between landlords in the degree of impact with the proportion of tenants currently
affected ranging from two per cent to 48 per cent.
• Most social landlords saw a reduction in the proportion of tenancies affected during the
rst 18 months of operation, some of over 40 per cent, but 16 per cent of landlords saw
an increase (landlord survey).
The impact of the RSRS on social landlords varied between areas and between landlords.
Overall, the proportion of tenants affected fell from 11.5 per cent of tenancies in April 2013
to 10.0 per cent (10.4 per cent among for landlords answering the survey) by August 2014
18
.
The reduction, however, varied considerably with some landlords seeing a reduction of over
40 per cent and others seeing an increase of up to 28 per cent (Figure 2.2).
18
Sources: 2011 Census on stock size, and DWP StatXplore on claimants affected by
RSRS.
32
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 2.2 Change in the number of RSRS-affected tenants reported by landlords
April 2013 to October/November 2014
Overall the proportion of tenants affected ranged from two per cent to 48 per cent. Amongst
landlords with over 1,000 general needs properties, the proportions ranged from two per cent
to 34 per cent, which is likely to reect their stock prole and historic allocation practices; for
further details see Chapter 4.
2.3 Administering the Removal of the Spare
Room Subsidy
Key ndings
• A range of systems had been devised jointly by LAs and social landlords for keeping
landlords updated about which tenants were affected by the RSRS.
• Most landlords were, by autumn 2014, informed regularly but a minority were informed
less than monthly (15 per cent) or not at all (8 per cent).
• Landlords working across many areas were more likely to be having difculties in
knowing which tenants were affected.
Increase
Proportion of landlords
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0–10%
decrease
10–20%
decrease
20–30%
decrease
30–40%
decrease
40%
decrease
Change in number of RSRS-affected tenants
Base: All Landlords n=256. Fieldwork Dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP.
33
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
In 2013, the landlord survey found that around a quarter of landlords were not informed
regularly when tenants started or ceased to be affected by the RSRS. The 2014 survey
found that these gures had changed little (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Which of the following best describes how you become aware when
tenants start or cease to be affected by the RSRS?
System 2013 2014
Number Proportion Number Proportion
We have access to the local authority HB
database so we can see for ourselves
42 14% 31 12%
The local authority informs us on a case by
case basis when people start or cease to be
affected
45 15% 20 8%
The local authority informs us on a regular
basis (at least monthly)
43 14% 41 16%
The local authority informs us but less often
than monthly
34 11% 29 11%
We do not get informed by the LA reliably
so rely on the tenant telling us directly
44 14% 38 15%
Other (please explain) 90 29% 21 8%
A mixture of the above 8 3% 75 29%
Total 306 100% 255 100%
Base: All Landlords (2013 n=306; 2014 n=255). Fieldwork Dates: 16 October to 8 November 2013
and 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Landlords with dispersed stock reported more difculties in nding out when tenants started
or ceased to be affected. Stock-owning LAs were generally able to access the HB database
themselves so found this task easier and were less likely than housing associations to report
difculties. Some of the case study housing associations reported difculties in maintaining
up-to-date information from LAs:
‘We’re not told by the LA, so we do rely on our tenants informing us. We do know if
they’re on full Housing Benet and that stops, so we will contact them then. But we only
really know if their rent account goes into arrears. The LA did initially send us lists but it
took a lot of their time so they were only willing to do it for a short period of time.’
‘The local authority does sometime send exceptional lists for data to be checked, but
the task has largely fallen to us to update … The revenue team will be able to identify
if the Housing Benet has been stopped, or the tenant starts to fall into arrears. This
is then leads to a conversation about the shortfall with the tenant. Where the tenant
is able to pay the shortfall, and there are no arrears, then it is likely that we will not be
aware of whether they are affected or not.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
34
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Housing associations who worked across different areas often had different systems in place
in different areas:
‘We have a close relationship with [the LA where most of our stock is]. They undertake
a data sharing exercise on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. We also have a good
relationship with [the case study LA], but this is on a more ad-hoc basis, and the
information is shared via a spreadsheet … Our own team check Housing Benet
notications on a daily basis so that they are quickly able to identify changes which can
then be fed to the local teams.’
‘It’s a combination – we deal with 33 different local authorities. We have good working
relationships with our “big ve” and get electronic notications of award letters. For the
others we just see a reduction in the Housing Benet award, so we get in touch with
them.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
There were other examples of what was felt to be good practice operating in some areas:
‘We get a list from the LA on a month by month basis, record it on our housing
management system.’
‘We get an updated list every month, so can see who’s newly affected and who’s not.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
2.3.1 Payment methods
Many tenants affected by the RSRS had previously had their rent paid in full by HB, so
handling rent payments themselves to cover the RSRS shortfall was new to them. Landlords
generally offered a range of payment methods. Direct debits were preferred by landlords as
being less resource-intensive for them to collect, but were reported as not always being the
most popular, or the most suitable, option for tenants. Some case study landlords expressed
concerns that tenants with little reserves could end up incurring a charge if their benet
payments were delayed for some reason, meaning that the direct debit pushed them into an
overdraft. They were also aware that not all tenants had bank accounts with the capacity to
make direct debits. Some of the case study landlords also explained that they were reluctant
to promote payments on credit cards as they did not want to encourage their tenants to take
on expensive debts.
Landlords taking part in the survey were asked which payment methods they allowed, which
they encouraged, and which were popular with tenants (Table 2.3).
35
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 2.3 Which of the following payment methods have you encouraged for your
tenants to pay their rental shortfalls arising from the RSRS?
Payment method We allow tenants to pay
by this method
We encourage this
payment method
This method is popular
with tenants
Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion
Cheque 219 89% 13 5% 17 7%
Debit card by phone 206 84% 104 42% 98 40%
Standing order 204 83% 79 32% 69 28%
Cash 194 79% 28 11% 76 31%
Debit card online 192 78% 96 39% 46 19%
Payment cards 188 76% 96 39% 145 59%
Credit card by phone 186 76% 19 8% 20 8%
Credit card online 178 72% 22 9% 12 5%
Direct debits 171 70% 206 84% 118 48%
Other 43 17% 18 7% 10 4%
Base: All Landlords (n=246). Fieldwork Dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/
DWP.
As can be seen from Table 3.8, the majority of landlords offered a range of payment
methods, though they encouraged tenants to pay by direct debit where possible. There is
quite a contrast, however, between the types of payment favoured by landlords and those
which they report as popular with tenants. Tenants were reported to most often favour paying
by payment card. Cash, direct debits and debit card by phone were also popular.
Several landlords explained that they had improved the exibility of their direct debit facilities
in order to allow any frequency of payment or payment date, so that tenants could choose
the arrangement that best matched their own payday, or the day that their benets arrived in
their bank account.
Landlords varied in their approach to cash payments – some were reluctant to accept cash
as it was more onerous to process, whilst others felt that this was meeting demand from
tenants who were more able to be in control of their own nances using cash. No correlation
could be found in the landlord survey between landlords offering any particular payment type
and levels of arrears.
Other payment systems in use included phone Apps such as Pingit, text (SMS), online bank
transfers, doorstep rent collection, salary transfer or payment via a post ofce or credit union.
Overall, landlords felt that offering as many payment options as possible was generally
the best way to improve rent collection rates and the RSRS and the imminent roll-out of
Universal Credit had both prompted them to improve the range of methods available. They
recognised that tenants varied in the way they managed their nances and that what suited
one household might not suit another.
The 2013 claimant survey supports this – it found a high degree of variation in how long
households usually plan their budget for (38 per cent of the affected cohort said they budget
weekly, 29 per cent fortnightly, 17 per cent monthly, while others said they either don’t budget
or vary their approach). The claimant survey also found variation in methods used for paying
household bills: claimants used a range of methods including pre-payment cards or keys
(54 per cent), cash (39 per cent) and/or direct debit (37 per cent), among other payment
methods.
36
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
2.3.2 Communication between claimants, landlords and local
authorities
Social landlords usually took the lead in ensuring that people taking on new tenancies were
aware of what size of property HB would cover.
Existing tenants whose circumstances changed so that they started to be affected by the
RSRS, were generally made aware of this by the LA HB departments. Case study LAs
reported that tenants would usually be made aware by letter, or sometimes by phone call or
text.
Some landlords and LAs reported difculties in communicating with tenants because of
confusion over the terminology used:
‘People don’t understand the terminology “spare room subsidy” … they refer to it as the
“bedroom tax”.’
‘We write to tenants – but we don’t like to use the terms “bedroom tax” or “removal
of the spare room subsidy” – they’re both too political. So we say “because you are
deemed to have too many bedrooms”. Broadly people understand this.’
(Interview with LA HB departments)
The autumn 2013 claimant survey found that most claimants were aware of the RSRS policy
before being interviewed. Of the affected cohort of claimants, almost half (49 per cent) said
at the time they knew either a great deal or fair amount about the changes to HB, while one
per cent said they had not heard of them. There were few differences between those still
affected and those no longer affected, though the former (48 per cent) were a little less likely
than the latter (53 per cent) to have said they knew a great deal or fair amount when asked.
Close to nine in ten (88 per cent) of the affected cohort said, in autumn 2013, that they
had received notication from their landlord or LA that they would be affected by the policy.
Among those who recalled being notied, most said this had been by letter (88 per cent),
though some also said they received a personal visit (15 per cent) or a phone call (10 per
cent).
In contrast, just over half (53 per cent) of landlords report in 2013 that they had visited at
least 90 per cent of affected tenants and 70 per cent had telephone contact with over 90
per cent.
Claimants were more aware of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) by the 2014 survey
(see Chapter 3.4)
Landlords with stock concentrated in just one area were more likely to report in 2013 that the
large majority of affected tenants had been visited face-to-face, as were landlords with fewer
properties. LA staff in all case study areas told us that additional support was available on
request (by phone or visit), although one landlord reported a four-week wait for appointments
for its tenancy support, because of high demand.
Some case study LAs had undertaken ‘roadshow’ type events, although there were mixed
views as to how effective these were either for those affected or those who feared they
might be. They were often not well attended, which staff speculated may be because of the
stigmatised nature of receiving benets, or possibly because they were held too early, before
tenants were ready to grasp the implications of the reforms.
37
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Joint working arrangements between landlords and LAs in most areas were well established
by the summer of 2013. Good practice identied included developing joint letters to be
sent to tenants throughout the LA which ensured a single and clear message was sent out,
and including an individual assessment of their likely loss of HB and telephone numbers to
contact for further advice.
The timing of communication with affected tenants was considered crucial. Some landlords
who had been able to identify tenants likely to be affected as early as summer 2012 had
tried to forewarn tenants. Most, however, reported limited success in engaging tenants this
far in advance and reported a more positive response only once the reforms were imminent
or actually in operation. They believed the lack of earlier success was due to tenants being
unwilling to engage until it came into effect.
LAs and social landlords had also taken some efforts to disseminate information about the
RSRS more widely and to reassure unaffected tenants that they would not be affected.
Most landlords did this by means of articles in tenants’ magazines or newsletters. Most LAs
and landlords reported having to devote some time initially to elding calls from unaffected
tenants, mainly pensioners, who were concerned about having to pay the ‘bedroom tax’ that
they had heard about in the press.
The qualitative research with claimants in autumn 2013 found that claimants had heard
about the policy, but were not sure how it would affect them exactly until they had to make
their rst additional rent payments. In autumn 2014, claimants’ understanding of the policy
did not appear to have increased. Claimants reported that they had not had further contact
with their landlord since the rst contact in early 2013 and most had not received any support
on paying the extra rent.
2.4 Administering Discretionary Housing
Payments
Key ndings
• LAs were becoming better at managing DHP and predicting levels of demand (landlord
survey and case study work).
• LAs (where DHP was not available for all claimants) were increasingly setting conditions
on the receipt of DHP, such as job seeking or registering and/or bidding for downsizing.
Setting conditions on the receipt of DHP was something that most LAs had developed
over the course of the rst year of the RSRS (landlord survey and case studies).
• Some authorities reported difculties with over-reliance on housing associations to
complete DHP applications or monitor whether people were meeting set conditions,
given the need for landlords to ensure that rent is paid (case studies).
• LAs were not excluding disability benets (Disability Living Allowance – DLA, or Personal
Independence Payment – PIP) but considered both income and expenditure relating
to disabilities when they means test to assess eligibility for DHP. There was some
confusion amongst landlords about this (landlord survey and case studies).
38
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) are made by LAs when a LA considers that a
claimant requires further nancial assistance towards housing costs. Previously these were
intended mainly to help them deal with short-term problems, where an end to the problem
could be envisaged. The Government made substantial increases to the funding allocated
to local authorities for DHP to enable them to help some of those affected by the RSRS and
the Benet Cap, as well as the previous client group which was mainly private rented sector
tenants whose rent was not fully covered by their Local Housing Allowance.
LAs may top up their DHP allocation to a maximum of two and a half times the Government’s
contribution, from their own funds. In addition the Scottish Government announced in
September 2013 that it would top up the resources available to Scottish LAs by a total of £20
million, trebling the amount available to Scottish authorities for 2013–14, with further support
in 2014–15. Further funding was also made available in rural areas. The Welsh Government
also topped up the funding for DHP for Welsh authorities.
2.4.1 Discretionary Housing Payments in Scotland and Wales
The 2014 landlord survey found that the large majority of landlords in Scotland (34 out of 43)
reported that the DHP funding available to their tenants meant that all their tenants received
DHP to cover their entire RSRS shortfalls in 2013–14. This was the case only for a minority
of landlords in Wales (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4 Has the total DHP funding (including any top up from the Scottish or
Welsh Government) been sufcient to allow DHP to cover the shortfalls in
full of all RSRS-affected tenants as long as they apply for it?
Landlord with stock located mainly in:
Scotland Wales
Yes 34 4
No 3 10
In some areas but not others 3 3
Not known 3 0
Total 43 17
Base: All Landlords whose stock was located mainly in Scotland or Wales (n=60). Fieldwork Dates:
13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Both the Scottish case study LAs indicated that their DHP allocation, including top ups from
the Scottish Government and in one case a further top up given to rural areas had meant
that they were eventually able to award DHP for every RSRS-affected applicant:
‘Our local authority has been awarded a far higher DHP budget than they required so
there have been no issues at all – everyone has had DHP to cover bedroom tax in full.
The LA have made the system very easy so that all we need to do is get the tenants’
signature on a piece of paper. For a small number of people tracking them down and
getting them to put pen to paper has been a challenge, but not majorly so. We know
our tenants and how to track them down. We achieved 100 per cent.’
(Interviews with case study Social landlord)
39
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
One of the areas had also backdated all claims to the start of April 2013. This was believed
to have substantially mitigated the impact of the RSRS:
‘Having budgeted for an increase in rent arrears, we actually saw a decrease.
Tenants perceive that there is no issue with bedroom tax anymore, so the demand for
downsizing moves has tailed off. People are accusing us of scaremongering … We
are continuing to stress to people that it’s not a permanent arrangement, but there’s
a perception in Scotland that the Housing Benet budget will be devolved, and the
political parties have all said they’ll do away with the bedroom tax.’
(Interviews with case study Social landlord)
The main focus in the two Scottish case studies had been on promoting the availability of
DHP and encouraging tenants to apply. One area reported all but one of their RSRS-affected
tenants to have applied by the end of the March 2014.
2.4.2 Awarding Discretionary Housing Payments
In England and most of Wales DHP funding was not sufcient to offset the impact of the
RSRS for most tenants affected by the RSRS and LAs need to prioritise who to allocate
funding to. Landlords were asked about the system that was most often used for assessing
their tenants’ eligibility to receive DHP (Table 1.1 Table 2.5):
Table 2.5 Which of the following best describes the system used most often for
assessing eligibility for DHP for your tenants?
Number Proportion
1
Tenants need to be in a priority group 13 7%
Tenants need to be found to be unable to afford the shortfall 85 49%
Tenants need to be in a priority group, and ALSO to be found to be
unable to afford the shortfall
39 22%
Some other system (please explain) 24 14%
Not known 13 7%
Total 174 100%
Base: All landlords based in England, or who indicated that their tenants were not all in receipt of
DHP to cover their shortfall in full n=174. Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source:
CCHPR/DWP.
1
The proportions given do not always sum to 100 per cent due to rounding errors.
It was clear from the case studies that a range of factors were considered by different LAs in
deciding whether to award DHP, meaning that the LA’s practice around DHP had an impact
on the way in which the RSRS affected claimants. Most operated a means test generally
excluding those with income above the basic benet level. This could sometimes exclude
parents in receipt of child support payments. Others focused more on the tenants who were
in the most precarious positions with their rental payments and at risk of eviction.
LAs were aware of suggestions that they should discount (or ‘ringfence’) Disability Living
Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP) when assessing eligibility for
DHP. All of the case study authorities, however, reported that such an approach would be
unworkable because they would need also to exclude the disability-related expenditure.
40
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
In practice it was better to include DLA/PIP as income, but to also include any additional
expenditure such as paying for a gardener or taxis that were related to the disability.
Disabled applicants were therefore required to show how they spent their DLA/PIP in order
to be eligible for DHP. Housing associations were not always clear on how DLA/PIP was
being treated in the LAs in which they operated. Some gave answers that were inconsistent
with the information provided by their LA.
2.4.3 The role of landlords in supporting tenants to apply for
Discretionary Housing Payments
Landlords were asked in 2013 how familiar they were with the DHP policies of the LAs in
which they worked. This question was asked again in 2014, but this time just to those whose
tenants were not all in receipt of DHP. The results from both years are shown in Table 2.6
19
:
Table 2.6 In how many of the local authorities in which you work are you familiar
enough with the policy on DHP to advise tenants affected by the RSRS as
to whether they might be eligible?
2013 2014
Number Proportion Number Proportion
All 203 76% 143 81%
Most 45 17% 26 15%
Around half 5 2% 4 2%
A minority 12 4% 3 2%
None 3 1% 0 0%
Total 268 100% 176 100%
Base: 2013: All landlords (n=268). 2014: All landlords based in England, or who indicated that
their tenants were not all in receipt of DHP to cover their shortfall in full n=176. Fieldwork dates:
16 October to 8 November 2013 and 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
20
As can be seen from Table 2.11, there was some improvement between 2013 and 2014 in
the extent to which social landlords report that they were familiar with the DHP policies in
operation in the areas in which they worked.
The landlord survey asked about the extent of landlords’ involvement in the application
process for DHP (Figure 2.3).
19
The top ups offered by the Scottish and Welsh Government had not been sufcient to
cover all tenants by the time of the 2013 survey, so this question was asked to all
landlords.
20
The question was not asked in 2014 to landlords who had already indicated that all of
their tenants were in receipt of DHP, as it was assumed these landlords would be able
to advise all their tenants that they would be eligible.
41
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 2.3 Which of the following processes of applying for DHP apply to your
tenants?
The initial eldwork in spring and summer 2013 had found substantial variation between LAs
in the speed at which they had started to process DHP applications. The 2014 eldwork,
however, found that most were by then processing applications in what the case study
landlords considered to be a reasonable timescale. Landlords were asked in the survey if
they had any comments on DHP. They raised a variety of issues with the system, including
some comments on the impact as well as the implementation, as shown in Table 2.7.
Percentages
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The tenant applies direct to the LA and
we have no involvement in the process
We advise the tenant on whether they are
likely to be eligible for DHP and
provide assistance if required, but
the tenant applies themselves
We assist tenants with filling in the DHP
application, and the LA encourages
us to do this. Tenants are allowed
but not encouraged to apply
without our assistance
Tenants must apply through us.
The LA will not accept their
applications without our backing
We have been allocated a DHP sum
from the LA to decide how to allocate
to our tenants ourselves
Always SometimesUsually Rarely Never
Base: All landlords based in England, or who indicated that their tenants were not all in
receipt of DHP to cover their shortfall in full (n=171). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7
November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
42
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 2.7 Do you have any other comments about DHP?
Response Number of
landlords
raising issue
Positive
comments
about DHP
All RSRS-affected tenants are getting DHP now 12
DHP has prevented arrears, evictions and stress 12
LAs are becoming more consistent 5
Good working relationship with the LA in administering DHP 5
DHP allocation is consistent/fair within the LA 4
Concerns and
problems with
DHP
Filling a long term need, but provision is short term and insecure 26
Inconsistency between LAs 21
DHP funds are insufficient or hard to get 17
DHP is being made conditional on tenant taking actions 12
Lots of work for the landlord to help tenants apply 11
Inconsistency within an LA 10
Lack of clarity over whether to include DLA/PIP in assessing income 4
Lack of information from LA about DHP 3
DHP deters tenants from finding longer term solutions 2
Some eligible tenants do not apply for DHP 2
Delays in paying DHP 2
Base: All landlords (n=256). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP.
A range of issues were raised about DHP. Many landlords felt that LAs were now nding
their feet with managing DHP in relation to the RSRS and appreciated the assistance it has
provided for those at risk of arrears and evictions.
The main concerns related to the short-term nature both of individual awards and the funding
stream overall. They were concerned that most tenants had a long-term need for DHP, but
had been given short-term individual awards and that the longer term future of the funding
stream was uncertain, which could leave some tenants vulnerable.
2.4.4 Renewal and conditionality of Discretionary Housing
Payments
It was clear from the case study work and landlord surveys that setting conditions for the
receipt of DHP was something that most LAs had developed over the course of the rst year
of the RSRS. Landlords frequently reported that early DHP awards had simply been made
for a number of months (most often three or six months) and then reconsidered, but by the
summer of 2014 many LAs were less willing to repeatedly award DHP:
‘For those who have been receiving DHP since the start of the scheme – their
entitlement has recently been withdrawn by the local authority. These residents had
effectively been receiving DHP for 72 weeks. Being on it such a long time would
indicate that the resident hadn’t taken action to change their circumstances. It is there
to help people in a transitional phase, for instance whilst they are changing energy
supplier, seeking job opportunities or being introduced to the [local] employment
initiative.’
43
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
‘At the start, the city council offered year-long awards. At the end of the rst year those
who were granted it for exceptional circumstances (i.e. those who were deemed able to
move), had it extended for three months, and then expected them to give a reason for
reapplying, or else nd another solution.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
Setting conditions on the receipt of DHP means that LAs need to nd ways of checking
whether or not the tenant was complying with the requirements. In some cases housing
associations were being used to assist with this process, though this gave rise to new
challenges:
‘We were writing on the DHP forms “doing all they can to move”, but the council have
now asked us to prove this and we’ve realised that most of them hadn’t registered [to
downsize]. Now they have to register if they want to get DHP.’
‘We’re collecting numbers [who engage with the back to work scheme] but don’t tell
the council whether or not people actually engage with us. We publish our stats but our
services are condential and we don’t identify how many of the people we work with
have been referred by [the council]. We don’t want to be part of the process in policing
them.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
One of the case study authorities reported that they were now seeking to take more
ownership of policing the conditions themselves:
‘The landlords have also been … inating expenditure, adding things in such as care
costs that weren’t actually spent … Letting landlords have too much control has not
been successful – they have too much of a vested interest. Now we are taking a
different approach – we are working with the customers ourselves, we are saying
“Where are you going?”. We are making it clear sometimes that it’s short term and
won’t be repeated, making sure they register [for downsizing].’
(Interview with local authority HB department)
Some LAs and local agencies who worked with people affected by the RSRS reported
concerns about the effects of imposing conditions on vulnerable groups who may struggle to
meet them:
‘There have been some difculties with disabled people saying they’re not happy with
conditionality. We need to be careful to make sure that the conditions are suitable for
the individual. It gets really tricky with lifestyle issues – giving up smoking, Sky TV, etc
– we might instead time limit the award, and then not renew and leave it for them as a
choice.’
(Interview with local authority HB department)
‘I’m very concerned about [the use of DHP] in relation to women who’ve suffered
domestic violence, or those still living with a violent partner who may not engage with
work services. The whole [Housing Benet] system is moving away from entitlement
towards discretion. And with this comes subjective judgment about who is behaving
properly … Who makes the decision about what’s appropriate engagement?’
(Interview with local advice agency)
44
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Overall, the research suggested that LAs in England and Wales were aware that DHP was
not intended as a long-term solution for most claimants affected by the RSRS and were
trying to nd ways of using the fund to incentivise behaviour likely to solve the claimant’s
problems in the longer term. Beyond simply ensuring they registered to downsize, LAs had
not yet developed many means of monitoring the activities of claimants and were therefore
limited in their ability to place conditions on the receipt of DHP.
2.5 The costs of implementation
Key ndings
• The DWP provided additional funding to LAs to help them administer DHP and oversee
the changes. LAs also bore costs relating to visiting tenants.
• It is not possible to quantify costs to landlords across the sector as there is no common
format for estimating costs. Costs relate to:
– rent collection from tenants previously covered in full by HB and IT upgrades to
monitor payments more closely;
– chasing arrears, court fees and supporting tenants to pay;
– increased turnover: rent loss from voids and repairs needed to re-let; and
– increased levels of arrears and bad debts (case studies).
2.5.1 The costs of implementation for local authorities
Case study LAs did not generally have any gures for the costs that related specically to
the RSRS. The main costs that were reported related to making initial visits to those likely to
be affected by the RSRS and administering DHP.
The initial tenant visits were generally carried out in early 2013 and were not repeated on the
same scale once the RSRS had become established. Instead, newly affected tenants were
contacted by letter and as part of the normal process of processing benet claims. Some
authorities had also invested in improved IT systems in order to accurately identify those
affected by the RSRS.
The costs of administering DHP, dealing with appeals and in some cases topping up DHP
funding from the LA’s own resources were longer term costs. In 2013/14 the DWP provided
LAs with additional funding of £7.5m to meet the estimated additional costs associated with
RSRS (as part of total funding to LAs for all the main HB reforms of £23.6m). In 2014/15 a
further 10.5m was provided (as part of an 18.4m total), and further funding of 8.3m (as part
of a 14.2m total) will be allocated in 2015/16. These additional resources were appreciated
by the case study authorities, though some reported that they had to invest signicant
amounts of their own resources in addition.
2.5.2 Costs for social landlords
The landlord survey did not gather information on the costs to landlords of implementing
the RSRS because landlords did not collate this information in a comparable fashion. The
case studies, however, provided some illustrative examples of the ways in which costs were
incurred and the scale of these costs. Costs related both to the actual implementation of
45
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
the policy, and also to the consequences of claimants’ responses, such as moving house or
incurring rent arrears.
The main way in which costs were incurred included:
• the costs of rent collection from tenants who were previously receiving HB to cover their
entire rent;
• the costs of chasing arrears and taking tenants to court. One landlord reported that their
local court had recently increased the costs from £100 to £250 for issuing a possession
order;
• the costs of training staff in the workings of the RSRS, DHP and in the skills needed to
support affected tenants;
• the costs of supporting tenants to budget, nd work or look for smaller housing;
• the increased cost of voids arising from increased mobility and downsizing. The average
property is empty for around a month between lets, and landlords also reported that there
were often found to be maintenance issues which came to light when properties were
vacant;
• the costs of increased levels of arrears held by tenants affected by the RSRS; and
• the costs of updating and improving rent collection and IT systems for identifying affected
tenants.
A few of the case study landlords had collated gures and made estimate of the overall costs
relating to the RSRS, as shown in Table 2.8 below:
Table 2.8 Case study landlords’ estimates of costs
Estimate of
costs of RSRS
in first year
(2013–14)
Approximate
number of RSRS-
affected tenancies
Approximate cost
per RSRS-affected
tenancy
Approximate total
stock size
Approximate cost
per tenancy (total
stock)
£2,500,000 3,300 £758 50,000 £50
£420,000 380 £1,105 10,000 £42
£15,000 370 £41 1,800 £8
£500,000 5,400 £93 60,000 £8
£365,000 1,500 £243 25,000 £15
£94,000 400 £235 4,000 £23
£41,000 730 £56 4,200 £10
Source: Information supplied by case study landlords, summer 2014.
The table shows how varied the costs are between different landlords demonstrating
that there could be multiple factors inuencing cost levels. Some of these costs would be
ongoing, whilst others were reported to be likely to reduce after the rst year or two once
systems for rent collection were set up and tenants more accustomed to paying.
Landlords had a range of concerns about the impact of the RSRS on their business
in response to the open question asking for comments on the RSRS. Landlords also
commented on the signicant staff resources that they had to deploy to support tenants,
collect rent and recover arrears. Smaller numbers noted that the impact had not been as bad
as they had feared, and that DHP had helped to reduce the impact thus far.
46
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
A few raised concerns about how they would be able to tell who was affected by the RSRS
once their tenants were on Universal Credit, as they were unsure how the information would
be communicated in practice.
47
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3 The response of claimants
This chapter explores the response to the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS)
of claimants whose Housing Benet (HB) was reduced. It explores the impact on nding
work, increasing incomes, moving to the Private Rented Sector (PRS), paying the shortfall,
applying for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP), managing on a lower budget and taking
in lodgers and family members.
Downsizing within the social rented sector in response to the RSRS is discussed separately
in Chapter 4.
3.1 Overall responses
Key ndings
• 17 per cent of claimants affected in autumn 2013 had ceased to be so by summer 2014
(claimant survey).
• The most common reasons for ceasing to be affected were nding work/increasing
earnings, a friend or relative moving in or a change in age of children meaning they were
no longer considered to have a spare bedroom (claimant survey).
3.1.1 Responses of claimants who were no longer affected
The claimant survey found that 17 per cent of claimants from the affected cohort of
respondents in autumn 2013 were no longer affected by summer 2014. These claimants
were asked why this was the case (choosing from a list of possible reasons provided on a
prompted list). The reasons selected by this group of 94 claimants were varied, as Figure 3.1
shows.
The most common reason given from this list of responses was that the respondent or
someone in their household had found work or increased their earnings (20 per cent). A
combined 46 per cent said that a change in household composition or the household’s
circumstances accounted for the change in status (meaning the bedroom that was previously
deemed unoccupied was now occupied)
21
.
21
This combined code includes respondents who said a friend or relative had moved in,
the age(s) of their children had changed, a new baby had been born or they or their
partner had reached pension age.
48
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 3.1 You told us that you are NOT CURRENTLY affected by the changes to
Housing Benet but were PREVIOUSLY affected/are no longer receiving
Housing Benet. From what you know or understand, why are you not
currently affected?
A combined 12 per cent said they had moved to smaller accommodation. This proportion
could possibly be an underestimate, as when interviewers attempted to ‘trace’ respondents
interviewed in 2013 to new addresses at in 2014 where details were made available, in many
cases this was not possible. Analysis of interview outcomes suggests that 37 respondents
who could not be contacted to take part in summer 2014 had moved to a new address
22
.
While there is no way of knowing the degree to which the RSRS played a role in this, it
should nonetheless be kept in mind. More comprehensive data on downsizing numbers,
from secondary sources and the landlord survey, is given in Chapter 4.
22
For more information about this, see Appendix A.
Percentages
7
3
2
1
1
1
6
5
20
17
16
11
0 5 10 15 20 25
Don't know
Other
Moved to a smaller or cheaper home
in the private rented sector
Became a foster carer (spontaneous code)
Misclassification/council error/room wrongly
classed as a spare bedroom (spontaneous code)
A lodger moved in
Became exempt on health grounds
(spontaneous code)
Reached pension age (or partner did)
New baby born
Moved to smaller home rented from the council
or a housing association
Change in age of children that means that no
longer considered to have a spare bedroom
A friend or relative moved in
Found work/increased earnings
9
Base: All those not currently aected by the RSRS but who were previously (n=94). Fieldwork
dates: 16 June – 4 August 2014. Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
49
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3.1.2 Responses of those who were still affected
As in autumn 2013, claimants were asked in summer 2014 what actions, if any, they had
taken in response to the RSRS (if still affected) or what things they had done (if not affected/
no longer affected) from a list shown to them.
Among those who were still affected, there appeared by summer 2014 to have been little
change in the actions which claimants said they had taken since autumn 2013 to deal with
being affected by the changes, compared with the actions they said they took immediately
after becoming affected (up to autumn 2013). This is shown in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1 Overall responses to the RSRS among those still affected in autumn 2013
and summer 2014
Autumn 2013 (still
affected) %
Summer 2014
(still affected) %
(+/-)
Spent less on household essentials* (as
defined by the respondent)
62 57 -5
Spent less on non-essentials** (as defined by
the respondent)
37 49 +12
Applied for DHP – Discretionary Housing
Payments
24 29 +5
Borrowed money from friends/family (money
which you intend to pay back)
19 25 +5
Looked at moving to another property in the
social rented sector
12 16 +4
Looked for a job 14 15 +1
Used savings 10 14 +4
Received money from friends/family (money
which you are not expected to pay back)
11 13 +2
Borrowed money from another lender (such
as a pay day loan)***
6 7 +1
Borrowed money via a credit card 3 5 +2
Looked for a better paid job 3 4 +2
Looked at moving to another property in the
private rented sector
3 4 +1
Looked for an additional (i.e. second or third)
job
2 3 +1
Asked for an increase in the number of hours
worked at current job****
2 2 +1
Partner/someone else moved in 1 1 +1
Taken in a lodger 2 1 -1
Other (specify) 2 1 -1
None of these 14 13 -1
Source: Ipsos MORI.
* In autumn 2013 included ‘(e.g. food, heating)’.
** In autumn 2013 included ‘(e.g. going out, holidays)’.
*** A combination of two separate codes in autumn 2013: ‘Borrowed money from another lender’ and
‘Borrowed money through a payday loan’.
**** Autumn 2013: ‘Increased the number of hours worked at current job’.
50
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3.1.3 Comparing the responses of different groups
There are, however, a number of differences between the prevalence of actions taken by
those who were still affected and those no longer affected in summer 2014, as well as
actions taken by those in the comparison group, as Table 3.2 shows.
Table 3.2 Overall responses to the RSRS/actions taken by analysis groups since
autumn 2013
Still
affected
(=469)
%
No longer
affected
(n=94)
%
Affected
cohort
(n=563)
%
Comparison
group (never
affected)
(n=204)
%
Spent less on household essentials (as defined
by the respondent)
57 28 52 16
Spent less on non-essentials (as defined by the
respondent)
49 27 45 11
Applied for DHP – Discretionary Housing
Payments*
29
Borrowed money from friends/family (money
which you intend to pay back)
25 16 23 12
Looked at moving to another property in the
social rented sector
16 9 15 9
Looked for a job 15 22 16 15
Used savings 14 9 13 3
Received money from friends/family (money
which you are not expected to pay back)
13 11 13 4
Borrowed money from another lender (such as a
pay day loan)
7 6 7 4
Borrowed money via a credit card 5 2 5 1
Looked for a better paid job 4 5 5 4
Looked at moving to another property in the
private rented sector
4 2 3 1
Looked for an additional (i.e. second or third) job 3 1 3 -
Asked for an increase in the number of hours
worked at current job
2 7 3 2
Partner/someone else moved in 1 11 3 1
Taken in a lodger 1 1 1 1
None of these 13 30 16 52
Other (specify) 1 3 1 1
Don’t know - - - -
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort (n=563) and comparison group (n=204). Fieldwork
dates: 1 October – 24 November 2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014).
Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP. *Only included as an option for those still affected by the RSRS.
51
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
As Table 3.3 shows, those who were no longer affected were less likely to report have (had
to) cut back on essentials (as dened by themselves), more likely to have looked for a job,
had a partner move in, or indeed to have done nothing (which may be a result of their newly-
unaffected status).
3.2 Finding work or increasing incomes
Key ndings
• 20 per cent of affected claimants say they have looked to earn more through
employment-related income as a result of the RSRS, rising to 63 per cent of those who
said they were unemployed and seeking work.
• Those still affected were no more likely to be looking for work in 2014 (15 per cent) than
they had been in 2013 (14 per cent) (claimant survey).
• Overall, ve per cent of respondents (or another adult in their household) in the initially
affected cohort found work between 2013 and 2014 – three per cent were still affected,
while for two per cent this meant becoming unaffected (claimant survey).
• Barriers to nding work or additional hours cited by participants included lack of
employment opportunities in the local area and employers being unable to offer
additional hours (claimant qualitative interviews).
• Most landlords had schemes running to help tenants to nd work or training, though
very few have any real data on outcomes for this work and most schemes were not
just targeted at RSRS-affected tenants. A few considered that it was not their core
responsibility (case studies).
The claimant survey looked at the effects of the RSRS on employment-related activity
in two main ways: respondents’ actual work status (and the work status of adults in their
households) in 2013 and 2014, and respondents’ ambitions with regard to nding work in
response to the policy.
On the rst measure, 15 per cent of households in the initially affected cohort had someone
in work in autumn 2013, rising to 17 per cent of households among this group in summer
2014. Of those who had ceased to be affected between the two surveys 29 per cent had
someone in work. Claimants who had been looking for work at the time of the 2013 survey
were no more likely than those who had not looked for work to be unaffected by the RSRS
by 2014, and most of those who had become unaffected had become so for reasons other
than nding work.
Overall, ve per cent of respondents in the affected cohort (or another adult in their
household) found work between autumn 2013 and summer 2014, of which just over half
(three per cent) were still affected by the RSRS, and two per cent had become unaffected
– possibly as a result of nding work and no longer needing to claim Housing Benet. In
the same period, three per cent of RSRS-affected households who had someone in work in
autumn 2013 were workless by summer 2014.
Respondents were also asked a general question about what actions they (or their partner)
had taken in response to being affected by the RSRS from a prompted list. Of those who
remained affected over the two surveys, 14 per cent said in autumn 2013 that they had
looked for work since becoming affected. By summer 2014, this gure was 15 per cent.
52
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The 2013 survey included a question which asked respondents to choose what things, if
any, they planned to do to in the next 12 months from a list
23
. Findings from the 2014 survey
suggested that most of those claimants who had planned to look for work had not been
successful, with one in ve (20 per cent) of those who said they (or their partner) planned to
look for a job in autumn 2013 had someone in employment in summer 2014, rising to 63 per
cent of those who said they were unemployed and looking for work.
The qualitative interviews found the claimants who wanted to return to work were doing so
primarily for reasons other than the RSRS. For example, some claimants had taken time
out for having a child and intended to return to work after once their child was older, or they
wanted to nd work for their own self-esteem, or for nancial reasons unrelated to the RSRS.
Participants who had returned to work in the qualitative interviews tended to feel that doing
so had not had a positive effect on their nances – returning to work resulted in the loss of
HB and CTB which claimants often reported placed them in a worse position nancially
24
.
‘I was nding as well it wasn’t really worth my while working full time because I was on
minimum wage, and by the time I was taxed I was left with under £40 a week.’
(Affected claimant)
3.2.1 Support for nding work
The case study LAs were all operating schemes of some sorts to help people into work or
training. Most of these were not aimed specically at those affected by the RSRS, but efforts
had been made to inform RSRS-affected tenants about them so that they might take part if
appropriate. Many of the case study landlords also ran schemes of their own, though again
these were usually open to all tenants, rather than targeted at those affected by the RSRS.
One landlord had piloted a scheme specically focused on a large block of ats where very
high numbers of tenants were affected by the RSRS – this was due to a historic policy of not
placing families in the high rise ats, even though most of them had two or three bedrooms.
The LA had made receipt of DHP conditional on participation in the programme and reported
that the scheme had helped some into work, though had not yet formally evaluated its
effectiveness in reducing the numbers affected by the RSRS.
23
This was presented as ‘to deal with being affected by the RSRS’ for those who
expected to be affected 12 months after the survey date, and presented hypothetically
to those who said they did not expect to be affected.
24
Entitlement to HB does not end as soon as the claimant’s income exceeds their
applicable amount. The operation of a taper in HB ensures that, if a person’s income
is below or equal to the applicable amount, they will normally receive the maximum
available help with their rent. However, if their income is above the applicable amount,
benet is reduced by a xed taper of 65 pence for every £1 that their income exceeds
that level. This ensures that claimants experience an immediate nancial gain from
starting work or increasing their hours of employment. The tapers in the HB scheme
ensures that, although any increase in net income normally reduces the amount of
benet payable, the claimant should always see some increase in their overall nancial
position.
53
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Landlords and LAs running schemes to help people who had been out of work for some time
back to work, emphasised that it could take quite a while to build skills, address health issues
and work up to paid employment. Apprenticeships, voluntary work and gaining qualications
were all part of their work, but unlikely to result in a quick reduction in the numbers affected
by the RSRS. Addressing debt issues and budgeting were considered to be more important
in the rst instance, whilst nding work was more likely to be a longer term solution.
There were some reports of people having moved into self-employment but no gures were
available from any landlord or LA.
A smaller number of landlords felt that helping tenants into work was not essentially their
business, or that there were other agencies around who were better placed to offer such
support.
3.3 Moving to the private rented sector
Key ndings
• Around 12,000 RSRS-affected claimants nationally were estimated to have moved
to the PRS; a small proportion of those affected, less than 2.2 per cent of affected
tenants
25
(landlord survey).
• Claimants expressed little interest in moving to the PRS (claimant survey).
Moving out of social housing and into the PRS is one possible way of coping with the
RSRS
26
. Data on these moves is not as good as within the social rented sector because
landlords were not always aware when tenants have moved out of social housing to the
PRS. However, those surveyed who could provide this information in the survey identied
a total of 2,117 affected tenants who had moved to the PRS. The landlords answering this
question had a total of 96,468 tenants initially affected by the RSRS, suggesting that only
a small proportion had moved to the PRS. If these numbers were reected nationally this
would suggest that around 12,000 tenants affected by the RSRS had moved to the PRS,
less than 2.2 per cent of affected tenants.
Case study LAs and local agencies highlighted the differences in the prole of the PRS in
different parts of the country. Some said that it was particularly difcult for single people aged
under 35 to move to the PRS as there were very few room-only lets available locally which
would have been affordable to them on HB.
Claimants expressed little interest in moving to the PRS. Relatively few – four per cent
of those still affected according to the survey – mentioned looking at moving to another
property in the private rented sector as a response to the RSRS. They were reluctant to
consider the PRS because of the perceived higher expense (as evidenced by the claimant
qualitative interviews).
‘Private renting is out of the question because it is too expensive.’
(Affected claimant, Wales)
25
Precise percentage unknown due to ‘churn’ within the caseload.
26
Note that downsizing within social housing is covered in Chapter 4.
54
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Claimants expected higher rents and they also did not think that they would be able to
save enough money to pay the deposit required by private landlords. Further, some were
concerned about the security of tenure, quality of homes in the PRS, the quality of housing
stock and the level of support around repairs.
‘You’re never secure with private, that’s the problem.’
(Affected claimant)
‘You’re not going to get a repair the next day or in a couple of days like with the council
… the actual maintenance is much better if you’re with some kind of organisation.’
(Affected claimant)
One case from the qualitative research illustrates the barriers claimants perceived in moving
to the PRS. The sole claimant in the qualitative interviews who reported moving to the PRS
did so only because she had calculated that due to the RSRS and the cost of heating related
to their faulty boiler in their housing association home, her household would be better off
moving into a house that she had seen as available in the PRS. The claimant knew the
landlord personally and felt comfortable with the process, meaning she was more condent
about what her new circumstances would be. This was an exceptional case; claimants
typically did not believe that the PRS would be a nancially viable option or a form of tenure
they would feel comfortable with. Moving within the social sector was a more popular option,
which is covered in Chapter 4.
3.4 Claiming Discretionary Housing Payments
Key ndings
• Among those still affected by the RSRS in 2014, 29 per cent said they applied for DHP
when asked what actions they had taken to deal with being affected (claimant survey).
• Comparatively few still affected claimants were successful with their application (36 per
cent of those applying, 23 per cent of all still affected) (claimant survey).
• Awareness of DHPs increased. Those who did not apply were asked if they had heard
of DHP – 52 per cent said they had, meaning 66 per cent in total of the still affected
claimants were aware of DHP by 2014, an increase from 49 per cent nine months
previously (claimant survey).
The claimant survey explored the level of claimants’ knowledge of DHP. By summer 2014,
most claimants still affected by the RSRS were aware of DHP. Almost three in ten (29 per
cent) of those still affected by the RSRS said they had applied for a DHP since their rst
interview in autumn 2013 (they selected ‘applied for DHP’ from a list of possible responses
to the RSRS shown to respondents). Those who did not choose applying for DHP as a
response from this prompted list were subsequently asked if they had heard of DHP and,
a majority, 52 per cent of still affected claimants said they had.
This contributes to a combined total of 66 per cent of still affected claimants who either
said they applied for DHP in response to the policy or had heard of them, 17 points higher
than the 49 per cent of the same group who had either applied for, or heard of, DHP in
55
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
autumn 2013. This suggests that awareness of DHP increased over this period, reecting
the ongoing efforts of landlords, local authorities and other agencies to ensure tenants were
aware of this option.
Those who applied for or had heard of DHP were asked about their current status in relation
to it (with all others were assumed not to be in receipt). More than a third of those still
affected (36 per cent) had at some stage since becoming affected been successful with their
application (with 24 per cent still in receipt in summer 2014), as shown in Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.2 Thinking about the period since 1 April 2013, which of the following
statements best describes your situation in relation to Discretionary
Housing Payments (DHPs)?
Analysis of the claimant survey suggests that, still affected claimants who were in receipt
of DHP at some point were more active in trying to become unaffected by the RSRS than
those who had not heard of DHP. For example, they were more likely to say they were
looking to move than those who had never heard of DHP (28 per cent compared with 16
per cent). Similarly, those in receipt (or previously in receipt) of DHP were more likely say
they looked for work in response to the policy since autumn 2013 than those who had never
heard of DHP (23 per cent compared with 11 per cent).
24
Base: All respondents still affected by the RSRS in summer 2014 and who said they
applied for DHP in response to the policy or have heard of the policy (n=309).
Fieldwork Dates: 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014).
Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
11
26
5
32
2
Applied for and still in
receipt
Applied for successfully
but no longer in receipt
Applied for but did not
get
Applied for and waiting
to hear outcome
Did not apply
Don’t know
Percentages
56
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Amongst participants in the qualitative research, LA activities had a strong inuence on
participants’ awareness of DHP. Claimants who were aware of it had heard about it from the
local authority or by word of mouth from a friend or family member. Those who had not heard
about it in autumn 2013 had typically still not had any further information on it by autumn
2014 and remained unsure what it was and if they could access it.
Among those who were aware of DHP there was little understanding of the eligibility criteria.
A perception that only those in the most desperate situations could apply for it was typical
and this tended to underpin reluctance to apply for support. This was, in some cases,
reinforced by information from LAs:
‘I started paying it [the RSRS] and a while after that I know we were offered to claim
[DHP], but they turned round and they went: “well the funds are limited and the only
people who will be accepted are like people who are really badly off” kind of thing.’
(Affected claimant)
Those who had applied and been refused DHP tended to feel that this conrmed that
the payments were for people in worse situations then they were. This typically deterred
claimants from reapplying:
‘If we go back and hassle [them] again and get turned down again it just feels like a
waste of my time’
(Affected claimant)
There was some understanding that eligibility for DHP was related to certain conditions
such as registering to move. Those aiming to access DHP reported they had taken steps to
ensure that they were meeting these conditions, although they did not always expect that
the LA or housing association would be able to nd them a suitable property to downsize to.
Some claimants reported feeling that the process was intrusive as they were required to fully
justify all their expenditure:
‘They asked your nancial situation … rst time “do you smoke” and [I say] “rollups” …
and [they say] “if you didn’t buy that tobacco that’s your bedroom tax”.’
(Affected claimant)
Those interviewed who were in receipt of DHP were concerned about what they would do if it
was stopped. They had struggled to pay the extra towards the rent before they had received
DHP and they reported that they felt they would be unable to cope nancially if they did not
receive DHP.
Of the claimants who had received DHP, there were some who had been able to use the
payment for essential outgoings other than their rent. There were instances where claimants
had been told by the housing association that DHP was on their rent account and that the
money could be transferred to their personal account. In these situations some claimants
kept the money on their rent account to help them pay their rent, whilst some asked for some
of the money to be transferred to them so they could use it for other things such as paying
back other debts and bills.
57
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3.5 Taking in lodgers and family members
Key ndings
• 17 per cent of no longer affected claimants reported the reason as being a friend or
relative moved in while two per cent said that a lodger had moved in (claimants survey).
• Most landlords required permission for tenants to take lodgers, but only 0.3 per cent
of affected tenants had asked for permission to take a lodger (where permission is
required) (landlord survey).
• Some landlords actively promoted lodgers or family members as an option, but others
were reluctant to do so, citing fears of management difculties and risks to vulnerable
tenants (case study work). Few claimants (6 per cent) recalled their landlord contacting
them about the possibility of taking in a lodger (claimant survey).
• There was little interest among still affected claimants in taking in lodgers, only one
per cent said they had done this, with a further one per cent saying they had a partner
or family member move in (claimant survey). Claimants were uncomfortable with the
idea of a lodger, especially if vulnerable or if they had young children. This included
grandparents who had young children staying frequently as well as parents (claimant
qualitative interviews).
Landlords were asked in the survey whether they had any gures for the number of tenants
who had applied to take a lodger. Most did not have gures. Those that did reported a total
of 142 lodgers out of 48,111 tenancies – around 0.3 per cent of tenancies. Landlords were
also asked whether they tenants required permission to take a lodger. Eighty ve per cent of
respondents replied that tenants did require permission, 13 per cent that they did not, and
two per cent did not know.
The landlords survey and case study work reviewed a range of views from landlords on
lodgers or family members. Some said that they had actively promoted the option and
spoken about it to their tenants affected by the RSRS. However, others were reluctant
to do so, citing fears of management difculties and risks to vulnerable tenants. One
authority reported political pressure from local politicians not to promote lodgers for fear
of “encouraging people to take in strangers”. Regardless of the attitude of the authority or
landlord, all landlords reported very little, if any, interest in taking in lodgers.
The claimant survey similarly suggested that there was very little interest in taking lodgers.
Just one per cent of claimants still affected mentioned this as a response to the RSRS in
summer 2014 (chosen from a list of possible responses to the survey), and a further one per
cent reported taking in a partner or someone else, in line with ndings from autumn 2013.
One respondent who was no longer affected said they had done so too. Respondents were
asked directly about whether they had considered taking in a lodger in response to RSRS
since being interviewed in autumn 2013. Again, just one per cent of the affected cohort said
they had done so.
As seen in section 3.1, 17 per cent of no longer affected claimants reported the reason as
being a friend or relative moved in while two per cent said that a lodger had moved in.
58
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The claimant survey supports the nding from the landlord survey that many local authorities
and housing associations have not proactively promoted taking in a lodger as a response
to the RSRS. Among still affected claimants, six per cent said they had been contacted by
their landlord about this possibility.
The claimant qualitative research demonstrated the reasons for claimants’ aversion to
taking a lodger. Claimants did not typically perceive themselves as having room for a lodger,
reporting that their extra bedroom was in regular use. For example, those who used the
room to have grandchildren or adult children to stay, or they wanted their children to have
a room each did not want to lose this space. In addition to this, claimants were typically
uncomfortable with the idea of having a lodger. This was especially the case for parents
of young children and grandparents who regularly cared for a grandchild. The idea of
accommodating a stranger was not something that claimants welcomed and they saw this as
an option they would only pursue as a last resort.
‘We wouldn’t want a stranger in our home, no matter how much easier it’d be paying
the bills.’
(Affected claimant, South East)
There was evidence that claimants were more willing to consider taking in family members
as lodgers than strangers, but that the circumstances needed to be right, For example, one
participant with an extra bedroom did not consider that the room was ‘spare’ until her partner,
who had a terminal illness, died. Some months later she rented the room at reduced rate to
her brother, who had split up with his partner. Another participant reported that she would
have been happy to rent her spare room to her niece, but felt that her niece would have been
unable to afford it. Participants preferred family members with whom they felt comfortable
living, rather than lodgers they did not know, but many also felt it was important that they felt
the spare room was available for use.
3.6 Paying the shortfall
Key ndings
• The proportion of affected claimants who had paid all their rental shortfall rose from 41
per cent in 2013 to 50 per cent in 2014, whilst the proportion who had paid none of their
shortfall fell from 20 per cent to 10 per cent (landlord survey).
• Overall 55 per cent of tenants affected by the RSRS were in arrears in autumn 2014,
though 43 per cent had been in arrears in March 2013 (prior to the introduction of the
RSRS) (landlord survey).
• Most landlords were offering a wide range of payment methods, with payment cards
reported to be particularly popular with tenants (landlord survey).
3.6.1 How many were paying?
Around a third (31 per cent) of landlords responding to the survey were able to identify the
number of tenants affected by the RSRS who had paid their shortfall with a further 31 per
cent able to at least estimate it (31 per cent).
59
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The 136 landlords who could at least estimate the source of arrears were asked for further
information about whether tenants were paying their shortfall, from which the overall
proportion paying the shortfall can be estimated. This information was provided by 102 of
them, which can be compared to the gures collected in 2013’s landlord survey (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3 Proportion of tenants affected by the RSRS who have paid their rental
shortfall
27
27
Tenants who had received a DHP to cover their entire rental shortfall were excluded
from the 2014 analysis. Figures for those in receipt of full DHP were not asked in 2013
because DHP systems were in their early phases at the time and many landlords did
not yet know who was to receive it. Landlords were instead directed to include any
on full DHP within the paid all group. Claimants for whom the landlord did not know
whether they had paid were excluded from the analysis in both years.
Percentages
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
80
70
90
100
2013
Paid all Paid some Paid none
2014
Base: RSRS-aected tenants of all landlords (2013 number of landlords =230; number of
tenants = 155,487. 2014 number of landlords = 102; number of tenants = 42,922) Fieldwork
dates: 16 October to 8 November 2013 and 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP.
60
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
As can be seen from Figure 3.2, there was an increase of nine percentage points (from 41
to 50 per cent) in the proportion of tenants reported to have paid all their shortfall, whilst the
number reported to have paid none has halved between 2013 and 2014. Please note that
the proportions relate to the tenants affected by the RSRS at the time of each survey. It is not
possible to tell from this data alone whether some tenants started paying, or started paying
more reliably between the two surveys, or whether some of those who were not paying have
left the sector or otherwise ceased to be affected by the RSRS. The role of DHP had also
developed between the two surveys – those whose shortfalls were covered entirely by DHP
have been excluded from the 2014 gures, and it is possible that some of these tenants
were the ones who had previously been failing to pay in full. Nevertheless, the data points to
a reduction in the proportion of tenants affected by the RSRS who were in arrears between
October 2013 and October 2014.
Landlords were also asked what proportion of their tenants who were currently affected by
the RSRS were in arrears, and for comparison, what proportion of these tenants were in
arrears on 31 March 2013 (Table 3.3):
Table 3.3 What proportion of your tenants currently affected by the RSRS are
currently in arrears/were in arrears on 31 March 2013?
Tenants Proportion
Tenants currently affected by RSRS and in arrears 55%
Tenants currently affected by the RSRS who were in arrears on 31 March 2013 43%
Base: RSRS-affected tenants of all landlords (number of landlords = 157; number of tenants =
130,934) Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Landlords were also asked the average amount owed by tenants in arrears. The average for
all landlords who were able to answer this question was £418 per tenant in arrears
28
. This
would be around four weeks’ net rent arrears, or could arise from not having paid around ten
to 15 weeks’ worth of the shortfall arising from the RSRS.
In the qualitative interviews claimants typically reported prioritising paying their rent in full.
They were anxious not to fall behind on rent payments and jeopardise their home: typically
this was their rst priority and cuts to the household budgets or essential bills were deferred
if required once rent was paid.
Claimants who had been unable to pay their rent in full and had built up arrears reported that
an unexpected expense or income reduction was typically responsible for the arrears. For
example, one claimant fell into rent arrears when overcharged in bank charges which she
had to prioritise over paying the rent, and another fell into arrears when unable to work due
to ill health, reducing her income. There was also evidence that claimants who believed they
would receive DHP but were refused them built up arrears in the time that they were waiting
to hear.
28
Base = RSRS-affected tenants in arrears. Number of landlords = 157; number of
tenants = 91,551.
61
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3.7 Managing on a lower budget
Key ndings
• Landlords were very concerned that some tenants were in severe poverty and unable to
pay the shortfall (landlord survey and case studies).
• Claimants who were still affected by the RSRS in 2014 were more likely than those no
longer affected to say they run out of money by the end of the week or month very/fairly
often (78 per cent compared with 69 per cent) (claimant survey).
• Among those still affected, claimants had paid the rent by: using up savings; borrowing
from family or friends or accruing debt (claimant qualitative interviews).
• Cut backs were made by those in the affected cohort on energy (46 per cent of those
who had cut back on spending), travel (33 per cent), food (76 per cent) and leisure costs
(42 per cent) (claimant survey and qualitative interviews).
The 2013 claimant survey found that many in the affected cohort were cutting back on
household essentials and non-essentials in response to the RSRS. The 2014 survey found
that those still affected were still cutting back on essentials and non-essentials (as dened
by respondents themselves). Looking just at the group who remained affected by the RSRS
throughout, the majority (62 per cent) were cutting back on household essentials in 2013,
and 57 per cent said they were doing this in 2014.
However, those no longer affected were much less likely in summer 2014 to have said they
had cut back on essentials (28 per cent), perhaps reecting their increased disposable
income from either earnings or increased HB. An even smaller proportion of those in the
never affected comparison group said they had cut back on essentials (16 per cent) or non-
essentials (11 per cent) in the same period.
Those who mentioned cutting back on essentials and/or non-essentials were asked what
things they were cutting back on. Food, clothing and energy/utility bills were most mentioned
both by those still affected and also those no longer affected. Those who had never been
affected by RSRS were less likely to have cut back on most things relative to those who are
were still affected or had been previously, though large proportions in all analysis groups
were economising in these ways, as Table 3.4 shows:
62
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 3.4 On which, if any, of the following things have you spent less since we last
spoke in October or November of last year because of the changes to
Housing Benet?
Still affected
(=293)
%
No longer
affected
(n=30*)
%
Affected
cohort
(n=323)
%
Comparison
group (never
affected)
(n=39*)
%
Food 77 67 76 56
Clothing and footwear 75 73 75 62
Energy/fuel bills e.g. gas, electricity,
water
47 43 46 28
Leisure, recreation and social activities
including hobbies
43 40 42 33
Eating out 38 47 39 28
Holidays 34 47 35 23
Travel costs e.g. running a car, train
fares, public transport
33 33 33 28
Communication i.e. phone/broadband/
television bills
32 20 31 21
Cigarettes 26 20 26 26
Alcoholic drinks 21 33 22 23
Household insurances 17 13 16 8
Paying off amounts owed on credit
card(s) or loans
12 7 11 5
Pets 10 13 11 8
Council Tax 4 3 4 -
Mortgage/rent payments 3 3 3 -
Education 1 - 1 -
Childcare 1 3 1 3
None of these 1% 3% 1% 13%
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort who said they have cut back on spending since autumn
2013 (n=323) Fieldwork dates: 16 June – 4 August 2014. Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP. *Caution – low
base sizes for these groups.
It should be noted that the affected cohort includes tenants currently in receipt of full DHP at
the time of the interview, and that some households affected/non-affected status will have
changed during the period on which they are reporting.
Landlords replying to the survey expressed many concerns about the ability of their tenants
to manage on lower incomes.
Respondents were asked about how frequently they ran out of money before the end of the
week or month at various points before and since becoming affected. As Table 3.5 shows,
those in the affected cohort said they were less likely to run out of money very/fairly often
before becoming affected by the policy than they were after 1 April 2013.
63
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 3.5 Frequency with which claimants reported running out of money before
the end of the week or month at various stage before and since becoming
affected by the RSRS
Before RSRS/1 April
2013
(asked summer
2014)
%
Since RSRS/After
1 April 2013 (up to
autumn 13)
(asked autumn
2013)
%
Since RSRS/After
1 April 2013 (up to
summer 2014)
(asked summer
2014)
%
Very/fairly often 37 80 77
Hardly ever/never 63 20 23
(Never) (27) (10) (12)
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort (n=563) Fieldwork dates: 1 October – 24 November
2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014). Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
Those who had been affected in 2013, but who were no longer affected by 2014 were
less likely then to say they had run out of money very or fairly often in the past nine months,
relative to those still affected by the RSRS (69 per cent compared with 78 per cent). It is
noteworthy that the majority of HB claimants who had never been affected by the RSRS
also reported that they ran out of money very or fairly often in the same period, albeit a
smaller proportion by comparison (54 per cent).
Among those still affected, more than four in ve (83 per cent) with a shortfall of £15 or
more per week said they run out of money before the end of the week very or fairly often,
compared with 74 per cent of those paying between £10 and £15 per week.
The qualitative interviews demonstrated that claimants typically cut back on energy, food
and travel costs in order to accommodate the RSRS in their budgets. Claimants who did
not have access additional sources of support – such as friends and family to borrow from –
reported that they had to budget very carefully on food, heating and fuel once the RSRS was
introduced and were concerned that the changes would cause hardship.
‘That £60 a month I have to pay (RSRS) would cover food for two weeks or it would
mean I could keep the house warm. It just feels like I’ve had two weeks of money taken
off of me.’
(Affected claimant)
Other strategies to reduce essential household spending included spending less on food by
trying to go to cheaper shops and buying cheaper products. Claimants also reported they
were cutting back on spending on travel by using public transport more often or trying to
use their car less and walk more. As in the claimant survey, the qualitative interviews found
that a key area claimants were cutting back on was socialising, including spending time with
family. Claimants said that they had cut back on activities like going to the pub or going out
for meals or meeting up with friends.
‘“I make a lot of excuses [now].’
(Affected claimant)
64
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Regarding the social impact of the RSRS, some claimants who were grandparents reported
that the RSRS meant that they had been unable to look after their grandchildren as regularly
as before the RSRS came in because they could not afford to heat the house or provide food
for them. Some parents were cutting back on activities with their children, which they found
upsetting.
The effects of cutting back had an impact on some claimants’ health and emotional
wellbeing, with the most vulnerable reporting experiences of stress and worry.
‘I panic about struggling to pay for things. We never go on holiday. [We] don’t spend
[any money] at Christmas.’
(Affected claimant)
During the rst year of the introduction of the RSRS the qualitative research found that
claimants were typically paying the excess by using their savings and by borrowing from
friends and family members. However by the time of the second wave of qualitative research
in autumn 2014, claimants who had been using their savings for the rst year had depleted
these and so were having to make greater cutbacks in their household budgets in the
second year of the RSRS compared to the rst. They also reported that they were concerned
at the reduction in their nancial resilience – as a result of using savings to pay the RSRS
they no longer had nances to draw on if facing any unexpected costs in the household.
Other claimants had not been able to successfully manage the additional rent and had built
up debts in this time, which were a source of concern.
65
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4 Changes to the social housing
stock
This chapter explores the impact of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) for the
social housing stock. This includes changes altering or reclassifying stock, allocations and
lettings, downsizing within the social sector, overcrowding, changes to demand for social
housing and how social landlords were responding to these changes. It also looks at the
impact on new development, including the availability of nancing for new development.
4.1 Altering or reclassifying stock
Key ndings
• Only very small numbers of properties had been reclassied (in terms of their number of
bedrooms) – around one in 1,000.
• Fewer still had been physically altered to reduce the number of bedrooms (landlord
survey).
There had been some initial concerns expressed in the media that some landlords
responded to the RSRS by physically remodelling their stock (for example, knocking down
walls) or reclassifying the number of bedrooms in their properties which could prevent some
tenants being affected by the RSRS.
4.1.1 Altering stock
The 2013 landlord survey found that the physical alteration of stock was only happening on
a very small scale and the 2014 survey conrmed this still to be the case, with only 12 out
of 256 landlords having done so. One further landlord said that they were planning to do so
within the next 12 months, and one other did not know.
The 13 landlords who had altered stock or planned to do so reported a total of 115 properties
which had been altered to change the number of bedrooms, with a further 70 properties
planned to be altered during the next 12 months. Ten of the 12 landlords provided an
average gure for the costs of alterations, ranging from £120 to £30,000 per property, and
averaging at approximately £3,800. Eight of the landlords who were making alterations were
removing internal walls to reduce the number of bedrooms, two were relocating a very small
kitchen or bathroom into a spare bedroom and redesignating its previous location as a store
room or study and three were converting larger houses into ats.
Eleven of the landlords gave reasons why they had altered properties. Six said that they
had done this in response to low demand, or to help meet increased demand for smaller
properties. Two said that they were reversing previous adaptations that had subdivided
larger bedrooms and three said that the bedrooms had been too small.
66
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Overall, the survey found the scale of such activities is very small, representing only 0.006
per cent of the housing stock managed to date – fewer than one per 100,000 properties.
4.1.2 Reclassifying the number of bedrooms in properties
As in 2013, reclassifying the number of bedrooms without making physical alterations to the
stock was somewhat more common than physical alterations. In total, 44 landlords (17 per
cent) reported that they had reclassied the number of bedrooms in any stock in response to
the RSRS and a further two (one per cent) that they had not yet but intended to do so within
the next 12 months. Just three respondents (one per cent) did not know whether they had
reclassied stock.
Thirty-eight out of 44 landlords provided the number of bedrooms being reclassied in
response to the RSRS. A total of 1,989 properties had been reclassied, representing 0.10
per cent of the housing stock managed by these landlords (1.9 million). Table 4.1 shows the
net impact of the breakdown by size of the 1,989 properties reclassied:
Table 4.1 The original size of properties reclassied in response to the RSRS
Number of bedrooms Number reclassified to have
fewer bedrooms
Net change in number of
properties of this size
1 0 1,020
2 1,020 -639
3 381 -161
4 220 -220
Base: All properties reclassied by landlords (number of landlords = 44; number of properties =
1,989). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Forty-three landlords (41 landlords reclassied their stock and two landlords who were
planning to do so within the next 12 months) gave the reasons for reclassifying the number
of bedrooms. The most common answer, cited by 22 landlords, was that the ‘bedroom’ was
too small to be classed as a bedroom; nine said they had done so in order to meet demand,
or avoid low demand; seven that the ‘bedroom’ was “optional” or downstairs, and so could
not really be considered a bedroom; ve that it was no longer usable as a bedroom because
of adaptations to the property, and one that the ‘bedroom’ was not in use as a bedroom.
(Some landlords gave more than one reason).
These landlords were also asked whether they had lowered the rent on properties where
they had reclassied the number of bedrooms. Thirty-two landlords said they had done so on
all of them; one had on some of them; ten had on none of them and one did not know.
Those who had not done so reported that this was either because the total size of the
property was unchanged, or because the rent was still below target rents, or within the
permissible ve per cent margin of target rents.
Respondents were asked what approach they took to deciding which properties to reclassify
(Table 4.2):
67
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 4.2 Which of the following best describes your approach to reclassifying?
Number
We reclassified all properties of a similar type, regardless of who is living in them 12
We reclassified only properties occupied by tenants affected by the RSRS 1
We reclassified only on request or on an individual basis 18
A mixture of the above 9
In some other way (please explain) 3
Total 43
Base: All landlords who had reclassied stock (n=43). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to
7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
As can be seen from Table 4.2 most landlords were reclassifying only a small proportion of
their stock, often exhibiting quite individual features such as very small bedrooms.
Some of the case study landlords indicated that they had considered reclassifying stock but
thought that they would not be allowed to do so:
‘We got the message we shouldn’t be doing this.’
‘We followed some of the debates around it, but were sceptical as to whether people
would get away with reclassifying bedrooms.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
Overall the research found that the large majority of landlords have neither physically altered
nor reclassied any of their stock in response to the RSRS.
4.2 Allocations and lettings
Key ndings
• There is evidence of a declining proportion of lets to those who under occupy their new
home in England, and of an increase in proportion of lets to families from 36.3 per cent
in 2012–13 to 40.7 per cent in 2013–14 (CORE).
• By autumn 2014, most landlords gave top priority to downsizers, with 57 per cent
reporting that they had increased the priority in response to the RSRS, but 20 per cent
did not give them top priority (landlord survey),
• 41 per cent of landlords normally allocated in line with the DWP’s size criteria. Of the
others:
– 9 per cent allowed an extra room to tenants not affected by the RSRS;
– 31 per cent allowed an extra room to RSRS affected tenants if they and the tenant
considered it is affordable;
– 9 per cent allowed an extra room for specic groups (for example, access visits) if
affordable; and
– 11 per cent sometimes only offered larger housing because that is all that was
available (landlord survey).
• Most landlords said they now considered the affordability of the rent for the prospective
tenant before letting. A few refused to let when not considered affordable, but most
referred to money management support, and ensured the tenant signed a disclaimer.
68
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Allocation systems vary across the country. In some of the case study areas, one centralised
system was in use throughout the LA (and in one case a sub-regional grouping of LAs),
whilst in other areas social landlords retained some autonomy over their own allocation
systems.
Overall, 75 per cent of the social landlords surveyed in 2014 reported that they had an
allocations policy covering at least some of their stock. Most landlords ranked applicants into
bands for determining their priority for social housing, with Band A being used for the most
urgent cases. Landlords with an allocation policy were asked whether they had altered their
allocations policy within the last year in response to the RSRS (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Have you made any changes to your allocations policy during the last
12 months to increase the priority given to potential downsizers?
Fifty-seven per cent of landlords had altered their allocation scheme during the last year
to increase priority for downsizers either for all downsizers or just for those affected by the
RSRS, and a further 23 per cent were already giving them the top priority. This represents
a considerable change to allocation priorities, brought about partly in response to the RSRS
and also in England to the 2012 guidance issued by government to LAs making it explicit
that they could prioritise transfer applicants even if they were not in the most severe housing
need (CLG, 2012
29
).
29
CLG (2012) Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in
England, Communities and Local Government
31
26
23
20
Yes, for all potential
downsizers
Yes, just for those
affected by the RSRS
No, they were already
Band A (or equivalent
if using points system)
No – they were, and
still are, Band B (or
equivalent if using
points system) or below
Percentages
Base: All landlords with allocations policies covering at least some of their own stock (n=166).
Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
69
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Still, 20 per cent of landlords in the 2014 survey said they were giving potential downsizers
lower than their top priority band, which may mean that it was harder for tenants of these
landlords to move by means of an internal transfer.
One case study landlord who placed downsizers with one spare room in Band C, and those
with two or more in Band B, said that they were not keen to overly encourage downsizing
because they had four-bedroom properties sitting empty that no one could currently afford.
Two others indicated that they would deal with requests for downsizing on an individual
basis via a management transfer, rather than promoting them via their choice-based lettings
scheme.
4.2.1 Assessing the size of home required
Changes had also been made to the size of property that landlords deemed appropriate for
different sized households. In many areas, particularly (though not exclusively) in those with
the lowest housing pressure or a large supply of family-sized housing, allocation schemes
had previously often been more generous than the RSRS’s size criteria in determining the
size of property required. The survey asked which approach landlords took (Table 4.3):
Table 4.3 Which of the following best describes your approach to deciding/what
size of home to let to new tenants?
Approach Number Proportion
New tenants would not normally be allowed to under-occupy
(according to DWP’s size criteria)
88 41%
New tenants, including those affected by the RSRS, are allowed an
extra bedroom if they wish, after we have assessed the affordability
and believe they can afford the shortfall
67 31%
New tenants are only allowed to under-occupy if they are in
employment (and not on HB) or are pensioners and therefore
unaffected by the RSRS
19 9%
New tenants, including those affected by the RSRS may sometimes
only be offered housing that includes an extra bedroom (according to
the DWP’s size criteria) for instance because we don’t have sufficient
smaller stock for them
24 11%
Certain groups of new tenants (such as parents with access visits from
children), including those affected by the RSRS, are allowed an extra
bedroom if they wish, after we have assessed affordability and believe
they can afford the shortfall
19 9%
Total 217 100%
Base: All landlords (n=217). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/
DWP.
As can be seen in Table 5.1, only around four in ten landlords normally allocated in all cases
according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) criteria, and a further one in ten
did so for those likely to be affected by the RSRS.
70
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Most of the case study landlords had explored altering their criteria in order to let all
properties in accordance with DWP’s criteria, but by summer 2014 many had decided that
this was not feasible if they were to let their stock successfully and meet housing need. They
therefore continued to let some housing to under occupiers. Cases where under occupation
was permitted included allowing a spare room for:
• Couples.
• Tenants with disability needs for a spare room.
• Children to have their own room.
• Opposite sex children to have a room each from a younger age than ten.
• Non-resident children (eg staying two or three nights a week with the parent they didn’t
normally live with).
• An expected future increase in household size (such as a baby being born or a child
turning 10 or 16).
However, some authorities in lower demand areas still allowed all households to choose to
bid for properties with one more bedroom than they would be deemed to need according to
the RSRS size criteria.
4.2.2 Means testing housing applicants
The case study social landlords were increasingly examining their prospective tenants’
nances before making an offer of accommodation, especially in cases where the tenant
would be under occupying. In a few cases it was reported that housing associations were
refusing to make offers to benet-dependent households if they were not considered able to
afford their rent. More often they were using the opportunity to have a conversation with their
prospective tenant about their nances, make the tenant sign a disclaimer stating that they
understood they would have a rental shortfall and in some cases, signpost to other services
to address difculties with debts and nancial management.
4.2.3 Other changes to allocation policies
A few case study landlords said that they had recently changed the allocation rules for some
of their one-bedroom stock previously designated for older people, or were considering
reassigning this as general needs stock for all age groups. This was partly in response to
historical low demand for older people’s housing coupled with the increased demand for one
bedroom properties from younger people affected by the RSRS.
Some other case study landlords reported that they were looking to make changes to their
allocation schemes, giving greater priority to people in employment and trying to reduce the
number of tenants dependent on Housing Benet (HB) who were housed.
Other changes to allocation schemes reported included streamlining the waiting list to
include only tenants with an extensive local connection; allowing tenants to bid for properties
with one fewer bedrooms than they required; limiting the time that households can remain in
a priority group; or reducing the numbers of offers made, but these changes did not appear
to be primarily in response to the RSRS.
71
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.2.4 The impact of the changes to allocations on who can
access social housing
The changes to allocations could be expected to have altered the likelihood of new tenants
being allowed to under occupy their new home. Figure 4.2 shows the proportion of lettings to
tenants who would be under-occupying their new home, according to the DWP’s size criteria:
Figure 4.2 Proportion of new tenancies issued to households who are under
occupying in England
The equivalent analysis cannot be carried out for lets in Scotland because Scottish
Continuous Recording of Sales and Lettings (SCORE) does not record the number of
bedrooms. No data is available for lettings in Wales.
30
Note that the 2013–14 data uses amended data from the 2013–14 dataset that
excludes around 11,000 cases where the age of the tenants is not recorded and the
room requirements can therefore not be calculated. ‘Other’ households includes those
where the lead tenant or second tenant are aged 65 or over, or where the ages are
not known, or where the household is not in receipt of Housing Benet (or UC) or their
benet status is unknown.
2009–10
Percentages
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Working-age households
on HB (or UC)
Other households
Source: CORE general needs lets on a social or aordable rent basis.
30
72
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The English data suggest that the proportion of new tenants who were allocated properties
in which they would be under occupying fell in 2012–13, and fell further in 2013–14. This fall
can be seen both for all households, not just those likely to be affected by the RSRS.
Given that the size prole of the social sector stock changes little from one year to the
next, this has resulted in a change in the prole of households accommodated. Continuous
Recording of Sales and Lettings (CORE) data shows that the proportion of lets to
households with children entering social housing (i.e. excluding transfers within the sector)
increased in England from 36.3 per cent in 2012–13 to 40.7 per cent in 2013–14. This is
likely to have made it somewhat easier for families to access social housing, but harder for
single people and couples without children.
4.3 Downsizing
Key ndings
• The landlord survey suggests that nationally around 45,000 RSRS-affected claimants
had downsized within the social rented sector by autumn 2014, as compared with
around 24,000 in autumn 2013.
• In England the RSRS has resulted in a substantial increase in demand for downsizing,
compared to previous rates. The data shows a substantial increase in working-age
tenants moving within social housing via transfer lists because of under occupation from
2,755 per year in 2009–10 to 14,755 in 2013–14 (CORE).
• Landlords reported in autumn 2014 that around 16 per cent of affected tenants were
currently registered for downsizing – which would suggest that nationally around 87,000
tenants currently affected by the RSRS were seeking to downsize. This is a slight
reduction on the 19 per cent reported to be registered for downsizing at the time of the
rst survey (autumn 2013) (landlord surveys).
• The 2014 claimant survey found that 20 per cent of those still affected were looking to
move, as were 11 per cent of those no longer affected. The proportion of these who
were registered for mutual exchange remained largely unchanged (53 per cent in 2014,
compared to 51 per cent in 2013), whilst the number who said they were on a transfer
list fell slightly (70 per cent to 65 per cent) (claimant survey).
• More than seven in ten of affected claimants had never considered moving (claimant
survey). Claimants’ reasons for not wanting to downsize were most often related
to remaining close to family, liking the area, good neighbourhoods and liking the
accommodation. For families with children, schools (48 per cent) were the most
important barrier to moving (claimant survey).
• Most local authorities (LAs) and social landlords reported that large numbers of people
were unable to move because of a shortage of smaller homes. Some claimants similarly
experienced this and some said they had not registered because they were aware of the
shortage (case studies and claimant qualitative interviews).
• Other barriers to downsizing included not being allowed to move with rent arrears
(10 per cent of landlords did not allow downsizing with arrears), competition with
other households on the waiting list and particular difculties for disabled tenants.
These related to nding a property that meets their needs as well as in packing and
transporting belongings (case studies and claimant qualitative interviews).
73
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
It is clear that some tenants have responded to the RSRS by moving to smaller homes within
the social rented sector. Data from 2013–14 CORE on lettings into the social housing sector
in England shows that 15,413 lettings were made to households whose main reason for
leaving their previous property was either the RSRS or the Benet Cap
31
. Of these, 13,353
were moving from a previous social rented home which would suggest that they were most
likely moving in response to the RSRS (the case study work suggested that moves within
social housing in response to the Benet Cap were rare). The equivalent data for Scotland
from the 2013–14 SCORE data on lettings made by Scottish registered social landlords
showed that 1,517 out of 22,454 lettings were made to households whose main reason to
leave their previous accommodations was the RSRS or the benet cap. Of these, 1,398 were
moving from a previous social rented home. This would suggest that 14,751 households in
England and Scotland moved home within the social rented sector in 2013–14 because of
the RSRS.
As might be expected, most of these moves (60 per cent) were into one-bedroom properties,
with a further 34 per cent into two-bedroom homes
32
. Overall moves in response to the
RSRS constituted 9.5 per cent of all lets of one-bedroom homes in England in 2013–14,
including both transfers and lets to new social tenants.
CORE data does not however include moves by means of a mutual exchange and there is
no equivalent data for Wales.
The landlord survey therefore sought to collect information on the numbers of tenants who
downsized in response to the RSRS, as shown in Table 4.4:
Table 4.4 Downsizing within the social rented sector
Number As proportion
of moves where
means is known
Per 1000 tenants
initially affected by
the RSRS
1
Via transfer lists 8,702 70.2% 49
Via a mutual exchange 3,696 29.8% 21
By unknown means 2,149 - 12
Total 14,547 - 82
Base: All landlords (Number of landlords=199; number of properties = 177,755. Fieldwork dates:
13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
1
The number downsizing cannot be given as a percentage of those initially affected as it likely that
some of those who downsized were not initially affected by the RSRS but started to be so at some
later point in time.
The landlords answering this question between them had 177,755 tenants initially affected
by the RSRS, 32 per cent of all those initially affected in Britain. If their downsizing rates are
representative this would suggest that around 45,000 tenants throughout the country have
downsized to a smaller home in response to the RSRS. This gure is larger than the 14,751
from CORE/SCORE though this is to be expected as it includes mutual exchanges, Wales
and also moves that took place over an 18 month period, rather than the 12 months reported
on in CORE/SCORE.
31
This includes general needs lettings made by local authorities and Private Registered
Providers to both Affordable Rented and Social Rented dwellings.
32
These gures relate just to England. Scottish SCORE data does not record the number
of bedrooms.
74
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
It is hard to know from these gures what proportion of all tenants who had been affected
by the RSRS at any time have downsized, because some of those who did so may have
started to be affected after May 2014 and therefore not within the 547,341 known to be
affected in May 2013. The gures do, however, suggest that no more than eight per cent
of those affected have downsized. This is a small minority of affected tenants, though
the previous rate of downsizing recorded in CORE (of all tenants) was only 0.5 per cent
downsizing in a year
33
.
Prior to the introduction of the RSRS, downsizing rates within the social sector were very
low with only 2,755 moves recorded as being due to downsizing in 2009–10. The research
suggests that the RSRS has resulted in a substantial increase in demand for downsizing.
Figure 4.3 shows the change in the numbers of new tenancies let to working-age households
in England where the reason for moving was under occupation, by whether or not the
household was in receipt of HB.
Figure 4.3 New tenancies issued to working-age households because of under
occupation by Housing Benet status in England
34
33
Derived from the English CORE data for 2012/13 and HCA’s data on the size of the
sector.
34
Working-age is dened as where both household head and second adult in the
household (if applicable) are aged under 65 for the purposes of this analysis. In 2013–
14 households who were in receipt of either HB or UC, but did not know which were
recorded as ‘don’t know’. Prior to 2013–14 UC receipt of UC was rare and was not
recorded in CORE.
2009–10
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
HB (or UC)
No HB
Don’t know
Source: CORE General Needs lets on a social or aordable rent basis.
75
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
It can be seen that the greatest rise in lettings due to under occupancy have occurred in
those in receipt of HB and that there was some increase prior to the introduction of the
RSRS in April 2013, but that most moves occurred after this date. The Scottish SCORE
data shows a similar rise though of a slightly lower scale from just under 400 lettings a year
because of under occupation in 2009–10 and 2010–11 rising to over 1,400 by 2013–14.
As discussed above, these gures do not include tenants who downsized by means of a
mutual exchange.
4.3.1 Geographical variation in downsizing
Downsizing rates vary by region. Figure 4.4 below shows the numbers known to have
downsized, by broad region:
Figure 4.4 Numbers of downsizers per 1,000 tenancies initially affected, by means of
downsizing and broad region where landlords stock is mostly located
Mutual exchangeUnknown means Transfer list
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
All
landlords
Dispersed
stock
South
and
East
LondonWalesMidlandsNorthScotland
Base: All landlords (number of landlords=199; number of initially aected tenancies=
146,491). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
76
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
The landlord survey suggested that affected tenants were more likely to downsize within the
social sector if they were living in the south and east of England. This may be because they
were, on average, losing a larger proportion of their income because of the RSRS (because
their rents were higher) or because their landlords were more willing and able to assist
them in moving to a smaller home because overcrowding is more common in the south of
England. Downsizing was least common in Wales and Scotland. This may be because of a
lack of smaller stock, though the availability of Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) may
also have played a part.
It might have been expected that London claimants would exhibit even higher rates of
downsizing (as their rents are higher still, and overcrowding substantially higher in London).
However, this does not appear to have happened.
The case studies offered some insight into why this might be. LA staff in both of the London
case studies reported that most households affected by the RSRS did not want to move.
A family-sized house in London was considered an asset worth holding onto, and some
tenants were believed to be able to access nancial help from the extended family in order
to meet their rental shortfall. One London case study LA reported that they were still offering
downsizers £2,000 per room given up, as well as helping them with the bidding process
and practicalities of making the move, but had still seen only 30 out of around 2,400 RSRS-
affected households downsize by summer 2014. They had, however, seen a much larger fall
in the numbers affected (around 600) suggesting that for some at least, other solutions (such
as nding work) were more viable solutions to the RSRS than downsizing in London. Though
only an indicative nding, the claimant survey found that not a single person still affected by
the RSRS living in one of the London case study areas was, by summer 2014, looking to
move.
The claimant qualitative interviews in London found that barriers to downsizing were
dissimilar to those identied across the rest of the UK (and as described later in detail in
section 4.3.4). In London the typical reasons for not wanting to downsize included emotional
attachment to the home and wanting continuity in accessing services such as schools. In
one case a claimant wanted to downsize, but was prevented by their housing association in
doing so because they had arrears.
4.3.1 Landlords’ role in facilitating downsizing
The case studies and landlord survey found that many landlords were putting increased
efforts into promoting downsizing as a potential solution for some of those affected by the
RSRS. Many landlords said they offer nancial incentives to downsizers, which can be used
to assist with the costs of moving or to clear rent arrears if necessary. These have been in
place for some time in order to incentivise downsizing and free up larger homes for families.
The landlord survey found that 34 per cent of landlords offered nancial incentives to
downsizers affected by the RSRS and a further 24 per cent said they did in specic
circumstances. Often this entailed tying the nancial support to the specic costs of the
move. Analysis by region showed that there was a strong variation between different parts of
the country in the use and the scale of nancial incentives (Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6).
77
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.5 Is there a nancial incentive available to your tenants who wish to
downsize?
Percentages
Yes or yes in specific circumstancesNo
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All
landlords
Dispersed
stock
South
and
East
LondonWalesMidlandsNorthScotland
Base: All landlords n=221 Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP. Landlords with ‘dispersed stock’ are those with a majority of stock in
no one region or regional grouping listed.
78
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.6 Average size of landlords’ typical amount offered to downsizers
4.3.2 Allowing downsizing with rent arrears
Fieldwork in 2013 found that landlords had previously been adverse to tenants moving
when they had rent arrears mainly because it is more difcult, legally, to recover the arrears
on a previous tenancy. Most were aware that this would create a ‘catch 22’ situation for
those affected by the RSRS whereby they could not afford to repay their arrears whilst they
continued to under occupy, but would be prevented from downsizing by their arrears. Many
case study landlords had therefore reviewed their policies on downsizing with arrears and
allowing it in specic circumstances. The 2014 landlord survey found that there had been
little further change in the approach of landlords over the last 12 months (Figure 4.7).
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
All
landlords
Dispersed
stock
South
and
East
LondonWalesMidlandsNorthScotland
£
Base: All landlords n=111. Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP. Landlords with ‘dispersed stock’ are those with a majority of stock in no
one region or regional grouping listed.
79
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.7 Do you allow tenants affected by the RSRS and with arrears to downsize?
The claimant qualitative interviews included cases where claimants who wanted to move and
had arrears were unable to move as their landlord would not allow it. These claimants reported
frustrations that they were struggling to pay the rent, but were unable to downsize to something
more affordable. They also could not foresee a time when they would have extra money that
would allow them to pay back their arrears so that they could move. For example, one claimant
was working full time, doing extra shifts when possible and studying part time: she therefore
was unable to increase her income so that she could clear her arrears.
4.3.3 Demand for downsizing
The landlord survey also asked about the number of tenants who had registered for
downsizing. The landlords who were able to provide this data, reported that 17,078 out
of their 108,006 currently affected tenants were currently registered for downsizing on
their transfer lists – 15.8 per cent. Fewer landlords had gures on the numbers registered
for mutual exchanges, but those that did suggested that most tenants seeking mutual
exchanges were also registered on transfer lists.
Percentages
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20142013
Usually yes
Usually no
Yes if they are below a certain level
and/or the tenant is trying to pay them off
Not known
Base: All landlords 2013. Base n= 265. 2014 n=219. Fieldwork dates: October to 8 November
2013 and 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
80
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Overall, these gures imply that around 87,000 tenants currently affected by the RSRS in the
UK were currently seeking to downsize, a minority of those currently affected, though their
number was still larger than the numbers who had successfully downsized by October 2014.
The proportion of tenants registered for downsizing is slightly lower than that found in the
2013 landlord survey. This suggests that whilst some of those who registered have since
moved (and were therefore no longer registered, or affected by the RSRS), there was only
a modest number of new registrations in the 12 months to October 2014; most of those who
were interested in moving had registered early on.
At the overall level and across the affected cohort of respondents from the claimant survey
there was little change in the proportion looking to move: 17 per cent were looking to move in
autumn 2013, rising slightly to 18 per cent in summer 2014.
However, there is a greater degree of variation depending on current status: Of the “still
affected” cohort, 16 per cent were looking to move in autumn 2013, rising to 20 per cent in
summer 2014. Conversely, a greater proportion of those who were no longer affected were
looking to move in autumn 2013 (20 per cent) than summer 2014 (11 per cent). Those in the
comparison group of claimants who have never been affected were even more likely to be
looking to move – an increase from 17 per cent to 25 per cent.
This means that among those still affected by the RSRS, more than seven in ten had never
considered moving in the period between the two waves of research, as Figure 4.8 shows.
Among those still affected who were looking to move, the majority said this was at least
partly because of the changes to HB (26 per cent partly and 49 per cent exclusively so),
which is broadly in line with ndings in autumn 2013.
Those who said they were looking to move were more likely to be looking at properties in the
local area than further aeld. Among those still affected, 60 per cent said they were looking
exclusively in the local area, 17 per cent outside the local area and 20 per cent both inside
and outside.
81
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.8 Combined responses in both autumn 2013 and summer 2014 in response
to the question: Are you currently looking to move from this
accommodation, or not?
71
10
2
Never looked to move
Were looking but no
longer
Were not looking
previously but are now
Have always been
looking
Don’t know
Percentages
9
7
Base: All respondents still aected by the RSRS in summer 2014 (n=469) Fieldwork dates: 1
October – 24 November 2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014).
Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
On this evidence, a greater proportion of those looking to move were prepared to consider
a move outside their local area. Of this same group, back in autumn 2013, relatively few
(eight per cent, or three of the 39 respondents asked this question) said they would consider
properties outside the local area when asked if they thought they would consider properties
inside or outside the local area.
Again looking at those still affected (and looking to move), the proportion who said they
were registered for mutual exchange was largely unchanged between the two waves of the
survey (53 per cent in summer 2014 compared with 51 per cent in autumn 2013). However,
the proportion who said they were on a transfer list fell slightly from 70 per cent to 65 per
cent between the two waves.
82
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.3.4 Barriers to downsizing
A lack of smaller properties
Landlords replying to the survey, case study landlords and LAs said that many claimants
affected by the RSRS were unable to move because of a shortage of smaller homes:
‘There is not much hope of nding a smaller property. They do look, but there is not
much there. This week there is one one-bedroom at available on the CBL [Choice
Based Lettings] system, and there are 120 bids on it.’
‘The council say to people – “have you tried to downsize?” But people are constantly
saying to us that they have no choice, that there are no one-bedroom properties in [this
area].’
(Local advice agencies)
‘People can’t downsize – generally they want to stay in the same areas, and they bid
but don’t get anything. In some areas we just don’t have any two-bedroom homes. And
we have very few one-bedroom ats.’
(Interviews with case study social landlords)
Landlords and LAs emphasised that the difculties in moving tenants to a smaller home were
not as simple as an overall shortage relative to the number of potential downsizers in all
areas. In some areas they said they did have smaller homes available to let, but these were
not popular with downsizers because they were on unpopular estates or were ats with no
gardens. For people with disabilities, the availability of suitable smaller homes was reported
to be further limited:
‘Competition for one-bedroom homes is far too tight. I think they don’t allow people to
be rehoused into places that aren’t suitable, which further limits their options – may
need adaptations, to be on ground oor, can’t climb stairs.’
(Interview with local advice agency)
From the LA’s point of view, prioritising downsizers was reported not always to be possible,
given the other demands on their housing stock:
‘There’s a shortage of properties. We have huge demand for ones and twos and they
are in competition with homeless people and those moving out from supported housing
– they get equal priority with these people. It goes to who’s been waiting longest. We
can’t have people wallowing in B&Bs.’
(Interview with LA housing department)
This was especially the case for downsizers moving from another social landlord –the LA
would not necessarily have nomination rights to the vacancy that would be created, or may
not have the right sized family available to ll it.
Other barriers to downsizing
As well as a shortage of smaller homes, other barriers to downsizing identied by the
research included rent arrears and practical difculties associated with making the move.
Landlords were asked in the survey whether they would allow tenants who were in arrears
83
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
to downsize. Sixty-nine (32 per cent) reported that they usually would; 59 per cent that they
would if they were below a certain level and/or the tenant was trying to pay them off; and 20
(nine per cent) that they usually would not. One respondent did not know.
Some local agency interviewees also emphasised the difculties for disabled tenants in
packing and transporting belongings. They were aware of cases where disabled tenants did
not appear to have been given any nancial or practical support with this task, and hence
were struggling to actually make the move to a smaller home that they had been offered.
Some claimants who were receptive to the idea of downsizing were concerned about the
practicalities of it; primarily the nancial costs. Claimants were worried about how they would
pay for the cost of the move. In some cases they referred to the costs of hiring a removal
van, for others this simply meant the costs of paying a friend some money to help them
move their belongings.
As found in 2013, claimants were concerned in 2014 about the costs of retting a new home.
This was because claimants believed that they would need to pay for new carpets and other
furnishings in a new home. This is due to a common practice in social housing whereby all
furnishings are removed at the end of each tenancy. For claimants who had often personally
done a large amount of the decorating in their current home this was a worrying cost to
think about. There was also concern about how long it would take to get a new home to the
condition they would be happy with.
‘The money we have spent to get this home the way it is, no way [would we move]. It’s
just not going to happen.’
(Affected claimant, Wales)
Despite gures from the landlord survey suggesting that around half of landlords said there
were nancial incentives available to at least some RSRS-affected tenants to assist with a
move (see above), qualitative research with claimants in 2014 found them unaware of any
funding which could help them cover the costs of a move.
Claimants with a disability were concerned that the LA would struggle to provide them with
a property that had been suitably adapted to their needs. For example, a claimant with
epilepsy was unable to use stairs and doubted a suitable property would be available to her:
‘There’s not many bungalows going about … the only other way of having a house
would be if it had a stair lift in it.’
(Affected claimant)
Further, claimants with disabilities were concerned that if they were moved then they would
have to wait a long time before the LA installed the adaptations that they needed.
4.3.5 Claimants’ reasons for not wanting to downsize
The claimant survey asked all respondents, regardless of whether or not they were looking
to move at the time, to choose the most important reason(s) they had for staying in their
current accommodation (from a prompted list). Remaining close to family (42 per cent) and
liking the local area (32 per cent) were the two reasons mentioned most by the affected
cohort, as Table 4.5 shows.
84
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 4.5 Which two or three, if any, of these are the most important reasons you
have for staying here instead of moving elsewhere?
Affected
cohort (n=563)
%
Still affected
(=469)
%
No longer
affected (n=94)
%
Comparison
group (never
affected)
(n=204)
%
Want to remain close to family 42 42 45 36
Prefer local area/like living here 32 32 33 30
Always lived here 25 25 24 16
Is a good/friendly neighbourhood 25 24 31 26
Accommodation suits me/wouldn’t
be able to find same accommodation
elsewhere
23 24 18 19
Cost of moving/too expensive to
move
19 21 11 8
Want to remain close to services –
GP, hospital etc
19 19 17 15
Want to remain close to friends 17 17 16 13
Want to remain close to schools/
good schools
15 14 16 26
Pets are happy here/cannot move
due to my pets
6 6 5 3
Worse quality property in other areas 4 4 2 2
Would be too far away from current
job/place of work
4 4 6 5
More expensive/higher cost of living
in other areas
2 3 1 1
Would consider looking at other non-
local areas
1 1 - 1
Worse job opportunities in other
areas
* * 1 1
None of these 6 6 3 8
Other 5 5 6 4
Don’t know - - - -
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort (n=563) and comparison group (n=204). Fieldwork
dates: 1 October – 24 November 2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014).
Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
Focusing on those still affected, barriers to moving often differed between demographic
groups. Those who had lived in their homes for ten years or more were more likely to cite
having always lived in their local area as a barrier to moving (38 per cent compared with 25
per cent overall).
Older people aged 55 to 64 were more likely to cite the unavailability of suitable
accommodation elsewhere (30 per cent compared with 24 per cent overall), and more likely
than younger people aged 25 to 34 to want to remain close to their GP/hospital (23 per cent
compared with 10 per cent).
85
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Families with children aged under 16 living in the household were less likely to mention
preferring the local area than adult-only households (23 per cent compared with 35 per cent),
but almost half said remaining close to schools/good schools was important (48 per cent),
the most important barrier to moving cited by this group.
Typical reasons for not wanting to move identied by the claimant qualitative interviews
were emotional attachment to homes, attachment to neighbourhoods and communities, and
wanting to remain living nearby to friends and family. Claimants who had lived in their home
for many years, there was particular reluctance to consider moving. Nonetheless, some did
countenance moving, or were looking to move, for nancial reasons:
‘If there’s a spare bedroom and I don’t need it, I’ll move … I don’t want to spent £12 a
week just to collect junk in there.’
(Affected claimant)
A further important reason for not wanting to move was the feeling that the extra room was
needed: claimants in this situation did not feel they were ‘over occupying’. Their reasons
for needing the room included wanting their children to have a room each, needing a spare
room to sleep separately from an invalid partner, and wanting a room for adult children or
grandchildren to stay in:
‘I can see what they mean by not in use every day but in our house it is … they don’t
seem to take into account whether the room’s actually in use.’
(Affected claimant)
Claimants who had two or more children with a substantial age gap between them did not
feel it was appropriate for their children to share a room. Others reported concerns about the
suitability of room sizes – i.e. that there would be enough room for two beds in a bedroom for
children to share. In these cases the parents typically reported they would downsize only if
the bedrooms offered were larger so that they could t two children in one room.
Those who had a family member staying regularly tended to be supporting or caring for adult
children or grandchildren. For example, some claimants reported having adult children in
unstable relationships who would stay for long periods. The parents in these cases wanted
to be able to support their children when needed.
Ill-health or disability of a family member was a further common reason for claimants feeling
that the extra bedroom was required. For example, some reported having family members
with health problems staying with them regularly so that they could care for them.
It was also the case that not all claimants affected by the RSRS saw a need to downsize.
Local advice agencies working in both the Scottish case study areas reported in autumn
2014 that demand for downsizing had now reduced because tenants were feeling relatively
secure with their DHP awards and questioned the way in which political changes in Scotland
and the UK as a whole might affect the future of the policy.
86
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.4 The impact on overcrowding
Key ndings
• There is no data available on actual rates of overcrowding. This is not collected routinely
by any national agency and the English Housing Survey is yet to report 2013–14 data.
• None of the case study areas had any local data on overcrowding. Three had data on
the numbers registered for rehousing because of overcrowding. Of these, two had seen
an increase in numbers registered, and one had seen a decrease (case studies).
• There was a modest increase in number of lets in social housing because of
overcrowding in England, though not in Scotland (CORE/SCORE) between 2012–13
and 2013–14.
• Most LAs and housing associations said that they did not expect to see any benets of
the RSRS in terms of reducing overcrowding and some said that they did not have a
problem with overcrowding.
One of the stated aims of the RSRS was to reduce overcrowding and make better use of the
social housing stock. This section explores what is known about whether it is meeting these
objectives.
Data from Continuous Recording of Sales and Lettings (CORE) suggests that there was a
modest increase in 2013–14 in England in the number of moves within social housing where
the tenant had left the previous property because of overcrowding. Around 2,000 more
households moved because of overcrowding in 2013–14 than had done so in recent years
previously (Figure 4.9).
The increase seen in England however was not discernible in the Scottish Continuous
Recording of Sales and Lettings (SCORE) data, suggesting it may not have occurred in all
areas.
Despite the modest increase in lets to overcrowded households in England, the case study
work found that both LAs and housing associations were mostly unaware of any impact
that the RSRS might be having on overcrowding. None of the case study landlords or
local authorities were able to produce any gures on the number of its tenants who were
overcrowded, and most housing associations were not aware how many of their tenants
were on the housing register for rehousing because of overcrowding. Respondents were
mostly of the view that they did not expect the RSRS to have much impact on overcrowding.
Some said that there was very little overcrowding in their stock or that the causes of
overcrowding were complex.
87
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.9 Moves within the social sector because of overcrowding in England
2009–10
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
Source: CORE General Needs lets on a social or aordable rent basis to households whose
previous tenure was a local authority or Private Registered Provider (PRP) general needs
tenancy.
Others said that it simply was not something that was a priority for them or had been given
much thought.
Four of the case study authorities had gures on the numbers of overcrowded households
who were registered for a move because they were overcrowded for both the current point
in time (summer 2014) and before the RSRS came into effect (i.e. spring 2013). Of these,
one had changed the way in which they considered whether households were overcrowded
during this time period, so the gures could not be compared. Of the other three, two had
seen an increase in overcrowded households on the register and one had seen a decrease.
One of the authorities detecting an increase in overcrowding attributed this to most of its
overcrowded households being families in one-bedroom ats who were facing increased
competition with downsizers (affected by the RSRS) for two-bedroom homes. A second
authority thought it was underlying pressure on their housing stock and unrelated to the
RSRS while the case study authority who reported a decrease in overcrowding attributed
this, in part, to the RSRS.
88
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.5 Changes to demand for social housing
Key ndings
• Data supplied by landlords does not provide evidence of any statistically signicant
increase in voids (landlord survey).
• There is some evidence of increased turnover since the introduction of the RSRS in
England. The increase is most notable for larger property sizes (CORE).
• Case study evidence also found that some landlords have seen increased turnover and
resultant costs associated with reletting (case study work).
• 42 per cent of landlords reported difculties in letting some properties because of the
RSRS. There was a strong correlation between the proportion of tenants affected by
the RSRS and reporting difculties in letting homes as a result. Fifty-four per cent of
landlords with the highest proportion of tenants affected reported difculties letting,
compared with 13 per cent of those with the lowest proportions. T
wo-bedroom ats were
reported to be most difcult to let (landlord survey).
• Shared housing (two or more unrelated adults sharing a property) has the potential to
reduce demand for one-bedroom homes and nd occupants for larger homes no longer
affordable to families on HB. Only 45 out of 222 landlords (20 per cent) indicated that
they already offered this type of housing in 2014. A further 36 (16 per cent) said that they
were considering it (landlord survey)
• Landlords cited a range of reasons for not offering shared housing most often relating
to anticipated management difculties or costs, a perceived lack of demand, legal
difculties or a lack of tradition or experience in offering this product (landlord survey).
4.5.1 Managing turnover and voids
The case study work found that some landlords were concerned that they had seen an
increase in the number of empty properties as a result of the RSRS, though gures on voids
suggest no measurable increase.
There are two possible ways in which the RSRS might affect the number of properties empty
at any one time. The rst, an increase in mobility within the sector, and in and out of social
housing, is likely to result in an increase in empty properties as landlords take time to relet a
property. Tenants moving by mutual exchange avoid this issue.
The other issue relates to possible difculties in letting housing that is no longer affordable to
people on the housing register. As discussed above, landlords have responded to the RSRS
by allocating with a tighter ‘t’ between the size of households and the number of bedrooms
in the homes they are allocated leaving a shortage of potential tenants for larger homes in
some lower demand areas.
Looking rst at turnover rates, analysis of CORE data suggests that there was an increase in
relets in 2013–14, especially for larger property sizes (Figure 4.10). There was an increase
of nearly 60 per cent in the number of relets of four-bedroom properties between 2009–10
and 2013–14. We cannot be certain of the reasons for this, but it is possible that the
increased priority given to downsizers (see Section 4.2), and increased incentive for people
to downsize (to avoid the RSRS) could have contributed to the increased turnover of larger
homes.
89
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.10 Relets of social housing in England (i.e. lets excluding new build) 2013–
14 by number of bedrooms
2009–10
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
Relets as proportion of relets in 2009–10
1 2 3 4+ All properties
Source: CORE General Needs lets on a social or aordable rent basis.
The SCORE data cannot be used to nd comparable data for Scotland because it does not
record the number of bedrooms in the properties let.
Increasing turnover of social housing stock is an inevitable consequence if the RSRS were to
meet one of its aims of making better use of the social housing stock, though it does impact
on the resources of social landlords who lose rental income for the void period. Case study
landlords also reported additional costs in carrying out repairs that tended to come to light
when a tenancy ended.
The landlord survey asked whether landlords were experiencing any difculties in letting
properties as a result of the RSRS. A total of 42 per cent of landlords reported that they had
experienced difculties, a very similar rate to that found in the 2013 survey of 41 per cent
35
.
This was strongly correlated with the proportion of tenants affected by the RSRS (r
2
=-0.248;
statistical signicance at the 0.01 level): 54 per cent of landlords with the highest proportion
of tenants affected reported difculties in letting properties, as compared with only 13 per
cent of those with the lowest proportion affected. There was also a strong regional dimension
with only two among 29 landlords whose stock was mostly in London experiencing any
difculties as a result of the RSRS.
35
The question in the 2013 survey asked about difculties in letting relating to either the
RSRS or the Benet Cap.
90
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
This compared with 30 out of 44 in the north of England, 15 out of 17 in Wales and all three
of those with the majority of their stock in no one country/region (Figure 4.11).
Figure 4.11 Have you experienced any difculties in letting properties as a result of
the RSRS?
Percentages
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Not known No Yes
Scotland North Midlands Wales London South
Dispersed All
and
stock landlords
East
Base: All landlords (n=220). Fieldwork dates: 16 13 October to 7 November 2014.
Source: CCHPR/DWP.
The increased difculties in these areas could reect both the higher proportion of tenants
af
fected by the RSRS in these areas, and/or the lower demand for housing in these areas.
The 88 landlords who reported difculties were asked which types and sizes of property the
difculties related to (Figure 4.12).
91
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.12 Proportion of landlords reporting difculties letting as a result of RSRS or
Beneift Cap who were experiencing difculties with each size and type of
property
Percentages
0
20
10
30
40
50
60
Homes
with 5 or
more
bedrooms
4
bedroom
homes
3
bedroom
houses
3
bedroom
flats
2
bedroom
houses
2
bedroom
flats
1
bedroom
homes
Base: All landlords who reported diculties letting as a result of the RSRS (n=88). Fieldwork
dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Case study landlords explained some of the reasons behind the difculties: Three-bedroom
houses comprised a very large proportion of the housing stock for some landlords. These
had traditionally been let to families with one to three children, but now only those with three
children or two children over ten and of opposite sexes could fully occupy these houses; the
majority of housing applicants had smaller households. Two-bedroom high rise ats were
often considered unsuitable for families, especially if they had no lifts or gardens and hence
many had traditionally been let to single people or couples without children. Tighter allocation
standards brought in to prevent under occupancy, and an inability of tenants on HB to afford
larger homes than they technically required were both reported to have resulted in a lack of
demand for these property types.
Landlords were asked for their void gures for 31 March 2013 and for 31 March 2014 for
comparison. Table 4.6 shows the data provided by landlords who were able to supply both
gures.
92
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 4.6 Void gures supplied by landlords
31 March 2013 31 March 2014
Number of properties void 23,279 23,997
Stock owned by landlords providing figures for both
years
1
1,491,803
Proportion of stock void 1.56% 1.61%
Base: All landlords (n=191). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/
DWP.
1
Landlords were only asked for their current stock size. It is possible that their stock size in 2013 may
be slightly different though the size of the social rented sector overall has changes very little in the
space of one year.
The difference between the two gures is small and not statistically signicant. This suggests
that although some landlords reported being concerned about increased difculties in letting
stock, there was not overall a demonstrable increase in vacant stock overall.
4.5.2 Shared housing
One way of improving the balance between supply and demand of different sizes of property
is to let some properties to groups of non-related adults to share. Such practice is common
in the private rented sector, but less so in the social sector. It can be achieved either by
allowing groups of friends to apply together as a potential household (who would then take
on one tenancy as joint tenants), or by offering separate tenancies on the bedrooms of larger
homes, where the tenants have shared use of the kitchen and bathroom.
The 2013 eldwork found that some landlords were already considering this, although others
feared it would be harder to manage such stock. The 2014 landlord survey therefore asked
all landlords whether they offered shared housing to groups of unrelated adults (Figure 4.13).
93
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.13 Do you offer shared housing (i.e. groups of unrelated adults/sharing a
house)?
As can be seen in Figure 4.6, the majority of social landlords did not offer shared housing
and have no plans to do so. Only 45 out of 222 landlords (20 per cent) indicated that they
already offered this type of housing, though a further 36 (16 per cent) said that they were
considering it. There appeared to be no correlation between landlord type, region, or extent
of the impact of the RSRS on whether or not landlords offered shared housing.
The survey asked those landlords that did their reasons for offering shared housing
(Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Reasons for offering shared housing
Reason Number citing each
reason
There is newly emerging need/demand for shared housing 14
There has always been demand for shared housing 8
Hard to let larger homes without using shared housing 6
Good use of stock 2
Tenants in shared housing offer mutual support to each other 1
Base: All landlords who do offer shared housing (n=45). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November
2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Yes, we have been
doing this since before
the RSRS was
introduced
Not currently but we
are considering this
No, and we have no
plans to do so
Yes, and we have
introduced, or expanded
this option since the
RSRS was introduced
Percentages
16
64
6
14
Base: All Landlords n=222. Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
94
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Landlords who were offering shared housing most often, stated that there was a newly
emerging demand and need for shared housing, or that they were struggling to let their
larger homes otherwise since the introduction of the RSRS:
‘There is a shortage of single person’s accommodation especially for younger people.
As a former stock transfer, a large percentage of our stock is traditional three-bedroom
family houses which are proving more difcult to let due to the RSRS.’
‘It is difcult to let properties and a there is a shortage of single person accommodation.’
(Social landlords replying to survey)
‘It was also clear that for many this was a new area of activity, and they were
proceeding with some caution, wanting to be sure that there would be demand for such
housing before rolling anything out on a larger scale.’
‘We have started to convert certain larger properties in high demand areas into shared
accommodation. This is a new venture so careful monitoring will follow each one before
a decision is made as to whether this is something we would roll out further.’
‘Historically there has not been a need to offer shared housing. We have started to
explore this as a housing option that will be available.’
(Social landlords replying to survey)
Landlords who were not offering shared housing had a range of reasons for not doing so
(Table 4.8).
Table 4.8 Reasons for not offering shared housing
Reasons Number citing each
reason
Anticipated management difficulties or costs 32
No demand for shared housing 28
Legal difficulties 12
Not thought about it/no tradition of providing this 11
Need larger properties to house families 10
Stock is unsuitable for conversion to shared housing 8
It is not appropriate as long term housing 6
The LA discourages it 3
We lack skills to manage it 2
Base: All landlords who do not offer shared housing (n=177). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to
7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
Most reasons for not offering shared housing were pragmatic – a lack of demand or
increased management costs or difculties – though very few landlords answering the survey
indicated that these concerns were based on actual experience of offering shared housing. A
smaller number were also opposed in principle; they considered it to be an outdated model
and not what their tenants should be expected to accept as a long-term housing option.
Others admitted it was just not something they had ever given much thought to:
95
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
‘It’s not something we’ve really given much thought to, but maybe we should. We don’t
really think much demand but to be fair, we haven’t tried.’
(Social landlords replying to survey)
Several explained that they would issue a joint tenancy if a group of friends applied to
them as a potential household, but that they did not want to become involved in managing
properties being shared by people who hadn’t actively chosen to live together:
‘Our experience of people sharing has not been great. They tend to fall out. We’ve had
a few come though from the looked after children route and social workers have put
them together and it’s gone wrong.’
(Social landlord replying to survey)
Others felt that the nature of their stock did not lend itself well to sharing:
‘Unless you’ve designed something specically for sharing it doesn’t really work very
well. If a property has two different sizes of bedroom you’ve got an immediate tension
there … Our historic design standard has been to build properties with one double and
multiple single rooms – on the basis that most children prefer single rooms. That kind of
accommodation doesn’t lend itself to sharing.’
(Social landlord replying to survey)
Most case study landlords said that, despite the RSRS, they could still let their larger
properties to families and that these were their priority.
4.6 Changes to development plans
Key ndings
• Around half (51 per cent) of developing landlords said they have altered their build plans
as result of the RSRS, up from a third in 2013. They were building more one-bedroom
homes and fewer larger ones.
• Some were concerned about the future of the policy at the time of the eldwork and
hence were reluctant to alter their stock prole (landlord survey).
There has been a substantial change in the relative demand for different sizes of homes
as a result of the RSRS. Eighty-two per cent of landlords surveyed reported that they were
involved in developing new housing. Of these, around 51 per cent reported that they had
already amended the prole of dwellings that they will build in response to the RSRS, an
increase from around one in three in the 2013 survey. The main impact was a reduction
in the number of homes with three or more bedrooms and an increase in one-bedroom
properties being built (Figure 4.14).
96
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Figure 4.14 Ways in which landlords report having altered their development plans as
a result of the RSRS
As can be seen, landlords were most likely to report building fewer larger homes, and were
instead building more one and two-bedroom homes. Case study landlords who were altering
their stock prole to build more smaller homes nevertheless explained that they were still
seeking to build a mixture of different sizes on most developments. They felt that building a
high density of one-bedroom homes could bring management problems.
Only one case study landlord mentioned that they had been seeking to buy up existing
one-bedroom properties on the open market and they had now ceased this activity amidst
concerns that they were pricing out rst time buyers.
Other case study landlords reported that they had not made any changes to their
development programmes. Many felt that there was still a need for larger homes. There
was also a feeling in some areas that the longevity of the RSRS was uncertain and that
building smaller homes would therefore be short-sighted in terms of meeting longer term
requirements.
Percentages
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 bedroom properties
2 bedroom houses
2 bedroom flats
3 bedroom houses
3 bedroom flats
4 bedroom properties
5 or more bedroom properties
Building fewer Building moreNo change
Base: All landlords involved in developing new housing (n=185). Fieldwork dates: 13 October
to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
97
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.7 Financing future development of social
housing
Key ndings
• Lenders concerns were more focused on the wider package of welfare reforms and
Universal Credit system rather than RSRS specically.
• Lenders generally felt housing associations had responded well to RSRS and have put
resources in place.
• There were no defaults or signs of imminent default reported.
• The RSRS was not thought to have impacted on the pricing of loans made to the
housing association sector.
• Lenders had not sought to inuence housing associations’ practices on rent collection or
evictions and did not intend to do so (consultation with lenders).
The research interviewed the major lenders to the housing association sector to establish
whether the RSRS had any impact on their lending practices. All the lenders who took part in
the research had lent to the housing association sector to fund development, with portfolios
ranging from one billion to many billions.
For all respondents, the RSRS clearly featured in their discussions with housing association
clients and in the deliberations of their own committees who make decisions over credit.
Lenders very much considered the impact of the RSRS as part of the wider package of
welfare reforms, including the roll out of UC.
There was a desire to understand the impact of the RSRS on tenants, associations and
hence the risk prole of the sector. There was no suggestion yet that the RSRS had
impacted unduly negatively on the overall approach to lending to the sector. Lenders were
aware that most associations had increased the resources devoted to rent collection in
response to the RSRS and had developed stronger relationships with their tenants.
Lenders were asked how well they thought their housing association clients had estimated
the likely impact of the RSRS. There were differing views on this. Three of the eight lenders
suggested that most associations had over-estimated the negative impact of RSRS, or been
over-cautious. The others suggested the estimation was more prudent or well balanced.
Either way, lenders were of the view that associations had put in place the right resources
and actions to mitigate the impact.
Generally, lenders felt that the RSRS had not affected the bids they assessed for nancing
new development. Lenders had noted the shift towards building smaller units and there was
some concern that too many one-bedroomed homes may be built in some areas.
Lenders reported that none of their borrower landlords had defaulted on their loans and
there were no worrying signs of imminent default and lenders were generally of the view this
was unlikely in the future. It was felt that welfare reform in general and RSRS, in particular,
were unlikely to be the sole drivers of default and lenders had therefore not carried out any
major reviews of their plans around this possibility. It was thought that operational costs for
associations would rise along with arrears and voids as a result of the RSRS, but that this
was unlikely to be on such a scale as to trigger defaults from associations.
98
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Lenders had been in regular discussion with the Homes and Communities Agency and the
impact of welfare reforms was one of the items under continuing review.
Most lenders were aware of DHP, saw it as helpful, but noted the huge variations in use and
management across areas. DHP was also felt to be masking the underlying pressures and
the full implications of the RSRS to date.
The RSRS was not seen to have impacted on loan pricing to date and was considered
unlikely to do so in the future, at least not in any way that could be quantied. None of the
lenders were aware of any housing associations having sought to renegotiate the loan
covenants in response to the RSRS.
Lenders were asked whether any default could be managed through the moratorium
arrangements put in place by the regulator (the Homes and Communities Agency) under the
Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 for dealing with insolvency. As there had been only one
recent case of a near insolvency at the time of the research lenders had limited opportunity
to see how these arrangements operated in practice. They did, however, point out that the
regulator’s capacity to act is one of the factors already taken into account when deciding to
lend.
Lenders said that they were not involved in decisions to change practices such as requiring
tenants to pay an upfront deposit, increasing the proportion of lets to working households,
evicting more swiftly or using mandatory possession grounds more often. Lenders felt that
it was for the borrower to determine the actions required to reduce arrears through their
boards and senior management.
For the most part, lenders remained comfortable with the current situation and that though
they were watching the situation carefully and monitoring borrowers, nothing to date has
made them change their appetite to lend. It is clear they feel associations were managing the
situation and that so far at least the impacts had been controllable.
Associations were acknowledged for their capacity to manage their way through the
challenges posed by welfare reform, despite a view that some may have been overly
cautious and modelled initially on worst case scenarios which were never likely to arise.
It was also acknowledged that it is still in a sense early days in terms of the impact of the
RSRS. Lenders were still commenting on their borrowers’ capacity much more than on the
tenants’ ability to cope with welfare reform, which may have an impact further down the line.
4.8 Rent collection and arrears
Key ndings
• There was no signicant change in levels of arrears held by social landlords between
2013 and 2014 (landlord survey).
• 40 per cent of still affected claimants said they were currently in arrears in 2014, a slight
fall from 47 per cent in 2013 (claimant survey).
The 2013 eldwork found that landlords were initially keeping a very close eye on the impact
of the RSRS on arrears. By 2014, however, it was becoming more difcult to quantify the
scale of the impact because many tenants had moved in and out of being affected by the
RSRS. Nevertheless, overall arrears gures were usually available (Table 4.9)
99
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 4.9 Total arrears held by landlords
Date Total arrears As percentage of rent due
(median)
31 March 2013 £209,681,691 2.9%
31 March 2014 £215,113,142 3.0%
On the most comparable recent date
1
£247,022,111 3.1%
Base: Total arrears held by all landlords who were able to supply full gures for all three dates
(n=174). Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7 November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
1
Respondents were instructed: ‘Please give the gure for as recent a date as possible that can best
be compared to 31 March, bearing in mind your rent collection cycle and Housing Benet payment
dates’. They were then asked what date they had used. The median date given was 30 September
2014.
This suggests that there was no statistically signicant change in levels of arrears between
31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014.
The landlord survey asked about policies for managing arrears arising from the RSRS. In
total, 46 landlords (21 per cent) reported that they offered their usual support and would
evict as usual if this failed; 152 (69 per cent) that they offered support that went substantially
above the usual level, but would then evict as usual if this failed; 19 (nine per cent) that they
would not evict tenants who were working with them; one landlord that they would not evict
certain groups of tenants, and one that they would not evict any tenants affected by the
RSRS. The answers to this question were very similar to those found in the 2013 survey.
4.9 Evictions and homelessness
Key ndings
• The research found no discernible increase in evictions arising from the RSRS at the
time of the autumn 2014 eldwork.
• Landlords reported having applied for possession on ve per cent of RSRS-affected
tenancies, though less than a tenth of this number have actually been evicted (landlord
survey)
• Case study work suggested most evictions by November 2014 had been of tenants with
pre-existing arrears and/or who had not engaged with their landlord (case studies).
• Tenants with arrears arising solely as a result of the RSRS were in most cases being
supported and encouraged to pay, or helped with the use of DHP (case studies).
• Three-quarters of court cases for RSRS-affected tenants by autumn 2014 had resulted
in suspended possession orders being issued (landlord survey).
• The evidence suggests that the RSRS had not, by summer 2014, had a substantial
impact on homelessness services (case studies).
• The RSRS was reported to have had some impact on homeless households seeking to
move on from temporary accommodation as it was now quicker to move families due to
larger properties being freed up by downsizers, but conversely harder for singles who
were now competing with more households, including downsizers, for one-bedroom
properties.
100
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
4.9.1 Evictions
Landlords were also asked in the survey about eviction proceedings. Overall, they reported
that 34 per cent of tenants affected by the RSRS had been issued with a formal warning
letter and 19 per cent had been issued with a notice of intention to seek possession. Smaller
numbers had proceeded further than this (Table 4.10):
Table 4.10 Taking action against arrears. Of tenants affected by the RSRS:
Stage Number of tenants Proportion of all RSRS-
affected tenants
For how many tenancies have you applied for
possession?
3,891 5.1%
How many tenants have had court cases heard? 3,596 4.8%
How many tenants have been issued with a
suspended possession order?
2,047 2.7%
How many tenants have been issued with a
possession order (not suspended)?
425 0.6%
How many tenants have been evicted? 356 n/a
1
Base: RSRS-affected tenants of all landlords who were able to supply data for all parts of this
question (number of landlords = 122; number of tenants = 75,621) Fieldwork dates: 13 October to 7
November 2014. Source: CCHPR/DWP.
1
The number of tenants evicted cannot be given as a proportion of affected tenancies because
tenants who have been evicted would usually no longer be affected by the RSRS.
The total number evicted by autumn 2014 (18 months into the RSRS) stood at 356, just
4.7 tenants per 1,000 currently affected tenancies. In contrast, overall rates of eviction from
social housing (for all reasons) were around 4.4 tenants per 1,000 tenancies in 2013–14
(SDR, 2013–14). The research therefore found no discernible increase in evictions arising
from the RSRS. It should, however, be cautioned that the research found that even 18
months into the RSRS, the policy was still relatively new, and that the timescales for evicting
non-payers were long. The number of tenants who had not paid any of their RSRS shortfall
was very much higher than the number evicted to date and landlords were clear that they
could not let tenants arrears continue to rise indenitely.
Case study landlords suggested that the majority of tenants affected by the RSRS who
had been evicted had been so as a result of both pre-existing arrears and arrears incurred
since the introduction of the RSRS. Tenants with arrears arising solely as a result of the
RSRS were in most cases being supported and encouraged to pay, or helped with the use
of DHP. Landlords reported relatively few tenants with no pre-existing arrears who had failed
to engage or to pay and most were still (in summer 2014) working out what to do with such
cases.
The larger problem for landlords lay in supporting tenants with who were struggling to
maintain payments to clear both pre-existing arrears and also to pay the RSRS shortfall:
‘The majority are given suspended possession orders. But there is a cycle of debt
leading to a breach of court orders and then they still can’t afford the rent so it results in
eviction.’
(Interviews with case study social landlord)
101
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
As mentioned earlier, 37 respondents from the claimant survey could not be contacted to
take part in the summer 2014 (wave two) survey because they had moved to a new address.
As such, caution should be exercised when interpreting results around arrears and evictions.
Claimants were typically less likely to report being be in arrears by summer 2014 than they
were in autumn 2013, as Table 4.11 shows:
Table 4.11 Can I please check, are you currently up to date with the rent you owe, or
are you in arrears?
In arrears
(autumn 2013)
%
In arrears
(summer 2014)
%
Diff (+/-)
Still affected (=469) 47 40 -7
No longer affected (n=94) 49 27 -22
All affected (n=563) 47 38 -9
Comparison group (never affected) (n=204) 21 19 -2
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort and comparison group. Fieldwork dates: 1 October –
24 November 2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014). Source: Ipsos
MORI/DWP.
There is, however, some evidence of a degree of movement between autumn 2013 and
summer 2014 with regard to arrears status. As Table 4.12 shows, the status in relation to
arrears of around three in ten of those still affected had changed between the 2013 and 2014
waves.
Table 4.12 Combined responses in both autumn 2013 and summer 2014 in response
to the question: Can I please check, are you currently up to date with the
rent you owe, or are you in arrears?
Autumn 2013 status Summer 2014 status %
Up to date Up to date 42
In Arrears In arrears 30
In Arrears Up to date 17
Up to date In Arrears 10
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort (n=563) Fieldwork dates: 1 October – 24 November 2013
(autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014). Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP. Figures
rebased to exclude ‘don’t know’ responses.
The claimant survey also established the frequency with which claimants reported being in
arrears at various stages before and after the RSRS came into effect on 1 April 2013. Those
in the affected cohort reported falling into arrears more frequently after becoming affected,
but were typically less frequently in arrears by summer 2014 than they were in autumn 2013.
As Table 4.13 shows, this is largely because those who were no longer affected were less
frequently in arrears after becoming unaffected.
102
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table 4.13 Claimants’ self-reported frequency of being in arrears at various points
before/since becoming affected by the RSRS
Before
RSRS/
April 1
2013
%
Since 1
April 2013
(up to
autumn
2013)
%
Between
autumn
2013 and
summer
2014
%
Still affected
only
(Between
autumn 2013
and summer
2014) (n=469)
%
No longer
affected only
(Between
autumn 2013
and summer
2014) (n=94)
%
All/most of the time 7 32 25 27 15
Sometimes/occasionally 23 30 30 30 32
Never 70 38 44 43 53
Base: All respondents in the affected cohort (n=563) Fieldwork dates: 1 October – 24 November
2013 (autumn 2013) and 16 June – 4 August 2014 (summer 2014). Source: Ipsos MORI/DWP.
Claimants in the qualitative interviews who had built up arrears typically had landlords who
were exible about payment and allowed them to pay their rent late although they were
typically unsure as to how long such an arrangement would be tolerated by their landlord.
4.9.2 Homelessness services
The evidence from the case study areas suggested that the RSRS had not, by summer
2014, had a substantial impact on homelessness services. LAs reported that any tenants
evicted for failing to pay the RSRS shortfall who were deemed to be unable to afford it
would not be considered unintentionally homeless, but in practice these households would
usually be eligible for DHP and would be assisted to apply for this, thus preventing their
homelessness. Those who had been evicted were reported to be largely households who
had pre-existing arrears as well as those arising from the RSRS, and to have failed to
engage with the support offered. Consequently, they were considered by LA homelessness
departments to be intentionally homeless forfeiting any automatic right to be housed.
Local advice agencies who worked with households who were evicted reported that most
looked for accommodation in the private rented sector, though struggled to nd anything
affordable, or found that private landlords were unwilling to accept tenants with a history of
rent arrears. Some registered for social housing, but also faced restrictions relating to their
arrears. For instance, one authority would only allow past tenants with arrears to bid for
social housing once they had made 13 consecutive payments of their arrears to their past
landlord. Anecdotally, some were known to have moved in with other family members.
The RSRS was reported to have had some impact on homeless households seeking to
move on from temporary accommodation. It was reported that it was now quicker to move
families on from temporary accommodation, because there were larger properties being
freed up by downsizers. However, it was harder for single people, or couples without
children, to move on because they faced increased competition for one-bedroom properties.
In some areas these problems were reported to be compounded by a shortage of shared
accommodation suitable for people aged under 35 in the private sector, causing an increase
in homelessness in this age group and further difculties in nding permanent housing for
single homeless people.
103
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
There were also problems reported in some lower demand areas of homeless households
being placed in social rented temporary accommodation that was too large for them and
therefore left them affected by the RSRS. The rent on temporary accommodation is often
high (even in the social sector), meaning that there could be a considerable shortfall.
104
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
5 The impact on voluntary
organisations, advice and
support services
This chapter explores the impact of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) on
local advice and support services. A total of 47 local agencies were interviewed across the
ten case study areas including Social Services (Children’s Services), the Citizens Advice
Bureau (CAB), Job Centres and local voluntary organisations during 2013. The 20 most key
agencies were interviewed again in summer 2014.
Key ndings
• Most agencies reported an increase in demand for their services from 2013, but the
RSRS was one of several reasons for this and it was not possible to clarify what specic
impact it had, that might not be attributable to other welfare reforms and other economic
changes (case studies).
• Some CABs had seen an initial inux of RSRS concerns in 2013 but reported that by
summer 2014 this had reduced. Cases with more complex nancial difculties had
remained a part of their caseload, with arrears resulting from the RSRS often part of a
bigger picture of debts (case studies).
• Most people struggling with RSRS and seeking help from agencies were reported to
have other debts and difculties too, such as mental health issues. Agencies were
concerned about the cumulative impact of welfare reform, especially the RSRS and
Council Tax liability (case studies).
• Jobcentre Plus staff reported that they usually referred people to the local authority (LA)
for housing issues. They generally offered their usual support and assistance to those
affected by the RSRS, dependent on the work-seeking requirements for their other
benets. None reported having seen any increase in clients’ job-seeking efforts as result
of the RSRS, though some thought that this may increase when Discretionary Housing
Payment (DHP) awards ended (case studies).
5.1 Overall impact
Many agencies reported an increase in demand for their services since April 2013. However,
they did not always think it was just because of the RSRS, as other welfare reforms had
also affected demand. Many agencies also highlighted that a lot of the people they saw who
were in nancial difculties or facing eviction often had a complex set of problems of which
the RSRS was only one part and it was therefore hard to attribute the extent of the RSRS in
contributing to their workload:
‘The bedroom tax is a massive issue, but it’s not an isolated problem. It’s very rare
that a client will come with just that issue … It’s all nancial. The great majority of our
clients are being hit by the welfare reforms … Some people are getting depressed as
a secondary effect of the stress and anxiety of debt and having to choose between
paying rent, or eating or heating your house. People are overwhelmed with all the debts
that they have.’
105
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
‘Almost all face multiple problems but debt issue is usually the immediate reason for
coming forward.’
‘The changes to council tax support has had a massive effect in [this area], particularly
young single people. It’s the cumulative impact of the changes – and the amount that
people are expected to pay has gone up. Fourteen per cent of your rent [because of the
RSRS] and some council tax is a lot of money to be nding on a weekly basis.’
‘Mental health runs through almost everything and is clearly worsened by stresses
related to welfare payments.’
(Interviews with local advice agencies)
By 2014, most agencies reported that they were coping with the demands of the RSRS
as part of their wider workload. In most areas CABs were the agency that dealt often with
people affected by the RSRS. Some reported that they had seen an initial inux of people
affected by the RSRS seeking help in understanding how they would be affected or how they
might respond. More lately the numbers coming for this reason alone had dropped off:
‘When we last spoke [autumn 2013] there had been a spike but now we see people
affected by the bedroom tax less often. It is a lot to do with people understanding the
situation and trying to x it themselves. They are no longer hiding their heads in the
sand.’
‘It is less of a shock to people now. They know they need to nd this money. Those
people have come to understand what it’s about, so there’s not so many people coming
to us needing DHP applications. Now it has decreased.’
‘The bedroom tax was quite hectic when it rst came out but it seems to have calmed
down a bit, people have got used to it and to budgeting to pay the extra.’
(Interviews with local advice agencies)
However, the CABs continued to see large numbers of clients who were struggling with
debts and coping on very low incomes and said that the RSRS was a part of this picture. The
CABs also continued to assist many households with DHP applications and reapplications
throughout the time.
Some CABs were now working more closely with social landlord money advice teams and
with LA Housing Benet (HB) teams especially relating to DHP applications. Some felt
that the RSRS had added considerably to their workload, though they were not able to put
gures on the extent of this increase. Others (in Scotland and Wales) said that after the initial
difculties most of their clients were now being assisted with DHP and the demands on their
services from RSRS-affected claimants had now decreased.
A few local agencies (one Jobcentre Plus, one CAB and one local charity) reported that they
had received additional funding from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or from
their LA specically to undertake new projects with those affected by the RSRS.
Jobcentre Plus staff in general felt that they did not have the expertise to assist with housing
issues. They would generally refer those affected by the RSRS to the LA housing department
if they were seeking to downsize. Otherwise they would offer the usual support and
assistance with job seeking, depending on the type of benet the client was receiving.
106
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
5.2 Increasing work incentives
Jobcentre Plus staff did not report a signicant increase in demands for their services
and felt that the impact of the RSRS had not been as high as they might have expected.
Jobcentre Plus staff interviewed were not aware that the RSRS appeared to have increased
the incentives on their clients to nd work. They did however offer “better off in work”
calculations, which would factor in the impact of the RSRS:
‘The RSRS hasn’t been such a big issue as expected, probably because of DHP.’
‘[The impact] is less than originally thought. People want to stay in their own home,
understandably, and many were only affected by a small amount – £5 a week – so they
managed to pay. Rents are quite low here … Last year people were in denial – now
everyone knows about it and knows where to go for help.’
(Interviews with local Jobcentre Plus staff)
However, several of the Jobcentre Plus interviewees said that they expected this to change
once DHP awards ran out and claimants needed to nd a longer term solution.
107
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
6 Conclusions
This evaluation has explored the impact of the rst 20 months of operation of the Removal
of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS) from April 2013 until November 2014. It examined the
preparation, delivery and implementation of the policy changes by local authorities (LAs)
and social landlords. It has also explored the extent of increased mobility within the social
housing sector leading to more effective use of the housing stock, and the extent to which,
as a result of the RSRS, more people are in work, working increased hours or earning
increased incomes.
6.1 Implementation
The preparatory work needed to identify tenants who would be affected was effective and
the reduction in Housing Benet (HB) was successfully brought into effect. By autumn 2014,
systems for identifying which tenants were affected were well-developed with most LAs and
landlords working well together to identify and support affected tenants.
Landlords were trying to support affected claimants to pay and to balance the roles of rent
collector and support-worker. They were concerned about the costs to them as landlords in
supporting tenants, collecting rent and covering costs related to voids.
Many landlords were concerned that a loss in rental income could reduce their ability to
develop new housing in the future, however, there was no signicant change in levels of
arrears held by landlords and the RSRS does not appear to have affected their relationship
with their lenders, who did not believe that default on loans is likely.
Concerns around large scale reclassication of properties, or landlords knocking down walls
to avoid the effects of the measure appear to have been largely unfounded; such activities
have been very small scale.
Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) have undoubtedly helped to alleviate the difculties
of some of the most vulnerable groups affected by RSRS, though this funding is by its nature
short term and offers tenants little certainty over their future. LAs initially found it hard to
predict the demands on this fund and were therefore cautious in allocating it at rst. By 2014
they were better able to manage the demands on the fund, though they were concerned
about the long-term prospects for tenants in receipt of DHP, most of whom had been unable
to nd a solution to their difculties by the time of this research.
Some efforts had been made to introduce conditions on the receipt of DHP but mechanisms
for policing and ensuring compliance were not well developed, in relation to renewal of
awards. Claimants’ knowledge of DHP increased a little by 2014 but some tenants were not
aware of DHPs, or reported little understanding of eligibility criteria. There is wide variation
in practice between areas, as might be expected from the discretionary nature of the funding
but was a source of frustration and some confusion to landlords who were trying to support
affected tenants in their applications to a variety of LAs.
108
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
6.2 The response of claimants
Claimants’ responses to the reduction in their HB have been mixed. Twenty per cent of
affected claimants said they have looked to earn more through employment-related income
as a result of the RSRS, rising to 63 per cent of those who said they were unemployed and
seeking work. However, their success has been limited. Five per cent of claimants who were
affected by the RSRS in 2013 said they had found work by the following year, and three
per cent had lost a job. Around half of those who did nd work ceased to be affected by the
RSRS, with the others remaining affected because their earnings were insufcient to remove
them from claiming HB. This suggests that effects related to the use of the housing stock
were more signicant than employment-related effects.
Social landlords and LAs reported a variety of schemes seeking to help people into work,
though had little data on the success of such schemes on tenants affected by the RSRS. The
Jobcentre Plus staff interviewed had not seen any increased work-seeking behaviours by
affected claimants, though thought this might increase when DHP awards ended.
Six months into the policy landlords reported that around a fth had paid none of their rental
shortfall, but by autumn 2014 this had fallen to one in ten. Around half had, by autumn 2014,
paid in full. Those who were still affected and paying some of their shortfall were not doing
so without difculty, 78 per cent reported that they often ran out of money by the end of the
week or month (compared to 69 per cent of those no longer affected by the RSRS).
Among those still affected, claimants had paid the rent by: using up savings; borrowing
from family or friends or accruing debt (claimant qualitative interviews), although we do not
know whether they have a history of borrowing for other purposes. Eighteen months into
the RSRS, only very small numbers of RSRS-affected claimants had been evicted
36
. The
most common way that still affected claimants had responded to the RSRS was by cutting
expenditure and paying the shortfall. Arrears were lower than some landlords had feared
37
,
though the impact on household nances was not easy for many claimants to absorb, with
some using less sustainable strategies in order to pay their rent.
36
It should be cautioned here that the timescales of building up arrears resulting from the
RSRS and then proceeding through the court system are slow and that at the time
this research took place landlords were well aware that the much larger number of
claimants who were not paying their shortfall could not be allowed to remain indenitely
and that the long-term outcome for them was still uncertain at the time of the research.
37
Overall 55 per cent of tenants affected by the RSRS were in arrears in autumn 2014,
though 43 per cent had been in arrears in March 2013 (prior to the introduction of the
RSRS) (landlord survey).
109
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
6.3 Mobility and changing use of the housing
stock
One of the aims of the RSRS was to increase mobility within the social housing sector
leading to more effective use of the housing stock with households in more suitable sized
accommodation, reducing waiting lists for social housing. Overall, the research estimated
that around 24,000 RSRS-affected households had downsized within social housing by
autumn 2013, rising to approximately 45,000 by autumn 2014 (with 471,887 households still
being affected by the RSRS). Larger numbers were registered for moves than had managed
to move by autumn 2014. Most claimants affected by the RSRS initially had said that they
did not want to move and this remained the case in 2014. Reasons included proximity to
family, schools, work and support services.
This number of moves has nevertheless – in housing management terms – produced a
considerable increase in downsizing within social housing, albeit from a very low base
of fewer than 0.5 per cent of tenants downsizing each year. The available evidence also
suggests that there was some increase in overall mobility within social housing (at least
in England) with increased number of relets of larger homes and a small increase in the
number of overcrowded tenants rehoused. There are, however, no data available on
overcrowding rates across the entire social rented sector.
A small minority of affected claimants were actively looking to move. In 2013, around one
in ve affected claimants were trying to move, and the proportion in 2014 was similar.
Claimants and landlords both reported widely that there was an insufcient supply of smaller
properties for downsizers to move to, especially those requiring just one bedroom.
Moves into the private rented sector have remained low in number and tenants were largely
reluctant to move to the private rented sector because of affordability concerns and the
difculty in nding a deposit.
Landlords were concerned about difculties in letting homes, especially larger homes and
two-bedroom ats, which were now unaffordable for many tenants on HB. Some were letting
to lower need groups, or advertising more widely. However, overall void levels in the social
rented sector appear steady.
The RSRS has encouraged many landlords and LAs to realign their allocation policies to
ensure where possible that tenants do not under occupy their properties. However the
imbalance of supply and demand for different sizes of properties means that most are unable
to ensure a precise match between the number of bedrooms required and what is available
and many new lets are still made to people who under occupy, despite an increase in the
proportion of lets to families.
In many areas major restructuring of the housing stock – such as selling off or remodelling
larger homes, or letting homes as shared houses – would be needed to address this
imbalance in supply and demand. This research found little evidence of these kinds of
activities. Although around half of landlords have altered the prole of new stock being
built most remain very cautious about offering shared housing, citing concerns about
management difculties or costs, or a lack of skills and tradition in providing such housing.
Without such activities the imbalance between the size of the stock and the size of
households seeking it is likely to remain.
110
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix A
Claimant survey methods
Claimants’ survey – technical note
Technical information: Survey of Housing Benet claimants both affected and not
affected by the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy
The following section outlines the approach taken in each of the two waves of the claimant
survey (wave 1 in autumn 2013 and wave 2 in summer 2014). The claimant survey was
a longitudinal study, with interviewers returning to the same respondents to examine how
things had changed (according to what they think has changed and by comparing their
responses at the two waves). This differs from a cross-sectional study in which two matched
but separate samples are built and compared to detect changes, and weighting is applied (if
necessary) to be sure that any differences are ‘real’ and not simply the product of variation in
the samples.
Consequently, the rst wave involved interviewing a sample of Housing Benet claimants
in 15 case study areas, using the May 2013 Single Housing Benet Extract (SHBE) as
a sampling frame. The sampling frame for the second wave was derived from wave 1
respondents who agreed to be re-contacted, and the analysis and approach for each wave
differed accordingly, outlined in the below.
Sampling
Wave 1: summer 2013 survey
The sampling frame used for the Stage 1 survey of claimants was the May 2013 SHBE
August extract. The Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) was postal sector.
In accordance with the data security conventions and protocols established for this
particular project (and more generally for projects delivered by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)), the Department sent Ipsos MORI an encrypted
data le containing anonymised data for SHBE claimants across the 15 case study areas.
This included a unique ID, local authority name, full postcode and 11 sampling variables. The
le also contained a ag for those known to be affected by the RSRS at the point of extract,
and those known not to be affected at that time.
There were ve subsequent steps to sample selection:
Stage 1 involved generating PSU-level data, selecting sample points and then selecting
specic claimants for the opt-out stage. Specically:
• PSU-level data les were produced allowing generation of penetration levels for key
variables including ‘affected’/’not affected’.
• Six PSUs (or combinations of postal sectors) were selected for each case study area. The
six were selected to provide a sufcient number of cases to draw a sample from allowing
for DWP exclusions, the likely extent of opt-out and taking into account the interview
111
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
length, assumptions about response rates etc. Selection was designed to generate
viable blocks of addresses for interviewers and took account of the following (in order
of importance): the overall number of claimants, the number of affected and non-affected
claimants, the geographical spread and other variables including property type, household
size and age.
• All cases (claimants) within each PSU were included.
Stage two involved sending a list of unique IDs for all the selected cases to DWP. DWP then
provided secure sample les containing unique IDs, name and address, and local authority
name for each case. In accordance with data security requirements, Ipsos MORI deleted
initial Stage one sample variables except the affected/non-affected claimant ag.
Stage three involved adding in other sampling variables and selecting claimant cases.
Specically:
• Frequency tables for each case study area were produced showing: the ID for each PSU,
the postal sector(s), the total number of Housing Benet (HB) claimants in each PSU, the
total number (and percentage of the whole) of ‘affected’ and ‘non-affected’ claimants in
each PSU.
• Six PSUs were selected per case study area; ve primary and one reserve units. Selection
was based on same criteria as at Stage 1.
• Where possible 165 cases were randomly selected within each PSU in proportion to
the overall 70/30 target of ‘affected’ and ‘non-affected’ claimants. This meant selecting
115 ‘affected’ and 50 ‘non-affected claimants per PSU using a xed interval ‘one in n’
38
approach where there were more than 115 or 50 or selecting all of them if there were fewer
than 115 or 50 available.
Stage four involved creating a list of selected claimant names and addresses then mail-
merging this with the agreed opt-out letter (supplied in the Appendices which follow). A Welsh
language version letter was used where necessary. The letter informed recipients of the
survey and provided them with the option of opting-out via telephone, email or letter.
Stage ve involved removing all opt-outs from the selected sample. Once the sample was
nalised, address lists were then generated and issued to interviewers in advance of the
telephone briengs run by Ipsos MORI researchers and the start of eldwork.
Wave 2: summer 2014 survey
In wave 2, the sample frame was the 1,391 respondents who completed the wave 1 survey
and who gave their consent to be re-contacted for a follow-up survey in 2014.
Panel maintenance
As interviews with wave two respondents took place between eight and ten months after
wave one, a ‘keeping in touch’ exercise was conducted in order to maintain contact with the
panel of wave two respondents and retain their interest in the survey. The keeping in touch
exercise was designed to:
38
This is done by listing claimant records randomly in each PSU and selecting the nth
record proportionately across the full list to select 115 ‘affected’ and 50 ‘non-affected’
records respectively.
112
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
• thank claimants for their involvement in the research project to date;
• remind claimants that we would be trying to contact them again between June and July
2014 as discussed (and agreed) at the rst interview; and
• ensure that the contact details (address and telephone numbers) held for claimants
remained valid so that interviewers could make contact with them in wave two.
In April 2014, respondents who had consented to taking part in subsequent research were
sent a letter to this effect, and were invited to let Ipsos MORI know if any of their contact
details had changed (or were likely to change in the period before wave two eldwork
began).
Fieldwork
A total of 15 areas were selected for the purposes of undertaking primary survey research
among HB claimants in the social rented sector. These covered England (13 areas),
Scotland and Wales (one area each). These areas were chosen to ensure a range
of housing market circumstances, region, tenure mix, type, and size of local authority
throughout Britain. A mixture of stock-owning and non-stock owning, rural and urban,
and unitary and two tier authorities were included. In order to encourage frank and open
discussion, the case study authorities have not been identied in this report.
A breakdown of the areas chosen and interviews completed in each area (per wave) is as
follows:
Table A.1 Target and actual interviews by case study area
Case study
area
Wave 1
Target
Wave 1 Wave 2
Total Affected Non-
affected
Total Affected Non-
affected
East 100 100 64 36 63 41 22
East Midlands 100 98 77 21 73 55 18
London 1 100 100 67 33 65 47 18
London 2 100 100 74 26 50 40 10
North East 100 100 72 28 84 61 23
North West 1 100 101 74 27 59 49 10
North West 2 100 100 71 29 74 53 21
North West 3 100 100 69 31 57 39 18
Scotland 100 101 74 27 67 51 16
South East 1 100 100 72 28 68 52 16
South East 2 100 100 73 27 60 44 16
South West 100 101 70 31 66 48 18
Wales 100 100 74 26 68 48 20
West Midlands 100 101 69 32 84 61 23
Yorkshire and
the Humber
100 100 71 29 55 40
15
Total 1,500 1,502 1,071 431 972 716 256
Note: ‘Affected’ and ‘Non-affected’ ags are based on the SHBE sample ag.
113
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
A small-scale pilot was undertaken in September 2013. It involved two interviewers working
in two regions (London and South East) and was designed to test the sampling, opt-out and
contact procedures, as well as to provide feedback on the questionnaire. The pilot generated
20 interviews, which are not included in nal data.
In both waves, interviewers were provided address lists, doorstep introduction, hard copy
and CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) versions of the questionnaire and
showcards. In wave one they were given copies of the opt-out letter, and in wave two they
were given a contact sheet per respondent to record interview outcomes.
Ipsos MORI interviewers were briefed by a combination of written instructions and telephone
conference-call briengs. A key point was that only the named claimant at each address
was eligible. In wave one, interviewers were not required to make a set minimum number of
calls to each address, but were encouraged to reattempt contacts at initially non-productive
addresses. In wave two, interviewers were given a contact sheet for each named respondent
and were asked to make a minimum of four calls to each address.
Survey eldwork ran between 1 October and 24 November 2013 in wave 1 (autumn 2013),
and between 16 June and 4 August 2014 in wave 2 (summer 2014). All eldwork was
undertaken by Ipsos MORI interviewers in accordance with ISO 20252 and ISO 27001
systems and standards (further detail can be provided on request).
Ipsos MORI interviewed approximately 100 claimants face-to-face in their homes in each
area in wave one. Sampling and quotas were structured to achieve interviews with affected
claimants in a 2:1 ratio relative to non-affected. In total, 1,071 affected HB claimants were
interviewed, and a non-affected sample of 431 HB claimants of working-age. In wave two, no
quotas were set, and interviewers were instead asked to attempt to complete interviews with
as many eligible respondents as possible.
Questionnaire
The questionnaires for both waves of the survey are included below. Consent for data
matching was sought in both waves (Q47 in both waves). A total of 85 per cent and 92 per
cent gave their consent for data matching in the two waves respectively.
In wave one, Q48 sought permission for Ipsos MORI to re-contact respondents in the second
survey (and possible participation in the qualitative phase. Consent was given by 93 per cent
of respondents.
Analysis and approach
In autumn 2013 (wave one), the analysis was focused on the 871 claimants agged in
the May 2013 SHBE extract as affected by the changes and who said they were currently
affected by the changes and HB has been reduced (‘affected’), and on the 381 claimants
agged as not affected in the May 2013 SHBE extract and who said they were not currently
affected by the changes (‘non-affected’).
Fieldwork was conducted ve months after receipt of the May SHBE extract, meaning that
there was a possibility of circumstances changing for some respondents in this period.
Consequently, the original affected/non-affected SHBE ag had limitations but, at the same
time, it was not possible to validate respondents’ self-reported status (with some indications
of potential confusion on the issue among some respondents).
114
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Consequently, the analysis was based on those agged in the original SHBE sample as
being affected and non-affected and whose self-reported responses in the survey matched
these labels. This allowed for analysis of early impacts of the policy among a group known
to be both affected and aware of the fact, but more importantly, this made it possible to
measure the change over time through the longitudinal element of the evaluation.
In summer 2014 (wave two), and with the sample derived from wave one respondents
agreeing to be recontacted, the focus of analysis moved from the two affected and non-
affected groups to certain types of claimant based on their longitudinal status at wave one
and wave two:
1 Those in the autumn 2013 survey recontacted in summer 2014 who were agged as
affected by the changes in the May 2013 SHBE extract and who said they were ‘currently
affected by the changes and HB has been reduced’ (called the ‘affected cohort’). Of
these
2 those who were still affected in summer 2014 (‘I am currently affected by these changes
and my Housing Benet has been reduced’), including those receiving Discretionary
Housing Payments (DHP) to cover the shortfall (referred to as ‘still affected’);
3 those who say they were no longer affected by summer 2014 (‘I am not currently affected
by these changes, but I have been previously’) (‘no longer affected’); and
4 those who were unaffected in autumn 2013 and remain unaffected in summer 2014 (‘I am
not currently affected by these changes and never have been’) (‘never affected’, or the
‘comparison group’)
Focusing on these groups allows for comparison of the behaviours/responses to RSRS
among those who remained affected and those who were no longer affected (did they take
certain actions which others didn’t?) and those who have never been affected at all (were all
claimants taking these actions?)
Data processing, weighting and interpretation
Data in both waves was captured using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing).
This allowed for accurate routing of questions and the questionnaire script included a
number of logic checks. CAPI also reduced the need for manual data entry of returned
questionnaires and, thus, improved accuracy.
At the analysis stage in wave one, data was weighted by age, tenure (housing association
or local authority), number of children and number of bedrooms, and was reective of the
overall sample drawn from the May 2013 SHBE extract for the survey. Weighting was
undertaken separately for those affected and those not affected. While representative at
the aggregate level, samples were not representative at area level. In addition, because
of the purposive, case study approach, the samples cannot be considered as nationally
representative of affected and unaffected HB claimants across Britain.
A sample, and not the entire population of claimants across the 15 areas, was interviewed.
As a result, all results are subject to sampling tolerances (referred to as condence levels
or ‘margins of error’). The variation between the sample results and the ‘true’ values can
be predicted from knowledge of the sample sizes on which the results are based and the
number of times that a particular answer is given. The condence with which we can make
this prediction is usually chosen to be 95 per cent, that is, the chances are 95 in 100 that the
‘true’ values will fall within a specied range.
115
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Sampling tolerances also mean that not all differences between sub-samples in autumn
2013 – for example between claimants in different case study areas – are statistically
signicant.
The variation between the sample results and the ‘true’ values (the ndings which would
have been obtained if every HB claimant in each case study area had taken part in the
study) can be predicted from knowledge of the sample sizes on which the results are based
and the number of times that a particular answer is given. The condence with which we can
make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95 per cent, that is, the chances are 95 in 100
that the ‘true’ values will fall within a specied range.
The table below illustrates the predicted ranges for different percentage results at the ‘95 per
cent condence interval’: assuming a normal distribution of residents.
Table A.2 Sampling tolerances for wave 1 (autumn 2013)
Approximate sampling tolerances
1
to percentages at or near these levels
10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%
± ± ±
871 ‘affected claimant’ interviews 2.0 3.0 3.3
381 ‘non-affected claimant’ interviews 3.0 4.6 5.0
871 interviews (affected claimants)
vs. 381 interviews (non-affected
claimants)
3.6 5.5 6.0
1
The calculation of these gures assumes a pure random sample. As the sampling approach
employed on the survey was not purely random, these gures are indicative only.
In summer 2014, the focus of analysis moved to the four sub-groups of HB claimants and
how they have changed by looking at their responses in autumn 2013 and summer 2014
(and what, by summer 2014, they say has changed). These groups therefore constitute
the survey population itself, with conclusions drawn on this group rather than about a wider
group.
Thus, while it made sense to weight the data at wave 1 to match the known population prole
(and meet the objective of providing insights into the initial impacts of RSRS), it makes less
sense at wave 2 where the focus is longitudinal. Weighting is normally applied to correct
for design and non-response bias, but as the wave 2 analysis does not claim to extrapolate
beyond the groups of interest, weighting is not required.
It is important, though, to consider the prole of the two samples. This basic summary shows
that the unweighted proles of those in the affected cohort in waves one (n=871) and two
(n=563) are very similar:
116
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table A.3 The prole of the affected cohort, waves 1 and 2
Wave 1 (%) Wave 2 (%) Difference
Age
18–34 16 16 -
35–54 54 50 -4
55–64 30 34 +4
Number of children
None 70 69 -1
One 11 14 +3
2+ 18 17 -1
Tenure
Housing association 62 61 -1
Local authority 38 39 1
Number of bedrooms
0–2 38 37 -1
3+ 62 63 +1
As context for the decision not to weight the data, it can be useful to understand what
difference weighting would have made. An experimental weighting of the affected cohort
of claimants at wave 2 was conducted in order to compare against the prole of that of the
same (but bigger) group at wave 1. As expected, given the similarities between the wave 1
and wave 2 samples, weighting makes little difference:
Q. Are you currently looking to move from this accommodation, or not?
Unweighted
(%)
Weighted
(%)
Yes 18 19
No 81 80
Don’t know 1 1
Q. Taking your answer from this card, how often, SINCE 1 April last year, have you
or your household run out of money before the end of the week or month? Please
include any times when you have run out of money and had to use your credit card,
an overdraft, or borrow to get by.
Unweighted (%) Weighted (%)
Very often 47 46
Fairly often 29 29
Hardly ever 11 11
Never 12 13
Refused/prefer
not to say
* *
Don’t know * *
117
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Finally, throughout this report and in the tables provided, where percentages do not sum
to 100 this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of ‘don’t know’ categories, or
multiple answers. An asterisk (*) denotes any value less than half a per cent but greater than
zero.
It is also worth remembering that this survey, like all surveys, deals with perceptions, recalled
behaviour and anticipated behaviours at the time the survey was conducted and these may,
or may not, necessarily reect reality.
118
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix B
Claimant survey – questionnaire
Ipsos MORI for DWP
RSRS Follow-up (Wave 2) Claimants Survey
12-083963-01
Good morning/afternoon/evening, my name is … . I’m from Ipsos MORI, the
independent research organisation. May I speak with [NAMED CONTACT]?
You may remember that you kindly took part in a research project about changes to
housing benet (the removal of the spare room subsidy) in October or November of
last year. We are contacting you as you agreed to be contacted again in relation to this
research project.
We are conducting a follow-up survey about the Housing Benet system and
specically the removal of the spare room subsidy as part of a research project for
Government.
You should have received a letter like this introducing the follow-up survey …
The survey should take no more than 15 minutes.
I would like to reassure you that all the answers you give will be treated in the strictest
condence and it will not be possible for DWP or your landlord to identify any
individual from the information you provide. Helping with this study will never affect
any benet you receive or any contact you have with a government department or
agency, now or in the future.
INTERVIEWER:
- SEEK TO SPEAK TO NAMED CLAIMANT(S) ONLY OR ARRANGE TIME TO CALL BACK
- SHOW KIT LETTER AND RE-USE IF NECESSARY
Current status
QHB. ASK ALL//SC
Do you currently receive Housing Benet, or not?
1. Yes, receive Housing Benet
2. No, do not receive Housing Benet
3. Don’t know
119
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Q1. ASK ALL//SC//SHOWCARD A
As you may know, the Government has reduced the amount of housing benet that those
renting from a council or housing association receive if they have more bedrooms than it is
thought they need. For example, a couple with no children would have their housing benet
cut if they have more than one bedroom. These changes have been called the Removal of
the Spare Room Subsidy, the Size Criteria or the ‘bedroom tax’ and came into effect last year
on 1 April 2013.
Which of the following statements best describes your current status in relation to these
changes? Please just read out the letter that applies.
SOFT LOGIC TEST FOR CODES 1 OR 2 AT Q1 WHO SAID NO (CODE 2) AT QHB: “You
said you are no longer receiving housing benet but you are affected by these changes. Is
that correct?”
A. I am currently affected by these changes and my Housing Benet has been reduced
B. I am currently affected by these changes and my Housing Benet has been reduced,
but I am receiving Discretionary Housing Payment or another form of support to cover
the shortfall
C. I am not currently affected by these changes, but I have been previously
D. I am not currently affected by these changes and never have been
Don’t know
ASK IF CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES A–B OR E AT Q1)
Q2. In which month and year did you or your household rst become affected, that is your
Housing Benet was reduced?
INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT SAYS ‘FROM THE START/BEGINNING’, PLEASE
CODE AS APRIL 2013
SOFT CHECK FOR ANY DATE BEFORE APRIL 2013
RECORD MONTH
RECORD YEAR
ASK IF CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES A–B OR E AT Q1)//SHOWCARD B (codes 1–2)
Q3. And which of these statements best describes how long you/anyone in your household
have/has been affected for?
READ OUT
120
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
SOFT CHECK IF RESPONDENT GIVES CODE 1 BUT A DATE LATER THAN APRIL 2013
AT Q2
1. I/we became affected on 1 April 2013 and have been ever since then
2. I/we have been affected some of the time since 1 April 2013, but not at other times
3. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
IF CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES A–B OR E AT Q1)
Q4. By how much has your Housing Benet been reduced per week? Please do not include
any money you receive in Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) or any other support you
might receive to assist you in paying the shortfall.
LOGIC TEST FOR £0: “WE WANT TO KNOW THE AMOUNT BY WHICH YOUR HOUSING
BENEFIT HAS BEEN REDUCED.”
RECORD EXACT AMOUNT
£
1. Don’t know
2. Refused
ASK IF NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED BUT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY (CODE C AT Q1)//
MC//SHOWCARD C (codes 1–2)
Q5. And which of these statements best applies to you/your household?
READ OUT
1. I/we became affected on 1 April 2013 but are no longer affected
2. I/we have been affected some of the time since 1 April 2013, but not at other times, and
are not currently affected
3. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
ASK IF NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED BUT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY (CODE C AT Q1)
AND STILL RECEIVING HB (CODE 1 AT QHB)//MC//SHOWCARD D (codes 1–11)
Q6a. You told us that you are NOT CURRENTLY affected by the changes to Housing Benet
but were PREVIOUSLY affected. From what you know or understand, why are you not
currently affected?
1. Moved to smaller home rented from the council or a housing association
2. Moved to a smaller or cheaper home in the private rented sector
121
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
3. Moved in with another household (e.g. back to parents)
4. A friend or relative moved in
5. A lodger moved in
6. New baby born
7. Change in age of children that means that no longer considered to have a spare
bedroom
8. Reached pension age (or partner did)
9. Found work/increased earnings
10. Started to receive DHPs
11. Other (please specify)
12. Don’t know
ASK IF NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED BUT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY (CODE C AT Q1)
AND NO LONGER RECEIVING HB (CODE 2 AT QHB)//MC//SHOWCARD D (codes 1–11)
Q6b. You told us that you are NOT CURRENTLY affected by the changes to Housing Benet
and are no longer receiving Housing Benet. From what you know or understand, why are
you not currently affected – that is, why are you no longer receiving Housing Benet?
1. Moved to smaller home rented from the council or a housing association
2. Moved to a smaller or cheaper home in the private rented sector
3. Moved in with another household (eg back to parents)
4. A friend or relative moved in
5. A lodger moved in
6. New baby born
7. Change in age of children that means that no longer considered to have a spare
bedroom
8. Reached pension age (or partner did)
9. Found work/increased earnings and therefore no longer claiming Housing Benet
10. Started to receive DHPs
11. Other (please specify)
12. Don’t know
Responses
Q7. ASK ALL CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES A–B OR E AT Q1)//MC//SHOWCARD E
Which of these, if any, have you (or your partner) done in response to the reduction in your
Housing Benet in the period since we last spoke with you in October or November of last
122
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
year? Please read out the letters on this card, mention as many or as few as apply and
please say ‘none’ if you have not done anything.
A. Looked for a job
B. Looked for a better paid job
C. Looked for an additional (i.e. second or third) job
D. Asked for an increase in the number of hours worked at current job
E. Looked at moving to another property in the social rented sector
F. Looked at moving to another property in the private rented sector
G. Applied for DHP – Discretionary Housing Payments
H. Used savings
I. Borrowed money from friends/family (money which you intend to pay back)
J. Received money from friends/family (money which you are not expected to pay back)
K. Borrowed money from another lender (such as a pay day loan)
L. Borrowed money via a credit card
M. Spent less on household essentials
N. Spent less on non-essentials
O. Partner/someone else moved in
P. Taken in a lodger
Q. Sought advice or help of someone else such as a local charity, church or group
R. Other (SPECIFY)
S. None of these
Don’t know
Q7a. ASK ALL NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODE C OR D AT Q1)//MC//SHOWCARD F
Which of these, if any, have you (or your partner) done since we last spoke with you in
October or November of last year? Please read out the letters on this card, mention as many
or as few as apply and please say ‘none’ if you have not done anything.
A. Looked for a job
B. Looked for a better paid job
C. Looked for an additional (i.e. second or third) job
D. Asked for an increase in the number of hours worked at current job
E. Looked at moving to another property in the social rented sector
F. Looked at moving to another property in the private rented sector
G. Used savings
123
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
H. Borrowed money from friends/family (money which you intend to pay back)
I. Received money from friends/family (money which you are not expected to pay back)
J. Borrowed money from another lender such as a pay day loan
K. Borrowed money via a credit card
L. Spent less on household essentials
M. Spent less on non-essentials
N. Partner/someone else moved in
O. Taken in a lodger
P. Sought advice or help of someone else such as a local charity, church or group
Q. Other (SPECIFY)
R. None of these
Don’t know
Q7b. ASK IF CUT BACK ON ESSENTIALS OR NON-ESSENTIALS (CODES M OR N AT Q7
OR CODES L OR M AT Q7a)//MC//SHOWCARD G
On which, if any, of the following things have you spent less since we last spoke in October
or November of last year because of the changes to Housing benet?
A. Mortgage/rent payments
B. Paying off amounts owed on credit card(s) or loans
C. Council Tax
D. Energy/fuel bills e.g. gas, electricity, water
E. Clothing and footwear
F. Food
G. Eating out
H. Alcoholic drinks
I. Cigarettes
J. Communication i.e. phone/broadband/television bills
K. Travel costs e.g. running a car, train fares, public transport
L. Leisure, recreation and social activities including hobbies
M. Childcare
N. Education
O. Household insurances
P. Holidays
Q. Pets
R. Other (SPECIFY)
124
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
None of these
Don’t know
Employment
ASK IF LOOKED FOR WORK/INCREASED HOURS (CODES A–D AT Q7 OR Q7A)//MC
Q8a. Since we last spoke in October or November of last year, have you been able to nd a
job, a better paid job or additional hours or employment, or not?
1. Yes, I found a job
2. Yes, I found a better paid job
3. Yes, I found an additional (i.e. second or third) job
4. Yes, I increased the number of hours worked in my current job
5. No, I have not found work/additional work
6. Don’t know
ASK IF LOOKED FOR WORK/INCREASED HOURS (CODES A–D AT Q7 OR Q7A)//MC
Q8b. Since we last spoke in October or November of last year, has your partner or anyone
else in your household been able to nd a job, a better paid job or additional hours or
employment, or not? Please say if this does not apply to your household.
1. Yes, my partner/someone else has found a job
2. Yes, my partner/someone else has found a better paid job
3. Yes, my partner/someone else has found an additional (i.e. second or third) job
4. Yes, my partner/someone else increased the number of hours worked in their current
job
5. No, my partner/someone else has not found work/additional work
6. Don’t know
7. Does not apply to my household
Accommodation
INTERVIEWER READ OUT: I would now like to ask you some questions about your current
accommodation.
Q9. ASK ALL CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES A–B OR E AT Q1)//SC//SHOWCARD H
(codes 1–5)
Thinking about the rent you are charged, how much does your Housing Benet cover AFTER
any reductions in Housing Benet due to the removal of the spare room subsidy?
1. All of the rent
125
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
2. Three-quarters of the rent or more but not all of the rent
3. Half of the rent or more but less than three-quarters of the rent
4. A quarter of the rent or more but less than half of the rent
5. Less than a quarter of the rent
6. Don’t know
Q10. ASK ALL NOT CURRENTLY AFFECTED (CODES C OR D AT Q1) AND RECEIVING
HOUSING BENEFIT (CODE 1 AT QHB)//SC//SHOWCARD H (codes 1–5)
Thinking about the rent you are charged, how much does your Housing Benet cover?
1. All of the rent
2. Three-quarters of the rent or more but not all of the rent
3. Half of the rent or more but less than three-quarters of the rent
4. A quarter of the rent or more but less than half of the rent
5. Less than a quarter of the rent
6. Don’t know
Q11. ASK ALL EXCEPT CODE 4 AT Q1//MC//SHOWCARD I (codes A–D)
Which, if any, of the following things have happened or have you done in response to the
changes to Housing Benet since we last spoke with you in October or November of last
year?
A. My partner has moved into my current accommodation
B. A friend or other relative has moved into my current accommodation
C. I have taken in a lodger
D. None of these
Don’t know
Q11b. ASK ALL EXCEPT CODE 4 AT Q1//MC//SHOWCARD J (codes A–D)
And which, if any, of the following actions has your landlord contacted you about in order to
help deal with the changes to Housing Benet? Please just read out the letters that apply.
A. Contacted about my partner moving into my current accommodation
B. Contacted about a friend or other relative moving into my current accommodation
C. Contacted about taking in a lodger
D. None of these
Don’t know
126
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Q12. ASK ALL//MC//SHOWCARD K (codes 1–5)
Since we last spoke in October or November of last year, have you moved to another
property? If yes, which one of these applies?
INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT HAS MOVED MULTIPLE TIMES PLEASE SELECT
RESPONSE IN RELATION TO CURRENT PROPERTY
1. No
2. Yes – renting from a housing association
3. Yes – renting from a council or local authority
4. Yes – renting from a private landlord
5. Yes – moved in with parents/relatives/friends
6. Yes – other (DO NOT PROMPT)
7. Don’t know
Q13. ASK IF HAVE MOVED RECENTLY (CODES 2–6 AT Q12)//SC//SHOWCARD L (codes
1–3)
Can I just check, which of these was your reason(s) for moving to new accommodation?
Because of the changes to Housing Benet and nothing else
1. Because of the changes to Housing Benet and other reason(s)
2. For some other reason(s)
3. Don’t know
Q14. ASK ALL WHO MOVED RECENTLY FOR REASON OTHER THAN CHANGES TO HB
(CODES 2–3 AT Q13)//MC//SHOWCARD M
What is that reason(s)? Please just read out the letters that apply.
A. Wanted to down-size/move to a smaller property/have too many bedrooms
B. Wanted to up-size/move to a larger property/have too few bedrooms
C. Family is getting bigger
D. Family is getting smaller (children leaving home)
E. Divorce or separation
F. Because I couldn’t afford the rent for previous accommodation
G. Didn’t like the area/neighbours
H. School catchment area
127
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
I. Health reasons – previous home was unsuitable
J. For work reasons
K. Wanted to move in with someone else
L. Other (SPECIFY)
Don’t know
Q15. ASK IF HAVE MOVED RECENTLY (CODES 2–6 AT Q12)//SC
How long have you lived here in this accommodation?
1. Less than a month
2. A month or longer but less than 2 months
3. 2 months or longer but less than 3 months
4. 3 months or longer but less than 4 months
5. 4 months or longer but less than 5 months
6. 5 months or longer but less than 6 months
7. 6 months or longer but less than 7 months
8. Other
9. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
Q16. ASK IF HAVE MOVED RECENTLY INTO SOCIAL HOUSING (CODES 2–3 AT Q12)//
SC
Can I just check, did you move via a transfer list or via a mutual exchange?
1. Moved via a transfer list
2. Moved via mutual exchange
3. Neither of these
4. Don’t know
Q17. ASK IF HAVE MOVED RECENTLY (CODES 2–6 AT Q12)//SC//SHOWCARD N
For which of these periods are you charged rent at this accommodation?
1. Weekly
2. Fortnightly
3. 4 weekly
4. Monthly
5. Other (SPECIFY)
128
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
6. Don’t know
Q18. ASK IF HAVE MOVED RECENTLY (CODES 2–6 AT Q12)
How much in total does your landlord currently charge your household in rent? That is, the
total amount of rent INCLUDING any that is paid by Housing Benet?
RECORD EXACT AMOUNT
£
1. Don’t know
2. Refused
INCLUDE LOGIC TESTS FOR ANY AMOUNT ABOVE £500 PER WEEK/£2,000 PER
MONTH
ASK ALL//SC
Q19. Are you currently looking to move from this accommodation, or not?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
Q20. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE (CODE 1 AT Q19)//SC//SHOWCARD O
(codes 1–3)
Can I just check, which of these is your reason(s) for wanting to move from here?
1. Because of the changes to Housing Benet and nothing else
2. Because of the changes to Housing Benet and other reason(s)
3. For some other reason(s)
4. Don’t know
Q21. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE FOR REASON OTHER THAN
CHANGES TO HOUSING BENEFIT (CODE 2–3 AT Q20)//MC//SHOWCARD P
What is that reason(s)? Please just read out the letters that apply.
A. Want to down-size/move to a smaller property/have too many bedrooms
B. Want to up-size/move to a larger property/have too few bedrooms
129
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
C. Family is getting bigger
D. Family is getting smaller (children leaving home)
E. Divorce or separation
F. Too expensive/I can’t afford the rent for my current accommodation
G. I don’t like the area/neighbours
H. School catchment area
I. Health reasons – current home is unsuitable
J. For work reasons
K. Want to move in with someone else
L. Other (SPECIFY)
Don’t know
Q22. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE (CODE 1 AT Q19)//SC
Have you been looking at properties in the local area, outside the local area or both?
1. In the local area
2. Outside the local area
3. Both
4. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
Q23. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE (CODE 1 AT Q19)//SC//SHOWCARD Q
(codes 1–4)
Which, if any, of these types of accommodation have you been looking at moving to? Please
mention as many as apply.
1. In the social rented sector (housing association or local council)
2. In the private rented sector
3. Parents’/relatives’/friends’ accommodation
4. Other (SPECIFY)
5. None of these
6. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
Q24. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE (CODE 1 AT Q19)//SC//SHOWCARD R
(codes 1–5)
Have you registered for mutual exchange, such as a home swap scheme, or not?
1. Yes, have registered and been allocated new accommodation
130
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
2. Yes, have registered and am actively looking for new accommodation
3. Yes, have registered but am not actively looking for new accommodation
4. No, have not registered but plan to
5. No, have not registered and do not plan to
6. Don’t know
Q25. ASK ALL CURRENTLY LOOKING TO MOVE (CODE 1 AT Q19)//SC//SHOWCARD S
(codes 1–5)
Taking your answer from this card, have you registered an interest with a landlord or local
authority in moving from this accommodation through a transfer list or housing register?
1. Yes, have registered and been allocated new accommodation
2. Yes, have registered and am actively looking for new accommodation
3. Yes, have registered but am not actively looking for new accommodation
4. No, have not registered but plan to
5. No, have not registered and do not plan to
6. Don’t know
Q26. ASK ALL//MC UP TO THREE//SHOWCARD T
Which two or three, if any, of these are the most important reasons you have for staying here
instead of moving elsewhere? PROBE FULLY: Any other reasons?
A. Cost of moving/too expensive to move
B. Accommodation suits me/wouldn’t be able to nd same accommodation elsewhere
C. Prefer local area/like living here
D. Always lived here
E. Is a good/friendly neighbourhood
F. Want to remain close to family
G. Want to remain close to friends
H. Want to remain close to schools/good schools
I. Want to remain close to services – GP, hospital etc.
J. More expensive/higher cost of living in other areas
K. Worse quality property in other areas
L. Would be too far away from current job/place of work
M. Worse job opportunities in other areas
N. Pets are happy here/cannot move due to my pets
O. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
131
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
P. Would consider looking at other non-local areas
Q. None of these
Don’t know
DHPs
Q27. ASK ALL NOT CODE G AT Q7//SC
Now for a question about Discretionary Housing Payments, or DHPs, which are short-term
payments from local councils to help some Housing Benet claimants afford their housing
costs. Before this interview, had you heard of them or not?
1. Heard of them
2. Not heard of them
3. Don’t know
Q28. ASK ALL CODE G AT Q7 OR WHO HAVE HEARD OF DHP (CODE 1 AT Q27)//SC//
SHOWCARD U (codes 1–5)
Thinking about the period since 1 April 2013, which of the following statements best
describes your situation in relation to Discretionary Housing Payments, or DHPs?
1. I applied for and got DHPs, and am still receiving them
2. I applied for and was in receipt of DHPs, but my situation changed and I am no longer
receiving these
3. I applied for but did not get DHPs
4. I have applied for DHPs but am still waiting to hear
5. I have not applied for DHPs
6. Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
Financial
Q29. ASK ALL//SC//SHOWCARD V (codes 1–4)
Taking your answer from this card, how often, SINCE 1 April last year, have you or your
household run out of money before the end of the week or month? Please include any times
when you have run out of money and had to use your credit card, an overdraft, or borrow to
get by.
1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Hardly ever
4. Never
132
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
5. Don’t know
6. Refused/prefer not to say
Q29a. ASK ALL//SC//SHOWCARD V (codes 1–4)
And looking further back to the period BEFORE1 April last year, how often, if at all, would
you say you or your household ran out of money before the end of the week or month?
INTERVIEWER IF NECESSARY: That is, how often did you run out of money and have to
use your credit card, an overdraft, or borrow to get by?
1. Very often
2. Fairly often
3. Hardly ever
4. Never
5. Don’t know
6. Refused/prefer not to say
Q30. ASK ALL//SC//SHOWCARD W (codes 1–5)
How often, if at all, have you been in arrears SINCE we last spoke with you in October or
November of last year, that is how often have you owed money to your landlord because
you’ve not been able to pay the rent in full?
1. Never
2. Occasionally
3. Sometimes
4. Most of the time
5. All of the time
6. Don’t know
7. Refused
Q31. ASK ALL//SC//SHOWCARD W (codes 1–5)
And looking further back to the period BEFORE1 April last year, how often, if at all, would
you say you were in arrears?
INTERVIEWER IF NECESSARY: That is, how often did you owe money to your landlord
because you were not able to pay the rent in full?
133
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
1. Never
2. Occasionally
3. Sometimes
4. Most of the time
5. All of the time
6. Don’t know
7. Refused
Q32. ASK ALL//SC
Can I please check, are you currently up to date with the rent you owe, or are you in arrears?
1. Up to date
2. In arrears
3. Don’t know
4. Refused
Q33. ASK IF Q32 = 2//RECORD EXACT AMOUNT £//LOGIC TEST FOR ANY AMOUNT
ABOVE £1,000. IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT, RECORD
THEIR ESTIMATED AMOUNT £
By how much are you currently in arrears on this accommodation?
£
1. Don’t know
2. Refused
INTERVIEWER: ASK AND RECORD IF THIS IS AN ESTIMATE OR NOT.
1. Accurate
2. Estimate
Q34. ASK ALL//MC (EXCEPT 1/6/7)//SHOWCARD X (codes A-E)
Still thinking about the period since 1 April 2013, has your landlord given you notice that you
are to be evicted or warned you about the possibility of you being evicted because of arrears
or unpaid rent, or neither of these? Please just read out the letter(s) that apply.
A. No – not been given notice of eviction or warned
B. Yes – given notice of eviction because of arrears or unpaid rent
C. Yes – given notice of eviction for some other reason(s)
134
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
D. Yes – warned about possibility of being evicted because of arrears or unpaid rent
E. Yes – warned about possibility of being evicted for some other reason(s)
Don’t know
Refused
Q35 has been removed from the nal questionnaire
Household characteristics
Q36. ASK ALL//MC//SHOWCARD Y
Thinking back to when we last spoke to you in October or November of last year, have there
been any of the following changes in your personal or household circumstances?
INTERVIEWER PROMPT IF NECESSARY: “FOR EXAMPLE, ADDITIONS OR LOSSES TO
YOUR HOUSEHOLD”
A. Partner (or spouse) left the home
B. Partner (or spouse) moved into the home
C. Birth or adoption of a child
D. Children or stepchildren moved into the home
E. Children or stepchildren left the home
F. Adults (other than your partner or spouse) left the home
G. Adults (other than your partner or spouse) moved into the home
H. Death of a household member (dependent)
I. Death of a household member (partner or spouse)
J. Death of a household member (other household member)
K. Other (specify)
L. No signicant household changes
Refused (DO NOT PROMPT)
Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)
INTERVIEWER READ OUT: Now I’d like to ask you about each of the people in your
household. By household I mean the people living here who share a living/sitting room or
share at least one meal a day. Please exclude any non-resident children or adults who don’t
live here but sometimes come to stay – I will ask about them later.
135
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
As with the rest of the questionnaire, I would like to assure you that your answers are
completely condential.
Starting with yourself …
136
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
INTERVIEWER: FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER RECORD JUST THE FIRST NAME
OR ANY UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.
Name Gender Age (if exact age not
known then banded)
Relationship to
respondent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Q37. ASK ALL//SINGLE CODE (SC) FOR RESPONDENT + EACH PERSON
Is (NAME) male or female?
1. Male
2. Female
Q38. ASK ALL//SC FOR EACH PERSON//RECORD EXACT AGE AND CODE BY BAND. IF
EXACT AGE NOT KNOWN, RECORD AGE BAND ONLY//SHOWCARD Z
What was your/(NAME)’s age last birthday?
1. 9–4
2. 5–9
3. 10–15
4. 16–24
5. 25–34
6. 35–44
7. 45–54
8. 55–59
9. 69–64
10. 65+
11. Don’t know
12. Refused
137
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Q39. ASK ALL//SC FOR EACH PERSON THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO RESPONDENT
ADD VALIDATION CHECKS – E.G IF AGE IS <16, ANSWER CANNOT BE SPOUSE/CIVIL
PARTNER ETC
I would now like to ask how the people in your household are related to you.
1. Spouse or civil partner
2. Cohabitee
3. Son/daughter (incl. adopted)
4. Step-son/daughter
5. Foster child
6. Son-in-law/daughter-in-law
7. Parent/guardian
8. Step-parent
9. Foster parent
10. Parent-in-law
11. Brother/sister (incl. adopted)
12. Step-brother/sister
13. Foster brother/sister
14. Brother/sister-in-law
15. Grand-child
16. Grand-parent
17. Other relative
18. Other non-relative
Q40. ASK ALL//SC FOR EACH PERSON//SHOWCARD AA (codes A-K)
Which statement on this card applies best to each person aged 16 or over in the
household?
INTERVIEWER: FOR AGENCY WORKERS OR THOSE WITH FLEXIBLE HOURS USE
THEIR AVERAGE HOURS WORKED IN THE LAST FOUR WEEKS/MONTH
INTERVIEWER IF CODE H: CONFIRM WITH RESPONDENT THAT THIS IS IN AN UNPAID
CAPACITY (E.G. NOT AS A PAID NURSE).
A. Working full-time (30 hours a week or more)
B. Working part-time (16–29 hours a week)
138
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
C. Working part-time (Less than 16 hours a week)
D. On a government training scheme/apprenticeship
E. Unemployed and seeking work
F. At home/not seeking work
G. Long term sick or disabled
H. Full-time carer
I. Full-time education
J. Fully retired
K. Other
Refused
Don’t know
Q41 has been removed from the nal questionnaire
Q42. ASK ALL//SC FOR EACH PERSON//SHOWCARD BB (codes A-E)
Which statement on this card applies best to each person aged 16 or over in the household
since leaving school or education?
A. I/they have always been in paid employment
B. I/they have mostly been in paid employment
C. I/they have sometimes been in paid employment
D. I/they have rarely been in paid employment
E. I/they have never been in paid employment
Refused
Don’t know
Q43. ASK ALL//SC FOR EACH PERSON//SHOWCARD CC (NOT REVERSED) (codes A-P)
Still thinking about each person aged 16 or over who is not in full-time education, can I just
check are you/they receiving any of these state benets or allowances? Your answers are
completely condential. Please just read out the letters that apply.
A. Income support
B. Job Seekers Allowance (formerly unemployment benet or Income Support for
unemployed people)
C. State Retirement Pension
139
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
D. Incapacity Benet or Severe Disablement Allowance
E. Employment and Support Allowance
F. Some other benet for people with disabilities (e.g. Industrial Injuries Benet)
G. Working Tax Credit
H. Child Tax Credit
I. Council Tax Benet
J. Pension Credit (previously Minimum Income Guarantee)
K. Carer’s allowance (formerly Invalid Care Allowance)
L. Disability living allowance
M. Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
N. Attendance allowance
O. Some other state benet (SPECIFY)
P. No, none of these
Refused
Don’t know
Q44. ASK ALL//SC
In addition to the people you have mentioned, do any non-resident children regularly come
to stay overnight with you here at this accommodation – by regularly I mean 52 nights a year
(about once a week) or more often?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
Q45. ASK ALL//SC
Do you or does anyone in your household have any long-term illness, health problems or
disability which limits your/their daily activities or the work you/they can do, including any
problems which are due to old age?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
Q46. ASK IF Q45 = 1//MC (Codes A–D)//SHOWCARD DD (codes A-E)
Do you/they receive any of these types of care?
140
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
A. Care from a member of the household who lives here
B. Care from a visitor who comes during the day and does not stay overnight
C. Care from a visitor who stays overnight regularly
D. Care from a visitor who stays overnight occasionally
E. None of these
Don’t know
Re-contact questions and nal comments
Q47. ASK ALL//SC
To help improve public services we would like to be able to match information from your
housing benet claim to this survey. As before, all information will be used for research and
statistical purposes only. Your personal details will be kept completely condential and any
benets you may receive will not be affected in any way.
Are you happy for Ipsos MORI, on behalf of DWP, to add information about your Housing
Benet claim to your responses to this survey?
1. Yes
2. No
Q48. ASK ALL//SC
This project will be running until the end of this year and Ipsos MORI may want to contact
you again. Can we please take your details to contact you again about this study in the
future?
1. Yes IF YES – contact details to be recorded: name, address, telephone number, mobile
number; and email address (to be entered twice to validate)
2. No
Q49. ASK ALL//SC
Are there any comments you would like to make about the topics we have discussed during
this interview?
THANK AND CLOSE
141
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix C
Qualitative claimant interviews –
technical note
12-083963 DWP RSRS Welfare Reform Research
Claimant Qualitative Research Discussion Guide – Wave 2
1. Research scope and objectives
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is conducting research to understand the
impacts of the RSRS (Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy) for the Social Rented Sector
(SRS). The aim of the research is to clarify how wider policy objectives (like reducing
overcrowding; increasing incentives to work; and better use of stock) have been met, and what
the impact has been on landlords, claimants and others. As part of this overall research project,
Ipsos MORI are undertaking qualitative research with 30 claimants affected by the RSRS to
understand the impacts on affected households.
The research is longitudinal, this means that where possible we will visit participants who
took part in the rst wave of qualitative research to understand the impact on them over
the medium term, and to understand any changes in responses that they may have made
including downsizing to a smaller home or nding work. The rst wave of the qualitative
interviews took place during October and November 2013. This wave of the research is the
second wave of the qualitative research and will take place in September and October 2014.
The key objectives of the qualitative research with claimants are:
• To see how the process and implementation of the RSRS is working and whether there are
any areas where implementation could be improved.
• To build a detailed picture of impact on claimants of the RSRS reforms in the SRS,
establishing any changes in both attitudes and behaviours/responses to the reform (e.g.
moving to a new property, household budgeting, changes in employment, relationships
with landlords and local communities);
• To obtain insight into claimants’ motivations for actions (or inaction) and how they might
adapt their future behaviour; and
• And to explore the impacts on different groups of Housing Benet (HB) claimants.
The specic research questions for the follow-up stage of this study are therefore as
follows:
• How is the RSRS working in practice? What are the impacts on claimants?
• What are their attitudes to and experiences of moving house in response to the RSRS?
• What is the nancial impact of the RSRS, and how are claimants responding to the
changes nancially?
• How are claimants responding to the changes with regard to employment?
• What are their future plans for dealing with the changes?
142
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
2. Structure of the discussion
Notes Guide Sections Guide
Timings
1. Introductions and
background
Orientates participant and prepares them to take part in the
depth interview. This section will confirm the key details from
the first interview with participants who have been interviewed
before, or will ask introductory questions of those not
interviewed at Wave 1.
5 mins
2. Knowledge and awareness
of the RSRS
Here we review the participant’s knowledge and awareness
of the RSRS, in order to explore if they have sought or been
given further information or advice on the RSRS.
10 mins
3. Impact of RSRS on
household finances
Here we investigate if and how the RSRS has impacted on
the participant’s financial situation, exploring the relevance
of financial capability and any implications for financial
resilience. Where we are returning to participants, we will ask
if and how things have changed since our last visit.
20 mins
4. Impact of RSRS on attitudes
and behaviours around moving
home
This section explores any underlying enablers and barriers
to moving, looks at any actions participants may have taken
around moving in response to the RSRS and discusses any
experiences of moving.
15 mins
5. Impact of RSRS on attitudes
and behaviours around
employment
This section is focused on the participant’s attitudes to
finding work since the last visit/introduction of the RSRS
and explores any actions they may have taken to find work/
additional work since the reform was introduced.
15 mins
6. Wider impacts of the RSRS This section allows participants to discuss other impacts or
perceived impacts, for example, with regard to children in the
household.
10 mins
7. Future plans Here we explore participants’ views on how their situation
might change in the near future, and how their response to
the RSRS might change over time.
10 mins
8. Conclusion and final
thoughts
Allows time for the participant to offer some concluding
thoughts and the interviewer to close the interview
5 mins
Total 90 mins
We use several conventions to explain to you how this guide will be used, described below.
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
Bold = Question or read out statement: Questions that will be asked to the
participant if relevant. Not all questions are asked during fieldwork based on
the moderator’s view of progress.
Bullet = prompt: Prompts are not questions – they are there to provide
guidance to the moderator if required.
CAPITALISED INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO THE MODERATOR IN MANAGING
THE GROUP
This area is used to
summarise what we are
discussing, provides
informative notes, and
some key prompts for the
moderator
Typically, the researcher will ask questions and use the prompts to guide
where necessary. Not all questions or prompts will necessarily be used in an
interview
143
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
1. Introduction and background 5 mins
• Thank participant for taking part
• Introduce self, Ipsos MORI – independent research organisation
commissioned by DWP
• Explain aims of project – to understand how the RSRS is working, how it is
affecting people and what they are doing about the changes.
• Explain confidentiality and Market Research Society guidelines. Reassure
that all responses are anonymous and that information about individuals
will not be passed on to anyone, including back to DWP or any other
Government Department
• Reassure that any current or future benefits claims will not be affected in
any way
• Get permission to digitally record – transcribe for quotes, no detailed
attribution and not passed on to DWP
IF THE PARTICIPANT HAS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN PART IN THE
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Outline the participant’s situation in the last visit: in terms of where they were
living, if they working/looking for work and how long they had been affected
by the RSRS. Check that this summary is correct.
CHECK ELIGIBILITY FOR RESEARCH: CONFIRM PARTICIPANT IS STILL
AFFECTED BY RSRS AND THE AMOUNT THEY HAVE TO PAY
I’d just like to check – are you still affected by the removal of the spare
bedroom subsidy? Can you tell me/remind me how much you need to
pay?
Has anything changed since my last visit?
• Have you moved house?
• Have you found work/changed jobs/taken on more work?
• Is the RSRS continuing to affect your household?
• IF NO LONGER AFFECTED BY RSRS: Why not? PROBE fully (see notes
to right).
IF THE PARTICIPANT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY TAKEN PART IN THE
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
I’d like to start by learning a little bit about you.
Can you tell me a bit about you and your household?
• PROBE: Who do you live with? How long have you lived here? How many
are adults/children? How old are your children?
Are you working at the moment? What kind of work do you do? NB.
include self-employment.
Orientates participants, gets
them prepared to take part in
the depth interview (including
information we are required
to tell them about under
MRS and Data Protection Act
guidelines).
This section is to confirm
details from the last visit and
check to see if there have
been any major changes for
the participant since then.
Any changes will then be
explored later in the guide.
Participants may no longer be
affected for several reasons
including: ceasing to claim
HB, finding work, taking in a
lodger, household changes
– such as child now being
eligible for an individual room,
or a participant reaching
pension age.
For any participants that
were not interviewed at
Wave 1, we will need to gain
an understanding of the
participant’s background.
144
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
IF NOT WORKING, PROBE FOR THEIR WORK STATUS e.g. unemployed,
looking after the home or their children, long-term sick/disabled, a carer,
retired)
IF NOT WORKING: When were you last in work? Can you tell me about
what happened?
IF WORKING: Can you tell me a little more about your work? What kind
of hours do you work?
How long have you been doing this work?
IF PARTICIPANT HAS A PARTNER: What about your partner – what kind of
work do they do? Do they work full time/part time? Number of hours?
Could you tell me about your home? How long have you lived here?
How many bedrooms does the house have? Who lives in each room? Does
anyone share a bedroom?
2. Knowledge and awareness of the RSRS 10 mins
(AS APPROPRIATE) What have you heard about RSRS since the last visit/
since it was introduced?
• Where did you hear this from?
• Did you do anything as a result? PROBE IN FULL, including when they
took action
Has your Housing Association or landlord made contact about the RSRS
since the last visit/since it was introduced?
IF YES:
• What did they say?
• Were you offered any advice/support to deal with the changes?
• What did you think about the support offered?
• Did you take up any offer of advice/support?
IF NO:
• Would you have liked to receive advice/support?
• What kind of advice/support would have been useful to you?
To briefly check participants’
knowledge and awareness of
the RSRS, and to see if since
our last visit they have had
further information or advice
on the reform.
Please note down the name
of any advice agencies that
they gained help from for
follow up work.
Here we explore experiences
of DHP in depths. This will be
followed up in the consequent
section on finances.
145
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
Have you had any other support or advice about the changes?
• What did you receive and from whom?
• What did you learn from it? How helpful or otherwise was it?
• To what extent did this affect your decisions or thinking – and how?
• Did you seek this support or advice or was it offered to you?
Were you offered any support that you didn’t take up?
• What were you offered?
• Why did you not take up the offer?
Have you heard anything about Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)
since the last visit/since the RSRS began?
EXPLAIN IF REQUIRED: DHP is an extra payment (not Housing Benefit)
which the Local Authority may grant you if they think you need further
financial assistance with your housing costs.
IF YES: How did you hear about it?
Have you applied for it?
• What was your reason for applying for DHPs?
• Can you talk me through the application process? PROBE: which parts of
the process were easy? Which parts were difficult?
• (For disabled people claiming DLA or PIP) Did they ask about disability
benefits during the process? Can you tell me about this?
Are you still receiving it? PROBE FULLY ON EXPERIENCES
• When did the payments start?
• How much do you receive? How does this compare with your shortfall?
• Were there any conditions attached e.g. having to seek new
accommodation?
• Are you considering asking for your DHP to be renewed?
IF NO TO ABOVE: Can you talk me through what happened?
Some participants will have
been awarded DHPs but no
longer be receiving them, so
make sure to clarify this and
ask about current and prior
awards of DHPs.
146
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
3. Impact of RSRS on household finances 20 mins
Can you talk me through (or ‘just to confirm’ for those who have already
taken part) the different types of income coming into your household?
Are you receiving any other benefits (not just housing benefits)?
And are you receiving any Tax Credits including Child Tax Credits or
Working Tax Credits?
• Can you tell me which ones?
• Have there been any recent changes to any of the other benefits you are
claiming? PROBE IN DETAIL IF RELEVANT, CHECK ANY CHANGES TO
DHP
Has anything changed in your income in the last year or so? PROBE IN
DETAIL
• How has this varied over the year? Can you explain why?
I’d like to talk about your finances more generally. At the moment,
how easy or difficult do you find it to manage your incomings and
outgoings? Can you talk me through how you manage money?
• Do you know how much money you have at different times of the month?
• Do you make a budget each week or month?
Are there any things that you find difficult to pay for at the moment?
• IF YES: How do you manage this? PROBE IN FULL
• Was this similar or different before RSRS came in? IF DIFFERENT – How
were things different?
Have you changed the way you manage money recently?
• IF YES: How have you changed how you manage money? Why have you
changed this?
• Have you changed the kinds of things that you spend money on? Are there
areas that you spend more/less on? Why is this?
• Was this as a result of the RSRS?
Do you have any savings?
• Do you save money regularly? If so, how often?
• What do you use the money you save for?
Have you needed to borrow any money in the last year or so?
• IF YES: Who/where did you borrow the money from? PROBE ON
FRIENDS AND FAMILY, CREDIT CARDS, PAYDAY LENDERS, HOME
CREDIT, CATALOGUES
• What did you need the money for?
• Have you paid this back – or are you able to?
• Have you ever borrowed money in the past or have you started to borrow
within the last year?
Here we investigate if
and how the RSRS has
impacted on the participant’s
financial situation, exploring
financial capability and any
implications for financial
resilience. Where we are
returning to participants, we
will ask if and how things
have changed since our last
visit.
These and consequent
questions address financial
capability, to explore its
relevance in coping strategies
regarding the RSRS.
Possible strategies for coping
may include: cutting back,
borrowing, accruing arrears,
increasing debts, increasing
income through increasing
hours at work, or through
finding a lodger.
In these questions we explore
issues around arrears.
147
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
And do you have any debts that need to be paid back at the moment?
• IF YES: How do they fit into your budgeting?
• How long are these payments for?
• When did you begin these repayments?
• Were you ever been in debt before April 2013?
Have you ever been behind on your rent?
• IF YES: Can you tell me when this was and what happened?
Have you managed to pay your rent in full and on time in the last year?
• IF NO: Can you talk me through what happened and when it happened?
• Is this something which happened more than once?
• Has this been resolved? If so, how?
• Can you tell me how your Housing Association or Landlord dealt with the
issue?
How have you found paying the extra amount of rent that you needed to
pay after the removal of the spare room subsidy?
Did you have any points at which you decided not to pay the extra?
What were your reasons for this?
Do you have rent arrears at the moment?
IF IN ARREARS
• Are your arrears increasing or decreasing at the moment?
• Have you managed to pay any of your arrears back? How did you do this?
• Have you applied for any other state benefits to help you? Which ones? Or
any help from the Council?
• Have you spoken to your landlord about the arrears? What happened?
• Do you think this situation will be temporary, or go on for a while? Can you
explain why?
• What do you think will happen next?
• Were you in arrears before the RSRS was introduced? Has the RSRS
changed the situation with your arrears?
• Are you planning to take any steps to change your circumstances and
address your rent arrears? Can you tell me about them?
TO ALL
Have you had any help from friends or family in paying the rent?
• IF YES: What kind of help?
• How often has this happened?
• Do you think that they will help you in the future if you need help again?
• If you weren’t able to get help from them in the future, where else would
you get support?
148
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
What would happen if you don’t pay your rent on time?
• Has anyone told you what might happen? What have they said?
How has the RSRS changed your finances and the way you manage
them? And what changes has it had on your household?
• Have you made any plans to deal with the changes?
• IF YES: What plans have you made? Why?
• What are you doing differently as a result? Why?
• IF NO: Is there a reason you haven’t made plans? PROBE FULLY WHERE
POSSIBLE ON WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO
Have you made any other changes because of the RSRS?
Have you started claiming benefits that you were entitled to but were
not claiming before?
Have you taken a lodger or has another family member or friend come
to live with you since the RSRS came in?
• IF YES: Why did you decide to do this?
• IF NO: Why not?
Would you consider taking a lodger or family member to help you with
the rent?
• IF YES: How do you feel about this?
• IF NOT: Why not? What would make you more comfortable when thinking
about taking in a lodger? PROBE ON WHEN CHILDREN ARE OLDER/
MOVE AWAY FROM HOME/IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE SPACE TO
HAVE A LODGER.
Are you planning to remain in your current home? If so, how will you
manage with paying the RSRS?
• IF YES: How confident are you that you will be able to manage this
financially? Why? How long do you think you will be able to manage this?
• IF NO: What are you planning to do instead? Why?
Looking forward, how do you expect your finances will change in the
future?
• What are you planning to do about this?
4. Impact of RSRS on attitudes and behaviours around moving home 15 mins
149
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
Have you moved since we last spoke? And if not are you planning to
move?
IF MOVED:
Can you talk me through the process of finding your home?
• Did you use a housing swap or exchange (mutual exchange/transfer) – or
any other mechanism? PROBE: letting agents, word of mouth
• Who is your new landlord?
– Did you deliberately choose to rent from a Housing Association/Local
Authority/private landlord? If so, why?
• How long did it take you to find somewhere?
How easy or difficult was it to find it?
PROBE FULLY AROUND PROCESS
IF HAVE USED TRANSFER PROCESS/MUTUAL EXCHANGE/LETTING
AGENTS:
Can you talk me through how this went?
• What went well? What didn’t go as well?
• Did you get any help or support in doing this? What kind?
• How happy or otherwise are you with the outcome?
TO ALL:
Can you talk me through what happened when you moved house?
• What went well? What didn’t go as well?
• Did you receive any help or support – financial or otherwise – when
you moved? How did they help you? PROBE ON SUPPORT FROM
LANDLORD, FRIENDS, FAMILY
• What costs were there, if any? How did you manage these?
Why did you decide to move?
• PROBE financial reasons/reasons related to work and family e.g. was
it a good time because their children were due to move from primary to
secondary schools.
• Was your move connected with the RSRS? PROBE IN FULL
IF LOOKING TO MOVE:
What are your plans for moving? Are you actively looking to move?
When are you hoping to move by?
This section explores any
underlying enablers and
barriers to moving, looks at
any actions participants’ may
have taken around moving in
response to the RSRS and
discusses any experiences of
moving.
150
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
What kind of home would you like to move to? PROBE IN FULL
• Where would it be? IF LOCAL: Would you consider moving further away?
• What kind of home it would be?
• Who would you like the landlord to be? PROBE housing association, local
authority or private landlord.
Would you consider moving to a property owned by a private landlord?
Why/why not?
• IF YES: What kind of property would you be looking for in the private
rented sector?
• Have you been looking in this sector – can you talk me through your
experiences of this?
What help you might need to move? PROBE IN FULL ON PRACTICAL
AND FINANCIAL HELP REQUIRED
What, if anything, is stopping you moving at the moment?
Have you seen any information about help and support to look for a new
home?
• IF YES: To what extent was this helpful and why?
How you would go about finding somewhere suitable to live?
• Do you know where you would look for information about somewhere to
move to?
• Have you looked for a new home? What happened?
Do you know about how to apply for a housing transfer or swap?
• Where did you hear about this?
• How easy or difficult do you think you would find this? Why?
Have you tried using the housing transfer or swap process?
• IF YES: Can you talk me through your experience of it?
IF NOT CONSIDERING MOVING:
Have you had any thoughts about moving at all? Have you had any
thoughts in the last year or so?
• Can you tell me a bit more about this?
• Why did you decide not to move?
Why are you not looking to move at the moment?
151
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
What would it take for you to consider moving?
• If you did move, where would you move to? PROMPT: Locally or further
afield, what kind of area.
• What kind of home would you want?
• What help would you want with the move?
– Information
– Support
– Financial incentive
Might you change your mind about moving in the future (say, in a year)?
• Why/why not?
• In the future, might anything change to make moving easier or more
difficult?
5. Impact of RSRS on attitudes and behaviours around employment 15 mins
I’d now like to find out a bit more about your thoughts on work.
IF CURRENTLY WORKING
IF RELEVANT: Did you find the work that you do since RSRS came in?
Can you tell me about your job?
• What kind of work is it? (PROBE on formal/informal work)
• How many hours do you work?
• How did you find the job?
Have there been any recent changes to your job? PROBE on hours,
number of shifts, pay increase/decrease, employment conditions?
Have you thought about …
• Increasing hours?
• Finding a different job
• Taking an additional job?
IF YES: Why did you decide to consider these changes?
• To what extent were the RSRS important in your decision?
• Can you talk me through any steps you have taken around these changes?
• How easy or difficult have you found this?
IF ALSO IN A COUPLE HOUSEHOLD OR HAVE AN ADULT CHILD LIVING
IN THE HOUSEHOLD
What about your partner/(adult) child? Are they considering making any
changes to respond to the reform? What kinds of things?
PROBE as above on hours/alternative or additional work, and to explore if
these changes are in response to the reform.
This section is focused on
the participant’s attitudes to
finding work since the last
visit/introduction of the RSRS
and explores any actions they
may have taken to find work/
additional work since the
reform was introduced.
152
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
Are they considering changing their work for any other reasons?
IF FOUND WORK SINCE LAST VISIT/SINCE THE RSRS CAME IN
How did you go about looking for a job? PROBE FULLY: What did they
do, what was easy/difficult
• Did you receive any help or advice? From whom? PROBE: How helpful
was this, how could it be improved.
• How did the RSRS affect your decision to look for work?
IF LOOKING FOR WORK
How has your job hunt been going since last time we visited/the RSRS
came in?
• Have you seen any jobs that you could apply for?
• Did you apply?
• Why?/Why not?
How are you going about looking for work?
• Have you received any help or advice with it? From whom?
How easy or difficult do you think you will find it to find a job? Why?
PROBE FULLY ON AVAILABILITY OF WORK, PARTICIPANT’S LEVEL OF
EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS, SUPPORT REQUIRED IN FINDING WORK
What would be the difference for you/your family if you found work?
• Do you think you will be able to pay the shortfall in your rent from the
wages you would receive?
• Do you think you would be better off financially in work at the moment?
• Have you done any calculations or consulted anyone (for example a Job
Centre Plus adviser) to see if this is the case?
To what extent were the RSRS important in your decision to look for work?
IF YES: Can you explain how?
• Why was it important?
IF NOT LOOKING FOR WORK OR PARTNER/ADULT CHILD IS NOT
LOOKING FOR WORK
Can you explain to me why you’re/they’re not looking for work at the
moment?
• Have you/they looked for work in the past 2 years?
• Do you think you/they would be better off financially in work at the
moment?
• Have you done any calculations to see if this is the case?
• Have you/they looked for any advice to see if they would be better off
financially in work?
What are your plans around looking for a job in the future?
153
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Questions (Timing in minutes)
Notes and Prompts
6. Wider impacts of RSRS 10 mins
I’d now like to ask you a little bit about any effects that the RSRS may
have had on you and your family.
Generally speaking, what do you think has changed for you since the
RSRS was introduced?
• Have there been any positive impacts?
• Have there been any negative impacts?
Do you think there have been any effects on members of your family?
• IF IN A COUPLE: What about your partner?
• IF PARTICIPANT HAS CHILDREN: What about your children?
Have the RSRS changes affected you in any other way?
This section allows
participants to discuss other
impacts or perceived impacts,
for example, with regard to
children in the household.
7. Future plans 5 mins
We’ve talked about the immediate impact that the RSRS
has had on you/your household.
How would you describe the future, given the changes?
• What are your plans with regard to housing and work in the next year or
so?
Will be seeking any further advice or information about the RSRS?
• What will you be seeking advice/information about?
• Where do you think you will go to get this advice/information?
In this section, we will explore
participants’ views on how
their situation might change in
the near future, and how their
response to the reform might
change over time.
8. Conclusions and final thoughts 5 mins
Is there anything else we haven’t covered?
Thank participant for taking part, and give them their incentive.
Allows time for the participant
to offer some concluding
thoughts and the interviewer
to close the interview.
154
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix D
Landlord survey methods
The survey of social landlords ran between 10 October and 10 November 2014. A total of
750 landlords were invited to take part in the survey, comprising all social landlords and
PRPs with over 1000 properties, as well as a sample of smaller landlords throughout Britain.
The mailing list was the same as the one used previously in 2013, with alternative contacts
within each organisation used on request. The initial contacts were supplied from:
• The Department for Communities and Local Government (English stock-owning local
authorities)
• The Homes and Communities Agency (English Registered Providers)
• The Scottish Government (Scottish stock-owning local authorities)
• The Scottish Social Housing Regulator
39
(Scottish Registered Social Landlords)
• The Welsh Government (Welsh stock-owning local authorities and Registered Providers)
A total of 256 responded to the survey completing most or all of the questions. A small
number of responses from those completing only a small part of the survey, or which
appeared to be duplications of existing (fuller) responses were excluded from analysis.
The survey asked for substantial numerical and nancial data, as well as more qualitative
elements. Many landlords therefore did not complete every single question. Analysis and
percentages given throughout this report relate to those who did respond to the specic
question and do not always sum to 256 landlords for this reason.
Table D.1 shows the size prole of landlords responding to the survey
Table D.1 The size of landlords responding to the survey
Landlords %
Number of general needs social rented
properties managed
1,000 or fewer 42 16%
1,001–10,000 152 59%
10,001–50,000 58 23%
50,001 or more 3 1%
Not known 1 *
Number of LAs where manage social
rented general needs properties
1 131 51%
2–10 76 30%
11 or more 47 18%
Not known 1 *
Total 256 100%
39
www.esystems.scottishhousingregulator.gov.uk/register/reg_pub_dsp.home
155
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table D.2 shows the type of landlord and region/country where most of their stock is located.
Table D.2 Prole of social landlords responding to survey
Number %
Type of landlord Stock owning local authority 47 18%
Arms Length Management Organisation 10 4%
Registered Provider/Registered Social Landlord/Private
Registered Provider
199 78%
Location of the
majority of social
rented (general
needs) housing
England North East 4% 4%
North West 11% 12%
Yorkshire and Humber 4% 5%
East Midlands 4% 4%
West Midlands 6% 8%
South East 11% 7%
South West 5% 8%
East of England 5% 8%
London 12% 11%
England (total) 159 62%
Scotland 63 25%
Wales 25 10%
Majority of stock
not in any one
region/country
9 4%
Total 256 100%
The landlords who replied were representative of those polled in terms of their spread
between England, Scotland and Wales. They also had a total of 10.4 per cent of their stock
occupied by tenants affected by the RSRS, which is very close to the national average of
10.0% as of October 2014
40
. It was therefore unnecessary to weight the data for analysis.
It should be noted here that the classication of landlords stock into regions is based on the
region where the majority of stock is located and as such is only an approximation to the
actual location of the stock held
41
.
To increase robustness, some English regions have been combined with neighbouring
regions for analysis. Table A3.3 gives the stock size by broader geographical regions, and
shows comparable gures for all social housing in Britain. Six of the nine landlords with the
majority of stock in no one region/country could nevertheless be included within one of the
broader regional groupings (one in the Midlands, two in the north, and three in the south and
east of England).
40
The number affected nationally in October 2014 was 470,000 (DWP) and the size of
the social housing sector is estimated at 4,713,437 (2011 Census), which gives the
proportion of all social tenancies affected as 10.0%.
41
Four large housing associations with their stock mainly in London also indicated that
they had some stock in the south and east, which may explain the apparent under-
representation of landlords in these regions.
156
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Table D.3 Social rented dwellings managed by location of landlord, and location of
social rented stock in Britain
Country Broad region Regions
included
Owned by landlords
responding to survey
Owned by all social
landlords
England ‘North’ North East,
North West,
Yorkshire and
Humber
627,556 28.0% 1,466,747 31.1%
‘Midlands’ East
Midlands,
West
Midlands
296,615 13.2% 809,987 17.2%
‘South and
East’
South East,
South West,
East of
England
418,005 18.6% 1,224,163 26.0%
London London 368,376 16.4% 402,653 8.5%
England (total) 1,710,552 76.3% 3,903,550 82.8%
Scotland 216,296 9.6% 594,976 12.6%
Wales 102,176 4.6% 214,911 4.6%
Majority not in any one region/country or
not known
213,942 9.5% - -
Total 2,242,966 100% 4,713,437 100%
Sources: Landlord survey, October- November 2013 and 2011 Census.
157
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix E
Landlord survey
Welcome to the second, nal, survey on the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy (‘the
RSRS’). The survey is being undertaken by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning
Research and is part of the evaluation commissioned by the Department for Work and
Pensions about the Housing Benet reforms affecting under-occupiers. We carried out a
similar survey a year ago, to which many of your replied, covering around half the social
housing stock in the UK. The ndings helped inform the Interim Report which you can nd
here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/removal-of-the-spare-room-subsidy-interim-
evaluation-report
This survey is to update the evaluation and will enable the DWP to understand better how
the RSRS is working in practice and what impact it is having on you and your tenants. You
can stop the survey part-way though if you wish, and re-enter it at a later time to nish it off.
Your answers will be saved. You may also share the survey with colleagues who, by using
the link sent in the email you received, will be able to edit the same version of the survey.
However, if you also require a PDF of the survey to share with colleagues before completing
it online, it can be downloaded from: [link]. Where numeric answers are requested, please
draw on any data you hold wherever possible, but give us your best estimate if not. Please
leave blank any questions where you do not know the answer, and cannot provide a good
estimate either. We realise that not all landlords will be able to answer all the questions. All
questions relate to the stock that you manage, regardless of whether you own it or manage
it on behalf of another landlord. If you are a local authority, please answer the questions
just in relation to tenants in the stock that you manage, not those who live in your area
in housing managed by other Registered Providers. Any information you provide will be
held in the strictest of condence and will be handled securely throughout the study in line
with the requirements of the Data Protection Act (1998). The information you provide will
be used only for research purposes and the research ndings will not identify you or your
organisation. Please note that as the survey is anonymous, we will not be able to send you a
copy of your answers on request, and suggest you store them elsewhere if you want to keep
a record of them for any reason.
This rst section is about you and where you work
1. Please indicate what type of landlord you are:
Stock owning local authority
Arms Length Management Organisation managing council-owned stock
Registered Provider/Registered Social Landlord
Private Registered Provider
2. In which of these regions/countries do you manage general needs stock? (Please
include social rented, and Affordable Rented stock, but not shared ownership,
supported or sheltered housing)
158
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
All of our
stock
Most of our
stock (over
50%)
Some of our
stock (under
50% but more
than 1%)
None/very little
of our stock
(under 1%)
Scotland
Wales
NW England
NE England
Yorkshire and the Humber
West Midlands
East Midlands
East of England
South East England
South West England
London
3. In how many local authorities in Britain do you manage social housing stock?
(Please include social rented and Affordable Rented stock, but not shared
ownership, supported or sheltered housing)
4. And how many general needs properties do you manage in Britain? (Please
include social rented and Affordable Rented stock, but not shared ownership,
supported or sheltered housing)
This section is about identifying tenants who are affected by the Removal
of the Spare Room Subsidy (RSRS)
5. To the best of your knowledge, how many of your tenants are currently affected by
the RSRS? (Please include all affected tenants, even if you are aware that they
are currently in receipt of DHP to cover their full shortfall)
6. And how many were affected when the RSRS rst came into effect in April 2013?
7. Thinking about tenants whose circumstances change so that they start to be
affected by the RSRS or cease to be, which of the following best describes how
you become aware when tenants start or cease to be affected?
We have access to the local authority HB database so we can see for
ourselves
The local authority informs us on a case by case basis when people start or
cease to be affected
The local authority informs us on a regular basis (at least monthly)
The local authority informs us but less often than monthly
We do not get informed by the LA reliably so rely on the tenant telling us
directly
A mixture of the above
Other (please explain) ____________________
159
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
This section is about making alterations to your stock or reclassifying the
size of properties, in response to the RSRS
8. Have you physically altered any of your stock to change the number of bedrooms
in direct response to the RSRS (eg knocked down walls)
Yes
No
Not yet but are planning to do so within the next 12 months
Not known
8a. How many have you altered so far?
8b. How much was the average cost, per property altered?
8c. Please briey explain what these alterations involve(d)?
8d. How many are you planning to alter within the next 12 months?
8e. Why did you decide to do this?
9. Have you reclassied the number of bedrooms in any stock in response to the
RSRS? (Please do NOT include cases where you did this solely because you
discovered that your records were incorrect, for instance because of adaptations
that had taken place previously which reduced the actual number of rooms)
Yes
No
Not yet, but are planning to do so within the next 12 months
Not known
9a. How many properties have you reclassied in response to the RSRS?
9b. And of these, how many:
Number
Were originally classed as having 2 bedrooms
Were originally classed as having 3 bedrooms
Were originally classed as having 4 or more bedrooms
9c. Please briey explain why you decided reclassify these homes?
9d. Have you lowered the rent on those properties that were reclassied as a result of
reclassifying them?
Yes, on all of them
On some of them
No, none of them
Not known
160
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
9e. Why/why not?
9f. Which of the following best describes your approach to reclassifying?
We reclassied all properties of a similar type, regardless of who is living in
them
We reclassied only properties occupied by tenants affected by the RSRS
We reclassied only on request or on an individual basis
A mixture of the above
In some other way (please explain) ____________________
This section asks about the response of tenants affected by the RSRS
10. Which of the following payment methods have you offered and encouraged for
your tenants to pay their rental shortfalls arising from the RSRS?
We allow
tenants to
pay by this
method
We encourage
this payment
method
This method
is popular with
tenants
Direct debits
Standing orders
Cash
Cheque
Credit card by phone
Debit card by phone
Credit card online
Debit card online
Payment cards
Other (please specify)
11. How many of your RSRS-affected tenants are currently registered for downsizing
(but haven’t yet moved)? (Please leave blank if not known)
Via Mutual exchange
Via the transfer list (either yours or one held by your LA)
Not registered for either
12. How many of your tenants who were affected by the RSRS have downsized within
the social sector to date?
12a. How many of these did so by means of a mutual exchange?
12b. And how many did so via your transfer list (or that of another social landlord)?
13. How many of your tenants who were affected by the RSRS have moved to the
private rented sector to date (Please provide an estimate if possible, or leave
blank if the number is not known)
161
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
13a. Is this gure (for moves to the private rented sector) based on an estimate or
gures that you have available?
Estimate
Figures
14. In total, how many households who were affected by the RSRS have moved,
vacating their under-occupied home?
Number ____________________
Not known
15. Do your tenants need to ask your permission to take a lodger?
Usually yes
Usually no
Not known
15a. Do you have gures for the number who have applied for permission to take a
lodger since 1st January 2013?
Yes. How many? ____________________
No, these gures are not available
This section is about arrears
16. What was the total amount of arrears outstanding (from all your tenants, whether
affected by any of the welfare reforms or not):
Total arrears (in £) As a % of rent due
during previous year
On 31st March 2013?
On 31st March 2014?
On the most comparable recent date? (Please give
the figure for as recent a date as possible that can be
best compared to 31st March, bearing in mind your rent
collection cycle and Housing Benefit payment dates.)
16a. What date is this latest gure for? (dd/mm/yyyy)
17. What proportion of tenants currently affected by the RSRS are currently in
arrears?
17a. And what is the average amount (per tenant) that these tenants in arrears owe?
18. And for comparison, what proportion of your tenants currently affected by the
RSRS were in arrears on 31st March 2013?
19. Are you able to identify the number of your tenants currently affected by the RSRS
who have paid all, some or none of their shortfall? (The shortfall, in this context,
refers to the rental shortfall after HB and DHP have both been paid)
162
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Yes
Not precisely but can estimate
No, we cannot attribute the source of rental shortfalls
19a. At the current time, what proportion of your tenants who are currently affected by
the RSRS:
______ have received DHP in full for the entire time, so have never had an actual
shortfall to pay
______ have paid all their shortfall
______ have paid some but not all of their shortfall
______ have paid none of their shortfall
______ have paid an unknown amount of their shortfall
20. Have you initiated any possession proceedings against any tenants in arrears
affected by the RSRS?
Yes
No
Not known
21. Of tenants affected by the RSRS:(Please leave blank if not known)
Number of RSRS-affected
tenants
How many tenants have been issued with a formal warning letter?
How many tenants have been issued with an intention to seek possession
(NOSP)?
For how many tenancies have you applied for possession?
How many tenants have had court cases heard?
How many tenants have been issued with a suspended possession order?
How many tenants have been issued with a possession order (not
suspended)?
How many tenants have been evicted?
22. Which of the following best describes your policy towards possession proceedings
on tenants who fall into arrears?
163
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
We offer our
usual support,
but follow
our usual
possession
proceedings
if this fails to
resolve the
situation
We offer
support
that goes
substantially
above the level
we’d usually
offer, but will
then follow
our usual
possession
proceedings
if this fails to
resolve the
situation
We will not evict
tenants who are
working with us,
even if this has
failed to solve
their problems
and their arrears
are still growing
We will not evict
certain groups
of tenants (eg
vulnerable, or
with children)
even if they
repeatedly fail
to pay
We will not evict
any tenants
even if they
repeatedly fail
to pay
RSRS-
related
arrears
Arrears
for other
reasons
This section is about your tenants’ experiences of applying for
Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP)
23. Has your total DHP funding (including any top up from the Scottish or Welsh
Government) been sufcient to allow you to offer DHP to cover the shortfalls in full
of all RSRS-affected tenants, as long as they apply for it?
Yes
No
In some areas but not others
Not known
23a. In how many of the local authorities in which you work are you familiar enough
with the policy on DHP to advise tenants affected by the RSRS as to whether they
might be eligible?
All
Most
Around half
A minority
None
164
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
23b. Which of the following processes of applying for DHP apply for your tenants:
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
The tenant applies direct to the LA and we
have no involvement in the process
We advise the tenant on whether they are
likely to be eligible for DHP and provide
assistance if required, but the tenant
applies themselves
We assist tenants with filling in the DHP
application, and the LA encourages
us to do this. Tenants are allowed but
not encouraged to apply without our
assistance.
Tenants must apply through us. The LA will
not accept their applications without our
backing.
We have been allocated a DHP sum from
the LA to decide how to allocate to our
tenants ourselves
23c. Which of the following best describes the system used most often for assessing
eligibility for DHP for your tenants?
Tenants need to be in a priority group
Tenants need to be found to be unable to afford the shortfall
Tenants need to be in a priority group, and ALSO to be found to be unable to
afford the shortfall
Some other system (please explain) ____________________
Not known
24. Do you have any other comments about DHP?
This section is about allocations
25. Do you have your own allocations policy covering at least some of your stock?
Yes
No – all allocations are made via LA-wide policy/policies/via a common
housing register and we do not design the allocations policy
25a. Have you made any changes to your allocation policy DURING THE LAST 12
MONTHS to increase the priority given to downsizers in response to the RSRS?
Yes, for all potential downsizers
Yes, just for those affected by the RSRS
No – they were already Band A (or equivalent if using points system)
165
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
No – they were, and still are, Band B (or equivalent if using points system) or
below
26. Which of the following best describes your approach to deciding what size of
home to let to new tenants?
New tenants would not normally be allowed to under-occupy (according to
DWP’s size criteria)
New tenants are only allowed to under-occupy if they are in employment (and
not on HB) or are pensioners and therefore unaffected by the RSRS
New tenants, including those affected by the RSRS, are allowed an extra
bedroom if they wish, after we have assessed the affordability and believe
they can afford the shortfall
Certain groups of new tenants (such as parents with access visits from
children), including those affected by the RSRS, are allowed an extra
bedroom if they wish, after we have assessed affordability and believe they
can afford the shortfall
New tenants, including those affected by the RSRS may sometimes only be
offered housing that includes an extra bedroom (according to the DWP’s size
criteria) for instance because we don’t have sufcient smaller stock for them
27. Do you offer shared housing (i.e. groups of unrelated adults sharing a house)?
Yes, we have been doing this since before the RSRS was introduced
Yes, and we have introduced, or expanded this option since the RSRS was
introduced
Not currently but we are considering this
No, and we have no plans to do so
28. Can you tell us more about why you do or don’t offer shared housing?
29. Do you allow tenants affected by the RSRS and with arrears to downsize?
Usually yes
Yes if they are below a certain level and/or the tenant is trying to pay them off
Usually no
Not known
30. Is there a nancial incentive available to your tenants who wish to downsize?
Yes
Yes in specic circumstances (please explain) ____________________
No
Not known
30a. How much would downsizers typically be offered?
166
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
This section is about difculties letting properties
31. Have you experienced any difculties in letting properties as a result of the
RSRS?
Yes
No
Not known
31a. Which types of properties have proved harder to let?
Homes with 5 or more bedrooms
4 bedroom homes
3 bedroom houses
3 bedroom ats
2 bedroom houses
2 bedroom ats
1 bedroom homes
32. How many properties in total were void on 31st March 2013?
32a. And how many were void on 31st March 2014?
This last section is about development plans
33. As a landlord, are you involved in developing new housing?
Yes
No/Not currently
33a. Have you altered your development plans in response to the RSRS and its
consequences in order to build:
Building
fewer
No change Building
more
1 bedroom properties
2 bedroom houses
2 bedroom flats
3 bedroom houses
3 bedroom flats
4 bedroom properties
5 or more bedroom properties
34. Do you have any other comments on the impact of the RSRS on your organisation
or your tenants?
167
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Appendix F
Topic guides for case study work
and lender interviews
Topic guide for local authority case study interviews
1) Implementation
a. Ongoing staff training
b. Identifying who is affected by the RSRS
2) Tenant responses
a. Changes in numbers affected and perceptions of reasons for the change
b. Downsizing – numbers, tenure, where moved, and means of move
i. Promotion of downsizing
ii. Demand for downsizing – numbers registered and barriers to moving
c. Finding work and increasing earnings
d. Taking lodgers or family members
3) Discretionary Housing Payments
a. Guidance on administering DHP
b. Promotion of DHP to claimants
c. Managing demand for DHP
d. Treatment of disability benets when assessing eligibility for DHP
e. Conditions placed on the receipt of DHP
4) The policy framework
a. Allocation policies – any changes in response to the RSRS
b. Impact of the RSRS on overcrowding
c. Impact of the RSRS on homelessness functions
d. Impact of the RSRS on joint working
168
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Topic guide for social landlord case study interviews
1) Implementation
a. Staff training
b. Costs of implementation
c. Physically altering or reclassifying stock
d. Identifying who is affected by the RSRS
e. Supporting tenants affected by the RSRS
2) Tenant responses
a. Changes in numbers affected and perceptions of reasons for the change
b. Downsizing – numbers, tenure, where moved, and means of move
i. Promotion of downsizing
ii. Demand for downsizing – numbers registered and barriers to moving
iii. Impact of downsizing on freeing up larger homes
c. Finding work and increasing earnings
d. Taking lodgers or family members
e. Any other reasons for tenants ceasing to be affected
3) The policy framework
a. Allocation policies – any changes in response to the RSRS
b. Downsizing with rent arrears
c. Responding to changes in demand
i. Shared housing
ii. Development programme – changes to what is built
d. Impact of the RSRS on overcrowding
4) Rent collection and arrears management
a. Payment methods
b. Arrears levels and changes to
c. Arrears policy
d. Arrears, possession and evictions of tenants affected by the RSRS
5) Discretionary Housing Payments
a. Who is getting DHP
b. Treatment of disability benets in assessing DHP
c. Conditions placed on tenants’ receipt of DHP
6) Joint working with local authority and other landlords
169
Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy – Final Report
Topic guide for case study voluntary organisations, advice and support
services
1. Role of organisation in working with people affected by the RSRS
2. Changes in demand for services resulting from the RSRS
3. Joint working with landlords or local authorities to support households
4. Awareness and involvement in Discretionary Housing Payments
a. Impact of DHP on helping clients
5. Involvement in supporting people with rent arrears or under threat of eviction,
including court processes
Topic guide for lender interviews
1. Role in lending to the housing association sector
2. Impact of RSRS in discussions with borrowers
3. Condence in borrowers’ own estimates of impact of the RSRS
4. Defaults or risk of defaults
5. Impact of RSRS on borrowers’ nances
6. Involvement of lender in housing association’s practices regarding rent collection
and eviction proceedings
7. Any renegotiation of loan agreements
8. Awareness of Discretionary Housing Payments and role in mitigating impact of
RSRS
9. Impact of RSRS in assessing bids for nancing new development
