星空传媒

A charity has proposed a 拢1.25bn package of reforms to housing benefit that it says could end a major poverty trap.

Poverty charity Pivot, which is run in a joint venture with homelessness charity Centrepoint, says its ideas would make it financially worthwhile for benefit claimants to work. The current rules on benefit reduction and income tax mean many claimants only keep 10p of every pound earned.

Pivot's report, seen exclusively by Housing Today, is one of the first to put a price tag on its housing benefit reforms.

The report, funded by internet entrepreneur Peter Dawe, suggests a package of complementary changes that would only work if implemented simultaneously. These include the introduction of a housing tax credit; benefit reform to only take place twice a year; half benefits to be paid in advance; and a flat rate reduction for non-dependents living with a benefit claimant.

Tom Sleigh, director of Pivot, said the tax paid by benefit claimants as they moved into work would "go some way towards making a dent in the cost" of taking a job.

There have been changes to housing benefit rules recently; claimants now fill in a shorter form when they get a job instead of submitting a lengthy new claim.

But Pivot proposes that existing benefits should last for six months after the claimant gets a job. It says this would give the long-term unemployed the confidence to try work, while those in full-time work would feel the benefit of pay rises, an incentive to work in itself.

Gwyneth Taylor, programme manager at the Local Government Association, backed the proposal to have a flat-rate deduction for non-dependents living with a benefit claimant. "There are assumptions about the amount of money that non-dependents contribute to the rent which experience shows bear little relation to reality, and that leaves applicants short," she said.

However, she said the pilots of a flat-rate housing allowance to be paid to private sector tenants in 10 authorities would have to be watched to see what anomalies they fixed.

On advance payments, she said: "The principle of clarifying the current regime is right and landlords often ask for money upfront. But how would that impact on fraud if someone takes the money and doesn't take up the accommodation?"