Concerns over DWP Housing Benefit Briefing

10 November 2010

When it comes to releasing information to journalists, but not the public, Full Fact has previously raised concerns about some of the practices of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Indeed back in September we flagged up this issue with the UK Statistics Authority.

This week, it seems, the trend has continued.

The Left Foot Forward blog has published a briefing sent to journalists, but not put up on the DWP website, showing the difference between the rents paid by low income working households (LIWH), and what these families would be entitled to receive in housing benefit. The research was presented alongside quotes from Welfare Minister Lord Freud, arguing that the difference between rents and housing benefit entitlements showed how the welfare system was pushing up rents in the private sector.

The figures have since been reported in the Daily Telegraph.

The initial concern with such practices is that the figures are being used in briefings sent to journalists but not put on the DWP website for the public to scrutinise.

But a closer look at the briefing raises a second concern, not unrelated to this lack of scope for scrutiny.

The figures used in the report showing the differences between 'rents' paid by recipients of local housing allowance, and rents paid by LIWHs bear a curious resemblance to recent research produced by the DWP from academics at Birmingham University.

The footnotes from the briefing reference a table in the Birmingham report as one of the sources. The table in question however only gives the national averages used in the first table of the DWP briefing:

The rest of the data is simply produced by taking the maximum entitlement calculation on the LHA Direct page, that is to say, not rents as such, and applying the above percentages to the areas that the Birmingham study looked at. Such tables do not appear in the academic study.

This produces the 'hypothetical comparison' tables used by the DWP, showing 'rents' for housing benefit tenants to be higher than those paid by low-income working households.

The worry is that while DWP have apparently used the average percentages arrived at by the Birmingham study to provide their own DIY information to the press, they have glossed over the nuances and conclusions the academics reached from their findings.

For instance, the study also found that: "The HB [Housing Benefit] arrangements do not seem to favour LHA [Local Housing Allowance] recipients to a large extent when compared to the majority of LIWH."

This is because, among other things, that Birmingham research found a significant proportion (though not a majority) of LIWHs live in properties larger than those for which they would be able to claim housing benefit - thus on average pay more than they would be entitled to claim.

This would mean that the way the DWP figures simply make comparisons between the same type of property would miss such nuances.

The findings of the report, which have enabled DWP to produce this briefing, somewhat ironically challenge the reason for which the briefing was sent out — namely that housing benefit is enabling landlords to profit from higher rents.

One of the report's authors told The Guardian: "there is evidence that landlords prefer not to have you if you are a housing benefit claimant. What was striking [from our work] was that 40% of low income working families actually paid more in rent than they would have received in housing benefit."

Of course, the Birmingham study may not prove to be the last word on the workings of housing benefit system. Indeed the comparisons it made were based on looking at benefit entitlements rather than actual rents paid — so no doubt more information and analysis will come out on the issue as the reforms go through.

But given the broad conclusions of the study, and the concerns that have been raised about the data, it is disappointing to that the Department did not choose to publish the figures in a way that would have enabled the public to subject them to more scrutiny.

Full Fact fights bad information

Bad information ruins lives. It promotes hate, damages people’s health, and hurts democracy. You deserve better.