WOMEN’S refuges in Scotland could be forced to close because the UK Government’s planned changes to housing benefit would leave them with a funding gap of tens of thousands of pounds a year.
Scottish Women’s Aid has warned the plans to cap social housing rents will have a “devastating impact” by slashing the amount of housing benefit paid to refuges, which are owned by councils or housing associations.
The charity called for refuges to be made exempt from the proposals and has written to Lord Freud, Minister for State for Welfare Reform, to raise concerns.
Chancellor George Osborne set out his plans to extend the local housing allowance (LHA) rate to social landlords in his autumn statement and spending review in November.
The move caps the amount of housing benefit housing associations and councils will receive, and comes into force from April 2018 for any tenancy that starts on or after April 1, 2016 – this includes people living in supported accommodation such as refuges.
Research by Scottish Women’s Aid showed that refuge rent and service charge costs were significantly higher than the LHA rate, meaning the change would leave refuges struggling to meet a funding shortfall.
A study conducted by the charity found introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate in a rural area would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a two-bedroom refuge flat.
In an urban area, the annual loss for a one-bedroom refuge flat would be £7,100, and in another semi-urban area the loss on a three-bedroom refuge would be £11,600 per year.
In each case this financial cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces provided.
Scottish Women’s Aid said the LHA rates “bear no relation” to the actual cost to Women’s Aid groups of leasing accommodation from social landlords.
In her letter, Scottish Women’s Aid chief executive Dr Marsha Scott said: “This will have a devastating impact on the future provision of refuge accommodation in Scotland, where all refuge accommodation is in the ownership of either housing associations or local authorities.
“As you are aware, there are a range of additional costs involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence.
“LHA rates bear no relation to the actual cost to Women’s Aid groups of leasing accommodation from social landlords and the associated service charge costs. Without the existing level of housing benefit to cover costs, refuges will be forced to close.”
The organisation also warned that women would be prevented from leaving an abusive partner because of proposals to introduce a shared accommodation rate for those under the age of 35, and that the change would place them at greater risk of abuse.
Scott added in her letter: “If women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or move into their own tenancy because of a restriction on their entitlement to housing benefit, this effectively prevents them from leaving an abusive partner.
Dundee Women’s Aid manager Mary Miller said the service faced a loss of up to £220,751 a year if the changes go ahead.
She said: “This will have a devastating effect on refuge provision in Dundee and indeed the whole of Scotland. Refuges in Dundee are owned by the council or housing associations and will therefore be affected by this proposal. Should it become legislation we would have no alternative but to close the 17 refuges we currently provide”.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: “We value the work of the supported housing sector extremely highly and are working closely with them to ensure they are supported as effectively as possible in advance of the policy taking effect.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here