Download (3223Kb) - White Rose Research Online

omie specific comicerni cmi be naised It is possible that immauiv poteiitmal
applm.ants ss ill be puit off subiimuttm ig in award by the scale -imid detail of
the rumfhnimiatuoum thes’ ire bemmig asked to suipplv particularly abount their
e\penuditumre Also qLiestmomis about spending on personal utemlis, suich as
prescriptions pocket monies, presents amid cigarettes, could be construed
as tin ii ecessmrily imitnusive
l)iscuissiomi As Chapter 3 demnonstrated, the large niumber of Remit Officer restrictions
oii prisate setor rc’Iits has created a lange pool ofpotential applicants for
exceptiomial hardship pavumiemits whose cur cuinistaisces will vary wndelv It
is miot suirpnisinig timer efone to fluid that local authorities eiicoui miter such a
wide r ange of reasons in the applucatmons they receive
Many oftlie reasons cited h~applicants appear to relate to the circuimimstamices
which gave rise to therm claim for Houmsrnig Benefit, ins other words why
they ire in rented accoumiinoclatnon with a restricted rent Other reasomis
appe~mr to describe gemien ally difficuilt cmrc uiniista uces, such as ml Imiess or
dusabilmry, ss’hich can ri. stilt mum funianicial pressures on people with losv
iimcomsies It seeiims therefore that the range of factors ss Inch the DSS
foresass as bemuig possibly relevant is only partially reflected mum the i e.isoums
puit forssar d by clamiiuarits Fon esamimple less auithonitnes hid tonic across
claims that eviction or hoiimelessness ‘s ould be time nesult of Housing Bemmefit
riot ummeeting the rent iii flill In general applications appear to arise
primarily fromu the fact that clamiiiauitc have to fluid sonic part of the remit
Ii ow their income
Thu resuilts from time stirs cv suggest that most authorities (arouincl seveul
in term) have clioseul to devise sortie Ebrnn ofguideliiies other than Circular
A7/96 to assist them .mssessiiienit statf Aroumumd half have adopted a
‘comprehensive’ approach by usmiig both The scope and content of
these ‘policy docuinienits appear, froni the exaumiples semit by 88 local
authorities, to vary eiionuiouisly het’ssccii aunthontues Particuilaily struki rig
ss as the number olitithonirmes who requmire applicants to coniplete detailed
e\penudlttmre forms as part of their application It is possible that these
counid discourage applicitmonis The most sophisticated approach to decision
niiakmng was found mum five local authorities ishichi had devised (sonnetmulies
elaborate) scoring systems foi assessinig applications (Three of these
authorities had success rites for claimants making applications of over 60
per celit )
31