Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit delivery: claimant experiences
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes [E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 97
By Nick Pettigrew, Andrew Thomas, Paul Tovey and Vanessa Stone
The Department of Social Security commissioned BMRB Qualitative to carry out research exploring claimants' views and experiences of benefits delivery by local authorities. The fieldwork, in October and November 1998, comprised thirty group discussions involving 260 claimants of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in ten local authority areas.
- Obtaining application forms was unproblematic for the claimants who took part in the research, and longer-term recipients felt that forms had been simplified in recent years. However, there were requests for HB, CTB, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support application forms to be combined, and for renewal forms to be reduced to a simple `declaration of any change’.
- One of the main changes wanted by the people interviewed was a reduction in the time it took to process an HB/CTB application. Respondents tended to have an expectation from previous experiences that claims would be processed within two to six weeks. Their preference was for a maximum of four weeks, with the ideal being between a week and a fortnight.
- Once HB and CTB claims had been processed and the decision notified, payment tended to be regular and unproblematic.
- Respondents had a mixture of positive and negative experiences with their local authority benefits sections. There were many complaints that staff were judgmental, impersonal, lacking in knowledge or unapologetic. However, some respondents spoke of particular staff being very helpful, knowledgeable and sympathetic. All wanted local authority staff to pay increased attention to customer care.
- The claimants interviewed wanted their notification letters to state prominently any balance of rent not met by benefit which they had to pay to their landlord.
- Claimants renting in the private sector were keen to retain the choice between payment of benefit direct to them or direct to their landlord.
- There was high awareness in the focus groups of the need to notify the authority of changes in personal circumstances, although claimants would not tend to notify small amounts of irregular income, rent reductions and changes in children’s savings.
- Claimants perceived good service to be characterised by accuracy, speed and polite customer service. With modern technology, they could not see any reason why they should have to choose between these features but, when pressed to do so, they opted for accurate processing.
Background and objectives
As part of the government’s process of welfare reform the Department of Social Security (DSS) has commissioned a programme of research to investigate the administration of Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) by local authorities (LAs). In order to understand more fully claimant experiences, the DSS commissioned BMRB Qualitative, a specialist division of BMRB International, to undertake qualitative research amongst recipients of HB(1). The study had two main aims:
- to explore and document claimants’ views and experiences of making a claim for HB and CTB; and
- to identify issues for change which, from the claimants’ perspective, would enhance customer satisfaction.
Research methods
The study was qualitative in nature and employed thirty group discussions with recipients (260 in total) of HB and CTB undertaken in ten LA areas. Fieldwork was conducted during October and November 1998.
LA areas were selected on the basis of: location (England, Wales and Scotland); type of authority (District, Unitary, Metropolitan); number of HB/CTB claimants; proportion of HB claims processed within 14 days of receipt of all necessary information; proportion of Rent Allowance claims found to have overpayments; whether HB and CTB are processed by the same or different departments within the authority; and whether HB/CTB processing is undertaken by the LA or by a private contractor.
The study respondents were all recipients of HB. They were selected to reflect a broad spectrum of individuals in terms of: age; sex; housing tenure; length of claim (under and over 12 months); and benefit combinations (HB/CTB plus Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), HB/CTB plus Income Support (IS), HB/CTB with neither JSA nor IS). The sample specifically included lone parents and people with disabilities.
Finding out about HB/CTB
There was a high level of knowledge of the existence of HB/CTB amongst respondents. They cited a number of sources from which they had received information and advice about HB/CTB and these included other people receiving HB/CTB, a ‘Benefits pack’ provided by Jobcentres/Benefits Agency (BA) Offices, hospitals, housing associations, private landlords, and Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. Advice tended to be on a ‘try and see’ basis.
There was some awareness of HB leaflets, but usage was low. Respondents did not perceive leaflets to be comprehensive enough, although some thought they provided useful background information.
Making the application
Obtaining application forms was unproblematic for respondents, and some LAs had provided prepaid return envelopes which was welcomed. However, several respondents expressed concern about application forms being delayed or lost in transit to the LA office, often based on previous experiences. As a way of getting round this problem, some respondents sent applications by recorded delivery, delivered the form in person, faxed their application and/or asked for a receipt.
At first glance application forms were perceived to be hard to fill in, but were then considered less daunting than they first appeared. Longer term claimants felt that application forms had been simplified in recent years. However there were some criticisms with forms considered to be:
- Repetitious, with HB and CTB forms collecting similar information, and overlapping with JSA and IS forms;
- Irrelevant, such as questions on stocks and shares; and
- Intrusive, such as questions on children’s savings.
Claimants had learned not to leave questions blank or unanswered in forms, although LAs’ reactions to blanks were largely dependent on individual members of staff. Respondents were clear about the supporting documents that were required with the checklist provided thought to be useful.
Claimants were aware of the guidance notes, but seldom made use of them. There were some criticisms that the guidance notes did not follow the same order as the form. The time taken to complete application forms varied enormously.
Some respondents did not need help in filling out the forms; others had been offered help, and some (who tended to be older, with special needs, or complex cases) actively sought help.
In the ten areas, respondents renting from a private landlord or housing association cited two forms of HB payment available to them – direct to them, or direct to the landlord - and were keen for this choice to remain.
Notification letter
Information provided by the DSS has indicated that notification letters must, by law, give the amount of benefit the claimant is entitled to. They do not need to give the amount of rent the claimant must pay to the LA or to housing associations/ private landlords, although some LAs may include this as well. Respondents were of the opinion that the letters they had received all gave the amount of rent they had to pay. This was the key piece of information respondents required from the notification letter; there was some feeling that it should be moved to the beginning of the letter.
The calculations provided were felt to be unclear and difficult to understand; they were virtually useless to respondents. There were mixed views about the need for a detailed calculation to be included in the notification letter. However, those who had to make a contribution to the rent particularly wanted to see the calculation.
Processing times
Most claims were processed within two to six weeks, although there were some exceptions of up to six months. Respondents tended to have an expectation from previous experiences, as well as advice from HB offices (usually obtained when chasing a claim), that claims would take this length of time. Processing times were related to the complexity of the claim, fluctuating incomes, whether Family Credit was also being claimed, and the LA (the latter being the least important factor).
Delays caused considerable anguish to respondents, with several examples of eviction notices being served. Opinions were mixed as to what would be an acceptable processing time and ranged from half an hour to no more than a month (the usual rental period). The ideal was between a week and a fortnight. Respondents were amazed that, given the current technology, processing times were not quicker.
Communication issues
In overall terms respondents had little contact with their LA. For some this was acceptable, but others felt there was too little, especially as they did not know how long it would take to arrive at a decision, unless they chased the claim. Contact from LA to claimant was usually by post and usually when something was missing from the application form or the form had been lost.
Not all respondents had made contact with the LA by telephone. Where they had, some did not consider it was the most useful method, as telephones were often engaged or respondents were placed in a queuing system. A call back service was rarely offered by LAs. Problems with contacting the LA by telephone included:
- Identifying the person who could deal with the case;
- Being passed from person to person;
- Contact ‘names’ were never in the office; and
- Calls sometimes cut off ‘mysteriously.
Other respondents had not experienced any problems.
There were mixed experiences of visiting LA offices, with some respondents mentioning queues and a distinct lack of privacy.
There was little awareness of LAs contacting other individuals or organisations concerning HB/CTB applications, but there was an assumption, on prompting, that authorities may contact the DSS, landlords and employers. There was some surprise about this as respondents felt they had already provided sufficient supporting documentation. Some respondents expressed incredulity that the DSS could not process HB applications, since the LA was in contact with them anyway.
Changes in circumstances
There was high awareness of the need to notify the LA of changes in personal circumstances, for example changes in rent and changes in income. There was also knowledge of the penalties involved in not providing notification. However, there were some changes that would not be notified. These were:
- Small amounts of irregular income;
- Changes in children’s savings;
- Windfalls;
- Rent reductions; and
- Change of individuals in a shared house.
This was because it was not considered ‘sensible’ to upset the claim process for small amounts of money; reclaiming involved lots of ‘hassle’; and some changes were not considered to be any of the LAs’ business.
Once HB/CTB had been processed and notified, payment tended to be regular and unproblematic, although there were a few instances of HB being withdrawn without the claimant’s knowledge.
Renewals
In most LA areas, renewals were perceived to be six monthly, with the exceptions being yearly. However in some LAs renewal periods varied between six months and a year even for those people living in similar properties. Renewal forms tended to arrive without any problem.
One of the major criticisms concerning HB/CTB renewal was the need to fill out a complete application form. In some LA areas a renewal declaration was issued asking simply whether a person’s circumstances had changed. This was welcomed by respondents.
Views about LA staff
Not all respondents in the study had experience of dealing with LA staff, and amongst those who had, views were mixed. Some staff were seen to be very helpful, with individuals often being named. However, across the ten areas many complaints were made in the discussions about the knowledge and attitudes of staff. Respondents’ key criticisms were that staff were:
- Judgmental with“ ‘better than them’” attitudes;
- Impersonal - ‘“treated like a number’;”
- Lacking in relevant knowledge and offering contradictory advice;
- Unapologetic and refusing to admit to errors;
- Demonstrating little sense of customer care.
There was some feeling that staff working on the front desk were doing ‘“the jobs no-one wanted’”, resulting in front-line staff being seen as young and inexperienced. Older members of the sample did not like discussing complex personal matters with someone they felt was a lot younger than them.
Comparisons with other departments and agencies
Generally HB and CTB staff were seen to be one and the same, since CTB claims tended to be processed in parallel with HB claims. Respondents could not generally distinguish between HB and CTB staff.
Respondents were asked to make cross-agency comparisons; not all had experience of other agencies. Jobcentres were seen to be the best agency to deal with as claims were processed quickly and the one-to one interview was appreciated. Staff attitudes and knowledge at the Benefits Agency were sometimes seen to be better and sometimes worse, although the Benefits Agency was considered worst for office environment. The Child Support Agency was seen, by those who had had contact, as the worst agency in terms of staff attitudes because of the personal questions they were required to ask.
Good service and efficiency
For the study participants good service and efficiency were characterised by accuracy of the processing of their HB/CTB claim, speed of processing and polite customer service. While respondents could not see any acceptable reason as to why they should have to choose between any of these features, when pressed they almost universally opted for accurate processing of their benefit claim as the key feature, a view that was underpinned by a fear of getting into rent arrears and debt.
Enhancing customer service - claimant requirements
Respondents had very mixed experiences of making a claim for HB/CTB - some were very positive, others were very critical. Nevertheless, they identified a number of enhancements that would result in increased customer care. The key enhancements were:
- A reduction in the time it takes to process an HB/CTB application from the time of receipt. The preferred time was a week with a maximum time being four weeks;
- HB/CTB applications to be acknowledged, on receipt, by the LA;
- HB and CTB application forms to be combined;
- HB/CTB renewals to be reduced to a simple ‘declaration of change’;
- HB/CTB applications to be combined with applications for JSA and Income Support;
- Increased attention to customer care;
- A change in HB payment periods from four-weekly to monthly to reflect the period over which private rents are usually paid;
- Faster methods of dealing with fluctuating incomes; and
- Changes to LA offices, specifically an appointment system, greater privacy, and knowledgeable staff.
Relevant publications
Bailey, L. and Pyres, J. (1996) “Communications with the Benefits Agency”, Department of Social Security In-house Research Report No. 20, London: DSS
Sainsbury, R. (1999)“ Housing Benefit Exceptional Hardship Payments: The Use of Discretionary Powers”, Department of Social Security Research Report No.91, Leeds: CDS
Stafford, B., Walker, R., Hull, L. and Horsley, E. (1996) “Customer Contact and Communication with the Benefits Agency: Literature Review”, Department of Social Security In-house Research Report No. 16, London: DSS
Stafford, B., Heaver, C., Croden, N., Abel Smith, A., Maguire, S. and Vincent, J. (1998) “Moving Into Work: Bridging Housing Costs”, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 79, London: TSO
Stafford, B., Vincent, J., Walker, R. and Beach, J. (1999) “The Beacon Council Scheme: Modern Service Delivery – Improving Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Administration: Output 1”, Jointly published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Department of Social Security, and the Improvement and Development Agency on their websites
Taper, T., Tu, T. and Caughey, A. (1999)“ Practice in the Administration of Housing Benefit”, Department of Social Security In-house Research Report No. 55, London: DSS
Thomas, A., Stone, V. and Cotton, D. (1999) “Modernising Service Delivery: The Lone Parent Prototype”, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 90, Leeds: CDS
(1) In addition to claiming HB, many of the respondents were also claiming CTB.