Dozens of families face losing their homes as a Government clampdown on benefits hits home, a charity has warned.

Seventeen families who were at risk of eviction appeared before the county court in Carlisle on a single day, including some driven there by the crippling new limit on benefits.

From last November, as part of a national drive to cut the country's welfare bill, couples who get help with paying their rent have faced a weekly limit on their benefits of £384.

The limit applies regardless of how many children they may have.

Defenders of the policy say it is outrageous that some unemployed people can get more in benefits every week than workers on the national minimum wage.

But Cumbria Law Centre estimates that the change has left more than 100 families in the Carlisle area alone struggling financially. Particularly at risk are couples with big families who depend on benefits.

The charity's manager Pete Moran said there is evidence the clampdown is already plunging families into crisis, with some so short of cash that they face possible eviction.

“Couples with four or five children, living in a rented three-bedroom house, have already weathered the storm of the first benefits cap, set at £500 a week,” said Mr Moran.

“But with the new benefit cap of £384 they're now having to find another £80 per week, which is roughly the amount of housing benefit they may lose as a result of the new cap.

"People are getting into difficulty quite quickly. It's big families who are particularly struggling.

“This second benefits cap has brought some into critical rent arrears. Of course, when they had their families they did so according to the rules.

"And while people are able to change their accommodation there's no possibility to change their family.”

Mr Moran said that across the county there may be hundreds of families affected by the new cap. Some have already found themselves at risk of eviction because they can no longer afford to pay their rent.

He said: “Ordinarily, at Carlisle County Court on a Wednesday, on a busy day we can see seven or eight people who are facing repossession proceedings. At today's session, there were 17 people in that position.

“We were representing around half a dozen and in some of those cases the problems had arisen because of the benefits cap. It's an issue we expect to see escalate in the months ahead."

The 17 cases are all at various stages of the legal repossession process.

“Ordinarily, we can apply in these cases for discretionary housing payments but they are only made when there's a solution in the pipeline," Mr Moran continued.

“If they are deemed to be intentionally homeless, the local authority does not have a duty to house them. If they are not deemed to be intentionally homeless, the local authority does have a duty to do that.

“And it's hard to see where there will be a saving to the public purse if families are evicted from settled accommodation and then moved into something like B&B accommodation, which is more expensive.”

Carlisle city councillor Gareth Ellis (Conservative) sprang to the Government's defence.


Gareth Ellis “Why should somebody who goes out and works hard every week be worse off than somebody on benefits?” said the Belah councillor.

“It's important to realise that the cap doesn't apply to households where there is somebody who is disabled. But even with a cap of £384 per week, that's the equivalent of a working income [before tax] of £25,000.

“If you have four kids and an annual income of £25,000 and that's not enough for you, then the answer is go out and find a job that pays you what you need.

“There's a point of principle here. Why should the unemployed have a better quality of life than somebody who goes out to work every day and works hard?

“I know of couple of retail managers in Carlisle, who work 50 or 60 hours a week, and they don't pull in that kind of money. I'm sorry, but as a tax payer, my view is that the benefits cap should be aligned with the national living wage.

“It shouldn't be possible to get more in benefits. One of the reasons this policy was introduced was that there was a household in London that got in one year £147,000 in housing benefit.”

Ministers have said that the level of the cap is fair because it is close to the national average salary after tax. The Department for Work and Pensions described it as "a clear incentive to move into a job".