But Freedom of Information requests show that, in tens of thousands of cases, the move encouraged people to find a job.

As a result, they no longer require any state support – delivering a huge saving for the taxpayer.

Ministers had estimated that by removing the subsidy, paid to social housing tenants who have a spare room, the bill would be cut by around £500million a year.

But, by encouraging people to stop claiming benefits such as jobseekers’ allowance altogether, this figure doubles to around £1billion-a-year.

The new rules apply to housing benefit, typically worth between £50 and £100 a week. Since April, claimants of working age with a spare bedroom have received a reduced payment.

The figures were revealed by Harry Phibbs, a Tory councillor, in an investigation for the ConservativeHome website. He surveyed councils across the UK and 141 responded.

In their areas, 25,238 of the 233,732 people stripped of the spare bedroom subsidy – or nearly 11 per cent – were no longer claiming any benefits.

Mr Phibbs said that extended across the UK, it would be the equivalent of 71,000 out of the 660,000 claimants predicted to be affected stopping claiming benefits.

‘Before this change it wasn’t rewarding for people to work,’ he said. ‘This is giving people a reward for working – they are able to stay in their homes rather than downsizing into a smaller home.

‘Because work is now being rewarded, many people are coming off benefits altogether and getting full-time jobs.

‘I would expect you will see far more people coming in to jobs in the coming months.’

The ending of the subsidy means that if tenants have one spare room, the amount of rent eligible for housing benefit is cut by 14 per cent. If they have two or more spare rooms, the reduction is 25 per cent.

On average, claimants receive £15 a week less from the taxpayer. Council tenants get about £14 a week less, while those in housing association properties get £16 a week less.

The savings to the taxpayer from removing the subsidy are an estimated £505million in 2013-14, and £540million the year after.

Figures obtained by Mr Phibbs show that in Tower Hamlets, East London, 948 out of 3,000 people (32 per cent) stopped claiming housing benefit, but in Liverpool only 300 claimants came off, out of 11,600.

Bromsgrove in Worcestershire saw 178 out of 605 come off benefits (29 per cent).

The responses do not give the reasons why individuals came off housing benefit, but any suggestion that the policy is helping families back into work is a huge boost for the Government.

Left-wing politicians and campaign groups repeatedly said the ‘bedroom tax’ would inflict misery on thousands.

Labour leader Ed Miliband pledged to reintroduce the subsidy, claiming its withdrawal was ‘unfair’ and would force families into real hardship.

Daily Mail

The cap is part of the government’s overhaul of the benefits system, the biggest since the 1940s.

Key payments including jobseeker’s allowance and child and housing benefit count towards the cap.

Changes to the benefit system have been spearheaded by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who argues the current level of benefit discourages people from looking for work.

Critics say the cap fails to tackle underlying issues, such as the difficulty of finding work, the cost of housing and regional differences.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) agrees with the principle that those on benefits should not earn more than those in work, but it argues that the cap does not work in London and the South-East, where rents are high.

Those affected by the cap have their housing benefit reduced.

The NHF wants to see housing costs removed from the cap, which will be completely implemented by 30 September.

Once a month

The cap, not yet law in Northern Ireland, is said to reflect the average working household income.

It has already been implemented in four London boroughs – Haringey, Enfield, Croydon and Bromley – since April.

The benefits cap applies to people receiving jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit, child tax credits, housing benefits and other key support from the government.

There is no cap on people who receive Disability Living Allowance or its successor, the Personal Independence Payment, as well some other benefits, such as industrial injuries benefit or a war widow or widower’s pension.

“The benefit cap returns fairness to the benefits systems,” Mr Duncan Smith said. “It ensures the taxpayer can have trust in the welfare system and it stops sky-high claims that make it impossible for people to move into work.

“The limit of £500 a week ensures no-one claims more in benefits than the average household and there is a clear reason for people to get a job – as those eligible for Working Tax Credit are exempt.”

His department says about £90bn was paid out in benefit payments to people of working age and their families in 2009-10.

It hopes the cap will save about £110m in the first year.

Moving out

The four local authorities where the cap has been introduced say they are struggling to introduce the measures.

One of them, Haringey, said it was given £1.8m by the government in the first year, to help with the transition, and ease cases of hardship.

But it estimates that this year alone it will have to add £2m of its own money to pay for the changes, which it said is not sustainable in the longer term.

One alternative is for families to move to areas where housing costs are lower.

“We will have to consult on what that means on potentially requiring families to move outside London, which I think is very difficult,” said Clare Kober, the leader of Haringey Council.

Rebecca is a Sunday school teacher in Haringey, who may be affected by the cap when transitional support runs out.

She told the BBC she would not want to move away.

“I think moving out from my community….my community will be missing me. If they move me out, I will start from zero,” she said.

BBC

‘A government prepared to spend £1bn on high earners’ nannying costs is not cutting £320m for practical reasons.’ Illustration by Matt Kenyon

Nobody said, in any of the parties’ manifestos, that they would claw money back from the severely disabled.  In court 28 of the Royal Courts of Justice this morning, a decision was reached about the independent living fund. Worth £320 million a year, it’s currently controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions and intended to ensure that 20,000 people with severe disabilities can live as independently as possible. Following a consultation last year, the government announced that it was going to scrap it. The case was brought by five ILF users on the basis that the consultation was inadequate, and didn’t fulfil its public-sector equality duty.

During the hearing the claimants discovered that the consultation wasn’t the half of it: the DWP was forced to disclose that the main reason for closing down the fund was that the money simply wouldn’t be there after 2015. Since the department had always publicly said that it wasn’t stopping the money but merely moving it to local authorities in the name of efficiency, this information was certainly new, if not unexpected.

No matter, concluded the judge; the consultation didn’t breach the equality duty requirement. The decision to close the fund doesn’t breach it. The minister for disabled people had been made aware of her obligations – and therefore her duty had been met. Who knew that would be what “equality duty” would boil down to? That you could trample on whoever you liked so long as you were aware of which people you were trampling, and how severely?

But getting back to court 28. It’s an inaccessible courtroom, so the people who brought the action couldn’t get into the room to hear the verdict. I know, yet more leftie bleating – when am I going to just face the fact that this country is out of money and we can no longer afford for disabled people to be pandered to with their ceaseless demands for ramps and handrails and other apparatus which, in fact, already exists elsewhere in the Royal Courts of Justice. To stick to my bleating leftie guns for a minute, this is like trying Desmond Tutu in a whites-only courtroom. The message, very clearly, is that disabled people have no right to open justice. Adam Lotun, a 50-year-old wheelchair user outside the courts, had a fractionally kinder interpretation: “I don’t think the judge wanted to see any disabled faces in court – with the verdict he was giving.”

Louise Whitfield, of the solicitors’ firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, said of the verdict: “We would have expected the judge to grapple with the public sector equality duty more, it’s such an important issue. We’re talking about 20,000 people. It’s quite unusual to have a judgment like this. I have not had a judgment before where I have found it difficult to understand the reasoning.”

But politics often finds a way round judicial verdicts, and it’s towards politicians rather than judges that our ire should be directed. Certain points must be underlined. The first is that the closure of this fund runs utterly counter to any promise from any party in any manifesto, under the guise of austerity or anything else. Nobody said “we will claw public money back from the severely disabled”. Even politicians who make it their rhetorical stock-in-trade to portray disability as an elaborate benefit scam would not, indeed could not, be open about withdrawing money from people already wrestling with such disadvantage. So it’s important to keep talking about this: if a measure is so shaming that politicians won’t even broach it, yet it passes through anyway, it would be to all our shame if that went unremarked.

Second, the DWP lied about the purpose of closing the independent living fund. It didn’t admit that the money wouldn’t be there after 2015 until it was legally required to. Whenever this government comes out with an idea that sounds, for British politics, unusually unjust or barbaric or ill-conceived, it usually has its roots in the US (free schools, food stamps, dash for gas, shares for rights, privatisation of health services). What I mind the most is the readiness with which the government will now lie: the prime minister will lie about the national debt; the secretary of state will lie about immigration, the chancellor will lie about benefit claimants, they’ll be rapped over the knuckles by the Office for National Statistics or Office for Budgetary Responsibility, take their punishment and go straight out and lie again. So, in the words of Nicholas Tomalin,talking about politicians in a (real) war: “Never forget that they lie, they lie, they lie.”

Third, this is not about the money. A government that is prepared to spend £1bn on tax breaks for high earners’ nannying costs is not cutting £320m for practical reasons but for ideological ones. They want to shrink government, starting with those most in need. There must be Conservatives who are disgusted by this; they need to start making more noise.

Fourth, and related, this will probably end up costing more – another thing to emerge during the case is this warning: “Users are unlikely to receive the same level of funding after reassessment. This may undermine care packages and may mean that some users, such as those with particularly high care packages, may not be able to live independently in their own homes.” Louise Whitfield said, almost as if accustomed to a certain legal detachment and taken by surprise: “We are very, very worried about our claimants and what will happen to them if they lose their care. But here, you have to focus on the process”. The claimants have announced their decision to appeal.

By Zoe Williams

The Guardian

‘Following a reassessment for the new Personal Independence Payments,’ explained Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, ‘our investigations showed that none of the three mice was in fact blind, although they were assessed as suffering from ‘mild’ sight conditions. As a result they have been reassigned as fit for work and have had their benefits cancelled with immediate effect, and we might even prosecute them for benefits fraud.’

The mice have vowed the fight the decision however, arguing that it was not their intention to deceive anyone by referring to themselves as blind. ‘What were we supposed to do?’ asked one. ‘Two short-sighted mice and one with a slight astigmatism doesn’t sound too catchy does it? It was just a convenient label. And as none of us can really wear glasses or contact lenses it’s jolly hard running away from farmers’ wives trying to cut off our tails.’ The DWP has confirmed that their lack of tails doesn’t affect ability to work either.

The three mice aren’t the only inhabitants of nursery rhymes to have their benefits taken away following the switch in some parts of the country away from Disability Living Allowance. Last week Jack, who tripped whilst fetching a pail of water with his sister Jill, was told he could no longer claim on the grounds of his head injury, as it wasn’t as bad as first thought and he has now been deemed fit for work. Humpty Dumpty has also been reassessed after claiming for many years that he couldn’t be put back together again following his great fall off a wall.

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne argued that the experiences of the blind mice highlighted the flawed nature of the Government’s welfare reforms. ‘It’s not just the disabled who are losing out either,’ he said. ‘Yesterday I was talking to The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe, who has so many children she doesn’t know what to do but has still had her benefits capped at £500 a week. She’s now going to have to send her children to bed having only had broth for tea, not even any bread. Although to be fair, she’s been doing that for a while anyway.’

However, the Daily Mail insisted she deserved to lose all her benefits, having recently run an exposé on her revealing that all her children were to different fathers, most had ASBOs and the she spent most of her benefits on booze, fags, takeaways and wide-screen TVs.

News Biscuit

The group set up by Social Protection Minister Joan Burton said that the disability allowance of €188 per week should not be paid at 16 because it was encouraging early school leaving. It said that increasing the payment age to 18 would save €10.4m per year.

Ms Burton had previously planned to bring this measure in a year ago – but dropped it from her budget due to a storm of protest from disability groups. She is now going to consider it during the preparations for the next budget due in October.

The expert group chaired by civil servant Ita Mangan said disability allowance had historically been paid at the age of 16 since the 1950s – when many people with disabilities left school at the mandatory age of 14 and had very few opportunities to work.

But it said this was no longer justified because there was now strong evidence that payment of disability allowance from 16 could encourage early school-leaving and generate welfare dependency.

“This creates greater poverty risks and higher likelihood of suffering social exclusion,” it said in its report.

It recommended that the parents of teenagers aged 16 and 17 should instead be given domiciliary care allowance – a payment of €309.50 per month for those with severe medical and care needs.

Abolition

But this would result in an upfront financial hit of around €6,000 per year to teenagers – because domiciliary care allowance (DCA) is worth far less than the weekly disability allowance payments.

However, the expert group did not recommend an increase in DCA payments. It said that there were also additional benefits received by many families on DCA, such as the free TV licence and electricity and phone allowance, the carer’s allowance and the respite grant.

Any change made by Ms Burton in the budget will not affect 16- and 17-year-olds currently getting disability allowance. The expert group recommends that the change be introduced in January next for new claimants only.

It also called for the abolition of the “Incapacitated Child” tax credit worth €3,300 per year – which it said was duplicating other social welfare payments.

In a statement Ms Burton said that the Government would be “carefully reflecting” on the findings of the report.

By Michael Brennan Deputy Political Editor

Independent.ie

Up until Monday claimants who could not walk 50 metres were entitled to disability living allowance (DLA). The new social security (personal independence payment) regulations 2013 (PIP) reduce the distance to only 20 metres. As a direct result, an estimated 51,000 fewer people could be eligible for payments.

Other changes to mobility benefits could eventually lead to as many as 428,000 claimants losing their entitlements, according to the government’s own estimate.

The legal challenge is being run by the law firms Leigh Day and Public Law Solicitors who argue that the official consultation process did not mention the new limit would be reduced to only 20 metres.

One of the three claimants cannot be identified because of an anonymity order. The other two are Kim Storr and Steven Sumpter. Storr, who relies on crutches, has rheumatoid arthritis and other severe progressive conditions; her mobility is affected by joint swelling and pain. She currently receives DLA, including the higher rate of the mobility component. She needs an adapted vehicle to enable her to go out independently.

Sumpter suffers from ME which causes him increasing mobility problems. He can walk short distances with a stick, but is otherwise dependent on a wheelchair. He was assessed as eligible for the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA last year, which he has used to lease a Motability car.

Rosa Curling, a solicitor with Leigh Day who is representing two of the disabled clients, said: “We have advised our clients that the consultation undertaken by the secretary of state was unlawful. People were not properly informed that the limit might be reduced to 20 metres and had no opportunity to provide … their views on this proposal.

“Removing this vital benefit to disabled people will have a devastating effect on many people’s lives and their ability to access and be part of our communities. The secretary of state has a legal obligation to consider such impacts before deciding whether to limit access to this benefit.”

Karen Ashton, of the Public Law Solicitors who represents Sumpter, said: “What is at the heart of this legal challenge is fairness. The extra costs of getting out and about for those who have severe mobility problems can be huge.

“The higher rate mobility benefit can make the difference between being able to do everyday things that everyone else takes for granted – such as doing your own shopping and visiting friends and relatives – and only leaving the house for absolutely essential appointments.

“But the government failed to mention the reduction to the 20-metre threshold in their consultations with disabled people and so those who are potentially affected have not had the chance to explain how devastating the consequences will be.”

Defending the new PIP regulations, Duncan Smith said it was “ridiculous” that under the old disability living allowance (DLA) more than two-thirds of recipients were guaranteed payments for life, regardless of whether their condition improved.

He told the Daily Mail: “70% of people on it have lifetime awards which means no one sees you ever again. It doesn’t matter if you get better or your condition worsens – it’s quite ridiculous.

“We’ve seen a rise in the runup to PIP. And you know why? They know PIP has a health check. They want to get in early, get ahead of it. It’s a case of ‘get your claim in early’.” More rigorous new health checks for claimants were “common sense”, he added.

The Guardian

Moves to replace the disability living allowance (DLA) begin, as the pressure mounts on Iain Duncan Smith to live off £53 a week.

A petition calling on Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith to live off £53 a week has been handed in to his office – as major changes to disability benefits are rolled out.

New claimants in parts of northern England will now receive Personal Independence Payments (PIP) in place of the old Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which critics say will leave many worse off.

The new system which includes face-to-face assessments and regular reviews will take at least two years to roll out across the country.

Steven Sumpter from Worcestershire, who suffers from ME and diabetes so finds walking painful, told Sky News he was worried about the future.

Previously, to get disability benefit he had to prove he was unable to walk 50m, but that will be changed to 20m.

He said he fears in the future he will lose half of the money he receives and the subsidised car he relies on.

“It means every single trip to the shops and the doctor will turn into maybe three hours of effort and that will leave me in bed, exhausted and in pain for days afterwards,” he said.

The Government insists DLA was outdated and the changes mean those who really need support will now receive it.

Mr Duncan Smith has described the previous system as “ridiculous”.

“We’ve seen a rise in the run-up to PIP. And you know why? They know PIP has a health check. They want to get in early, get ahead of it. It’s a case of ‘get your claim in early’,” he told the Daily Mail.

He added that rigorous new health checks for claimants were “common sense”.

Some charities have already expressed concerns that it will mean 600,000 people miss out on support.

Chief Executive of Scope, Richard Hawkes, admitted changes were needed but claimed the Government was motivated by cost cutting.

“The Government has already announced how much the Disability Living Allowance budget is going to be reduced, they’ve already announced how many people are going to lose DLA and they’re introducing a test which is going to provide them with the results they want to reduce those costs.

It’’ not right, it’s not fair,” he told Sky News.

PIP will initially be introduced for new claimants in northwest England, Cumbria, Cheshire, northeast England and Merseyside.

Meanwhile, welfare reform campaigners have delivered a petition bearing 450,000 names to the Department of Work and Pensions.

Mr Duncan Smith was challenged to live on £53 a week after a market trader on a radio show said that was all he had to live on despite working 50 to 70 hours a week.

Asked whether he could live on £53 a week, the former army officer, who now earns around £1,600-a-week after tax replied: “If I had to I would.”

The Cabinet minister has since dismissed the campaign as a “complete stunt”.

Musician and part-time shop worker Dominic Aversano, who started the petition on campaigning website Change.org, said: “I don’t think Mr Duncan Smith has a choice about whether to listen to the petition because so many people have signed it.

“I think it has changed the debate around welfare cuts. I was surprised because I didn’t think we would have such a large response. I am delighted.”

As well as the Personal Independence Payments, other reforms, including a below-inflation 1% cap on working-age benefits and tax credit rises for three years, have already come into force.

Around 660,000 social housing tenants deemed to have a spare room will lose an average of £14-a-week in what critics have dubbed a “bedroom tax”.

Trials of a £500-a-week cap on household benefits are also due to begin in four London boroughs.

Chancellor George Osborne insisted on Sunday that the public was behind his changes to the benefits system.

Mr Osborne also said he felt “angry” that too much money was being “spent in the wrong way in our welfare system”.

By Siobhan Robbins, Sky Reporter

Sky News