A/HRC/25/54/Add.2 including in July 2013. The government in Scotland increased the DHP budget awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions to Scottish local authorities for 2013 and 2014, to the maximum amount allowed. These payments are not designed to, and could never compensate for, the amount of money being removed from benefit entitlement. According to Shelter-Scotland, “the purpose of DHPs has fundamentally changed, and this pot of money is now critical to the successful delivery of the Coalition government’s welfare reforms”.62 49. Social landlords and residents in numerous meetings informed the Special Rapporteur that the increase in rent arrears was a key concern raised prior to this reform entering into force. Indeed, some reports already show that rent arrears have risen since April 2013, as people fight to stay in the house they have lived in throughout their lives. 63 In the face of hard choices, between food, heating or paying the rent, many testimonies to the Special Rapporteur placed a strong value on staying in and saving a home. Some mothers in their 50s talked about their homes as the place they had raised their children and lived their lives. Many felt targeted and forced to give up their neighbourhoods, their carers and their safety net. While in principle the policy does not force people to move, the reality of people’s experience, many of whom are working people with no income to spare, left no doubt in the Special Rapporteur’s mind that many have no other option, which has left them in tremendous despair. 50. According to one assessment, three of the original four key assumptions of the Department for Work and Pensions should be re-examined in light of real data available from housing organizations since 1 April 2013, especially the assumption that the policy would reduce the housing benefit expenditure.64 While the Department’s model predicted savings of 480 million pounds in 2013/14, based on real data and taking into account regional variations in impact, the total savings are reduced by 33 per cent — amounting to 160 million less. In addition, the report argues, the Department’s model does not contain key factors likely to influence the level of savings from the policy, while also not taking into account the additional costs incurred under the policy by local authorities and thirdsector organizations, which were not included in the Government’s assessments.65 In a similar vein, a recent analysis concluded that the factors keeping people in their homes, even if rent arrears build up, far outweigh the impact of the policy. It also noted that at least one third of one-bedroom properties in the social sector are needed to house the homeless and cannot be made available for those individuals who are facing benefit cuts.66 51. The nature of this reform and its impact on the human rights of individuals and families has been and continues to be a matter of judicial review. The first reported successful challenge on human rights grounds involved a couple in Glasgow. They suffered a 14 per cent cut to their housing benefit for living in a two-bedroom home. The woman, who has multiple sclerosis, won her appeal against the Glasgow City Council’s decision to 62 63 64 65 66 Shelter-Scotland, “Allocating Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) in Scotland” (2013), p. 2. See the NHF statement on the six-month anniversary of the bedroom tax, 30 September 2013. See also Suzanne Fitzpatrick et al., The Homelessness Monitor: England 2013 (Crisis, 2013). Rebecca Tunstall, “Testing DWP’s assessment of the impact of the social rented sector size criterion on housing benefit costs and other factors” (Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, 2013), p. 3. The Government noted that it recognizes that there could be circumstances where the policy generates smaller or greater savings, due inevitably to some uncertainty about how claimants and social landlords will react to this change. Hence, the Government has informed the Special Rapporteur that it has commissioned an assessment by an independent consortium, to monitor the effects of this measure over two years, with initial findings available in 2014 and a final report published in late 2015. Scotland, Welfare Reform Committee, “The ‘bedroom tax’”, paras. 51 and 84. 13