This fact-check was written by Emma Monk and first published on her Substack, Monk Debunks. It is republished here with attribution.

Why just claiming benefits doesn't exempt you - and why the headlines saying otherwise could land people with fines.

I wonder how many people claiming benefits will read these headlines and think they are allowed to ignore any hosepipe ban in their area?

(Headlines from LBC, GBNews, Telegraph)

Because the headlines are pretty clear in their messaging - if you're claiming benefits, you can ignore the hosepipe ban.

But that is NOT the case for the vast majority of claimants.

Will the media accept any responsibility if and when people on benefits ignore the ban in good faith and subsequently face fines from the water companies?

Hosepipe Ban

Large parts of Central and South Eastern England are currently experiencing a hosepipe ban, following several heatwaves and water shortages in those areas.

This means that you cannot use a hosepipe for things like washing your car, watering the garden, washing windows or patios or filling paddling pools. There are no limits on using your tap, including an outside one - you just need to use a bucket or watering can to transport the water, rather than a hosepipe.

There are some general exemptions to the ban (please check your own water company, as I haven't checked whether they apply across all companies):

• Newly planted lawn seed or turf (for the first 28 days)
• Newly planted trees, if you can't get there with a bucket
• Washing or providing water for pets
• Maintaining fish pond water and oxygen levels
• For essential building work, such as mixing cement

Exempt Groups

As well as these general exemptions, there are also four groups of people who are exempt from the hosepipe bans. Most exempt people will probably fall in more than one of these categories.

• Blue Badge Holders
• Those on the Priority Services Register
• WaterSure Tariff Customers
• The elderly or those who can't reasonably use a watering can (they need to apply for the exemption)

Again, please check with your own water company for the details.

It is the third group that the press are suddenly up in arms about, which is strange, as this is nothing new.

WaterSure tariff

The WaterSure scheme is designed to help those on low income, who also have an unusually high need for water, by capping their bills to the same level as an average household.

There are 3 criteria for being on a WaterSure tariff:

1. You have a water meter (or equivalent) fitted or are waiting for a fitting.
2. You are on certain means-tested benefits such as universal credit, pension credit, or income support.

AND

You have a high essential use for water due to medical conditions that require higher-than-normal water use:

• desquamation (flaky skin disease)
• weeping skin disease (eczema, psoriasis or varicose ulceration)
• incontinence
• abdominal stomas
• renal failure requiring dialysis at home - although you won't qualify for WaterSure if you're already getting a contribution to your water costs from the NHS
• Crohn's disease
• ulcerative colitis

Or three or more children under 19 in full-time education or training living at home.

And while the WaterSure tariff was brought in to help those on low incomes with unusually high water bills by capping their costs, the water companies have decided to classify them as vulnerable customers alongside Blue Badge holders and those on the Priority Services Register, rather than undertake a costly admin exercise of trying to assess each individual customer's hosepipe needs.

A Southern Water spokesman explained:

The WaterSure tariff supports customers who have higher essential water use for a variety of reasons, from large families to disability to mobility issues. Some qualify for multiple reasons. Rather than introduce a complex process that could create confusion and anxiety among the more vulnerable, we've communicated to everyone on this tariff in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that the current hosepipe restrictions do not apply to them. Our messaging makes clear that we still expect these customers to use water wisely, and we have offered advice on how they can reduce their water usage without affecting their essential needs.

In order to qualify for the WaterSure tariff, you have to prove and provide evidence as to why you have higher water needs.

And as Citizens Advice explains, you can't apply for WaterSure if the high use of water in your household is because of things like watering a garden using something other than a watering can (for example, a hose or sprinkler), or refilling a pond or swimming pool with a capacity of more than 10,000 litres.

Despite the Daily Mail's "Thousands of benefit claimants can dodge hosepipe bans as Labour is accused of 'punishing hard work'" headline, WaterSure was actually brought in in 1999.

I don't remember the cries of 'two-tier' hosepipe bans at any other time during the last 27 years, do you?

How many people are on the tariff?

There are currently 220,000 households in England and Wales on this tariff, out of ~25 million total households.

There are 10-12 million people (4-5 million households) on the types of benefits that would tick the 'benefits eligibility' box for WaterSure in the UK, and yet only 220,000 households claim it.

Because being 'on benefits' was never enough to qualify for the hosepipe ban exemption...

Right-wing response

So with all that in mind, let's take a look at some of the absurd comments in the press.

The Telegraph quoted former Conservative, now Reform MP, Suella Braverman:

How ridiculous has this country become when you have to be on benefits to use water?

Obviously, you don't "have to be on benefits" to use water! Everyone can still use all the water they like - but with a bucket instead of a hose outside. In fact, Cambridge Water even point out that you can still use paddling pools as long as they are filled using buckets or watering cans.

Braverman went on to say:

It's absurd and another act of lunacy in Labour's two-tier Britain, where aspiration and hard work are punished. Many people will rightly ask what is the point of working when you can get so many benefits for free.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with Labour and has been the case for all the years she was in power.

Secondly, hosepipe bans really aren't a punishment for "aspiration and hard work"!

Chairman of the Conservative Party, Kevin Hollinrake MP, said in the Telegraph:

Of course, those with disabilities or a genuine need should be able to use a hosepipe. But the fact that people claiming welfare are also exempt, while full bill-payers face the restrictions, will come as a kick in the hosepipe.

Like the headlines, he is suggesting that "people claiming welfare" are exempt in general, which they are not.

Fewer than 1% of households in the country are on this tariff. More than 90% of those on benefits are NOT eligible for the exemption.

The narrative suggesting that people will choose to have a low income AND have a medical condition such as Crohn's Disease or incontinence, all for the 'benefit' of being able to use a hosepipe to water their garden, is such utter nonsense.

Damaging headlines

If you're a regular reader of my Substack, you'll be used to these kinds of headlines seemingly designed to create division and bad feelings towards people on benefits.

You may well be getting good at spotting this headline trick of picking something available to a very specific subset of benefit claimants (almost always those with specific disabilities) and portraying it as something available to everyone on benefits.

But in this case, these headlines are far more damaging than that.

They are literally telling people on benefits that they can flout the hosepipe ban when the vast majority of them are not exempt.

I suspect it wasn't their intention when writing these headlines, as I have no doubt they were just reaching for their anti-benefits narrative, but in this case, they will have inadvertently misled potentially thousands of people into thinking they could use a hosepipe when they can't.

Misleading headlines designed to push a divisive narrative are bad enough.

But headlines that risk vulnerable people doing something they're not allowed to do are deeply irresponsible.

Originally published by Emma Monk on Monk Debunks. Republished by Hacked Off with attribution.