There’s a warning that “a tsunami of poverty” will hit rural communities if more help isn’t provided to the 14% of British households living without access to mains gas.

Many homes in the countryside which rely on oil, bottled gas, coal and wood to heat and cook are facing rapidly rising bills, made worse due to the volatility caused by the war in Ukraine.

Those alternative fuel sources are not covered by Ofgem’s increased price gap coming into force next month and are often far more expensive than mains supply.

SNP MP Drew Hendry has tabled the Energy Pricing (Off Gas Grid Households) Private Members Bill in parliament to try to provide extra help and protection for households which are off-grid.

He told the Commons last month that those households are forced to pay about four times more for their energy bills than the average home.

The problem mainly affects rural parts of the UK, where mains gas pipes do not reach.

In Cornwall, 47% of homes are off the gas grid.

The chairman of Britain’s biggest supermarket chain has warned that “the worst is yet to come” on food price inflation, as he predicted it will soon hit 5%.

John Allan, who has chaired Tesco since 2015, told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme that he was well aware people on very tight budgets were having to choose between food and heating. He said the idea that this was happening was very troubling.

Overall inflation currently stands at 5.4%, a 30-year high, and is predicted to top 6% in the spring, just one element of the cost of living crisis facing UK households. Poverty groups have warned about the impending threat to those on the lowest incomes.

“In some ways the worst is still to come – because although food price inflation in Tesco last quarter was only 1%, we are impacted by rising energy prices. Our suppliers are impacted by rising energy prices. We’re doing all we can to offset it … but that’s the sort of number we’re talking about. Of course, 5%,” he said.

Allan admitted some people would “of course” have less to spend on luxuries, as the price hikes coincide with a rise in national insurance contributions and the £693 increase in the average family’s annual energy bill, to £1,971, both of which come into effect in April.

The greater exposure of British households, revealed in an analysis by the Resolution Foundation thinktank to be published in full this week, comes despite similar levels of average income with our European neighbours.

The typical working-age income level in the UK is £29,437 and £29,350 in France. However, the poorest fifth of working-age households in the UK are 20% poorer than their French counterparts, while the richest fifth are 17% richer in Britain.

The structure of Britain’s economy and income inequality is seen by some as a reason for the heavy toll the pandemic had wrought on the UK. Some public health officials continue to warn that incidences of the virus remain higher in areas with many people in low-paid work and where they cannot work from home. There have been warnings that it could become a “disease of the poor” in some areas.

High employment levels in the UK helped household finances in the run-up to the pandemic last year, with a 75% employment rate – broadly similar to that in Germany and far higher than the 66% record in France. However, the typical hourly rate paid in the UK (£11.20) was much lower than in Germany (£12.33) and France (£13.89). It was partly driven by low self-employed earnings, raising further concerns about the extent of the gig economy in Britain.

Levels of UK welfare support were found to be poor in comparison with other large European nations, underlining the importance of protecting jobs through the government’s emergency furlough scheme rolled out last year. For example, a single adult who had been out of work for two months, having previously earned two-thirds of the average wage, would see their benefit income total just 17% of their previous earnings. The same person would see a benefit replacement rate of 59% in Germany and 64% in France. The gap is closed when housing-related benefits are included, with the UK’s benefit replacement rate rising to 46%, compared with 59% in Germany and 68% in France.

In idyllic rural England this summer, as holidaymakers headed to the North Devon coast, the community in Great Torrington was banding together to stop children going hungry.

From free breakfast clubs to food hubs, the historic small town – once at the centre of the English civil war – was determined no child would miss meals during the summer holidays.

“Last month, the foodbank saw one of the busiest Saturdays in years,” says Siobhan Strode, a local teacher, town councillor and Unite Community chair for Devon.

Meanwhile, a food hub at the Castle Hill Centre – where out-of-date grub collected by Fareshare was left in a larder for hungry families – was in constant use.

“Although we don’t count how many families use the food hub, we know it’s well used,” Siobhan, 34, says. “Every loaf of bread we put out is taken by the end of the day.”

This summer, in schools and foodbanks and holiday clubs across Britain, an army of heroes have been keeping children from hunger.

Against a rising tide of poverty, charities and volunteers are expected to have fed around one million kids over the last six weeks, when there have been no free school meals and parents struggle with childcare costs.

As the nation heads back to work next week, it’s clear the damage done to kids by summer hardship is not just to their health.

A recent study by Cardiff University of 103,971 children showed those from poorer backgrounds were more likely to report loneliness as well as hunger during the summer holidays, and were less likely to spend time with friends or engage in physical activities.

Yet this summer, the Department for Education opted only to support holiday hunger projects in 11 “pilot areas”. This meant 81 organisations that bid for Department for Education help, from Birkenhead to Bristol to Barnsley, saw their funding bids rejected.

A landmark report on the state of ageing in Britain has warned that a significant proportion of people are at risk of spending later life in poverty, ill-health and hardship.

Britain is undergoing a radical demographic shift, with the number of people aged 65 and over set to grow by more than 40% in two decades, reaching more than 17 million by 2036. The number of households where the oldest person is 85 or over is increasing faster than any other age group.

But although we are living longer than ever before, the report warns that millions risk missing out on a good later life due to increasing pressure on health and care services, local authorities, the voluntary sector and government finances.

“Ageing is inevitable but how we age is not. Our current rates of chronic illness, mental health conditions, disability and frailty could be greatly reduced if we tackled the structural, economic and social drivers of poor health earlier,” said Dr Anna Dixon, the chief executive at Centre for Ageing Better.

“Our extra years of life are a gift that we should all be able to enjoy and yet – as this report shows – increasing numbers of us are at risk of missing out,” she added.

The Centre for Ageing Better’s report, The State of Ageing in 2019, warns that today’s least well-off over-50s face far greater challenges than wealthier peers and are likely to die younger, become sicker earlier and fall out of work due to ill-health.

The government has revealed that 60,000 of the least well-off pensioners with partners of working age are set to lose thousands of pounds a year as a result of benefit changes designed to save £1bn over the next five years.

A rule change coming into force on 15 May means that pensioners who have partners under the state retirement age of 65 will no longer be able to claim for pension credit, a means-tested top-up for older people on very low incomes.

The change means pensioners claiming after that date must sign up to the much less generous universal credit, a move which will leave the couple potentially £7,000 a year worse off.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, called the move an “ill thought-out decision” that would potentially devastate the incomes of poorer older people.

Analysts say the scale of the losses faced by couples could put pressure on relationships, and may persuade them that they cannot afford to marry or move in together. Some may consider splitting up to try to avoid the loss.

The change, which was slipped out in January on the evening of a Brexit vote, was condemned by charities as a stealth cut which would drive up pensioner poverty, although at the time there were no details of how many people would be affected.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) revealed in an analysis published on Thursday that the rule change will affect 15,000 couples this year, rising to 60,000 in 2023-24. Estimated savings will be £45m this year, rising to £385m by 2023-24, amounting to cumulative savings of £1.1bn.

The BBC’s plan to abolish the free TV licence for over-75s could push more than 50,000 UK pensioners below the poverty line, a charity has warned.

Currently, households with people over 75 are entitled to a free TV licence. However, the BBC is looking to reform the subsidy after projections showed the free licence scheme could cost the corporation £745m by 2022.

In November the corporation announced it would no longer provide the funding to sustain the scheme and would be holding public consultations about introducing “means-based testing” for the elderly instead.

Age UK now wants the government to take back responsibility for funding free TV licences, saying the scheme helps millions sustain their quality of life into late old age.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK, said: “Scrapping the free TV licence would be a real blow for many older people who already have many other challenges to contend with.

“Millions of older people, particularly those who are lonely or housebound with disabilities, rely on their TV as their trusted companion and window on the world, and it would be cruel indeed to undermine this in any way.”

More than a million vulnerable people on low incomes are being driven deeper into poverty after being shunted into the private rental sector due to an acute shortage of social accommodation.

A report commissioned by the Nationwide Foundation, an independent charity, says that the shortfall in social housing has been met by a doubling in size of the private rented sector in the past 25 years.

But this has forced more households, many on benefits with dependent children or a disabled family member, to pay significantly more for unsuitable housing.

The shake-up of the benefits system – which has led to sanctions being imposed on people claiming universal credit who fail to attend meetings with job advisers or decline to participate in employment schemes – has had a dramatic effect on the attitudes of private landlords.

“Because of sanctions you’re more likely to fall into arrears and to be asked to leave because you are in arrears,” said the author of the report, Dr Julie Rugg, of the University of York’s centre for housing policy. She has spent 20 years studying the benefits system and its relationship with the housing sector.

“The welfare system change has created vulnerability,” Rugg said. “It didn’t used to be the case 10 years ago but it is now. People know the benefits system is tightening up but they might not realise that if you’re at the bottom end and receiving benefits then your situation can be pretty precarious indeed.”

Rugg’s report found that more than a third (38%) of the private rented sector now comprises low-income households who are classed as vulnerable.

The study, which examines users of food banks run by churches and charities, singles out avoidable problems in the benefits system, including administrative mix-ups and delays in processing payments as one of the main causes for people requiring emergency aid.

The research, called ‘emergency use only’, was jointly conducted by Oxfam, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) , the Church of England and the Trussell Trust,  also examines how food bank use fits in with wider coping strategies and what might be done to reduce the need that leads to food bank use.

Bishop Christopher, who chaired the report launch in the House of Commons,  described the recommendations in the study as “sensible and practical”.”Food banks are a remarkable testament to the response to a very real need by voluntary endeavour, particularly from networks of local churches and effective organisation, not least the Trussell Trust, as well as many independent food banks,” he said.”But we are compelled to look at why there is a need for them in an affluent nation such as the United Kingdom and to look at sensible practical ways of reducing the need for access to them through strengthening resolve for action and partnerships.”

The richest 20% of the population in Britain will have, on average, the spare sum of £18,680 to put into their savings this year, while the poorest 20% will spend £1,910 more than they earn, latest figures suggest.

In research published this Thursday, the Post Office said saving was still being driven by the wealthiest people while lower earners were suffering a debt crisis. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which undertook the analysis, this trend has been happening for the past 12 years.

The poorest 40% of the population have spent more than they have earned over this period, in contrast to the top 40% of earners who had money to save every year.

Even during the financial crisis of 2007-2008 those in the highest income brackets had enough disposable income to increase the amount they saved annually. By contrast, the rise of payday lenders in Britain’s “Wonga economy” symbolised the squeeze on living standards faced by ordinary families, the report says.

Henk Van Hulle, head of savings and investments at the Post Office, said: “These figures are incredibly worrying. While the UK’s highest earners continue to account for the majority of savings, the poorest in our society are actually spending more than they earn.”

Despite the economy’s “green shoots” the poorest 20% would continue to spend more than they earned, though the researchers forecast that the figure would fall to £1,053 by 2018, based on average incomes and spending patterns.