I listened to the interviews with the charity involved on Radio 4 this morning - a single parent mother who'd ended up hospital through malnutrition due to spending all her money on rent/bills/food for her kid. Her benefits didn't cover any more than that. When she asked for more, the option they gave her was fostering her child instead. She didn't have malnutrition through poor diet, she had it due to not eating most days, only eating her daughter's left overs, of which usually, there was none. She said "I drank plenty of water".
Thanks to the assistance of a charity, she's now training to be a nurse and has a job and isn't suffering symptoms of starvation more akin to things seen TV during foreign disaster relief appeals. Why does it need a charity to do this?
The same charity involved somewhere in London are feeding over 100 school children daily due to their parents, for whatever reason hardly feeding them at all, never mind correctly. There's a 5 year old that turns up every morning on their own instead of going to school.
There's hundreds of thousands of children that are eligible for free school dinners that aren't being given them.
The benefits system has very little to do with this, although the current attitudes and arbitrary cuts aren't helping. Everything to do with social services or lack of. We're regressing back to Victorian times.
The adjacent item on Radio 4 was about The Shard and £50m penthouse apartments.

And an interview with a solicitor wailing on behalf of people who own second houses in France and their French tax rises (which brings their tax burden inline with French domiciles).