Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Families Face Eviction As Ministers Tackle £17 Billion Rental Bill


Recommended Posts

There is a massive problem with overcrowding in London and it is not getting any better..it is not healthy and it is not nice.

Sort-of. But it's as things have always been.

Messrs Holmes and Watson were professional gentlemen, yet were thrust upon each other in far worse conditions than today. And that was seen as normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

stop families on benefit living in palatial homes at the taxpayers’ expense

In God' Good Name, WHY are families on benefit living in palatial homes when WORKING families cannot unless EXTREMELY wealthy???? mad.gif

local councils have been forced to pay private rents for families in five-bedroom mansions

In God' Good Name, WHY are local councils forced to pay private rents for families on benefits to live in 5 bed mansions when WORKING families cannot unless EXTREMELY wealty????mad.gif

Thousands of households are receiving payments of £500 a week or £26,000 a year to live in homes beyond the reach of most working families.

In God' Good Name, WHY are thousans of households receiving payments to live in homes BEYOND THE REACH OF MOST WORKING FAMMILIES????mad.gif

James Purnell, the former Work and Pensions Secretary, put a another sticking plaster on the problem in October 2008 when he put a 5-bed limit on housing benefit claims. The aim was to stop bigger families with six or seven children living in stucco mansions. That failed too.

In God' Good Name, WHY is there a 5-bed limit? Why not 3-bed? Do WORKING families who have 6 children AUTOMATICALLY GET A 5-BED or even a 3-BED HOUSE????mad.gif

I think not!

Which freaks made this policy whereby someone on benefits who has a certain number of children AUTOMATICALLY gets a huge house, when WORKING families do NOT automatically get the same huge house if they have the same number of children? WHO MADE THIS POLICY? I WANT TO KNOW!! mad.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicester.

You seem not to be able to see the wood for the trees. One of us is clearly having problems.

High house prices are the basic problem, Yes, we can agree on that.

and this situation has been deliberately created by successive governments We can agree here too. And one of the main reasons houses are too expensive to most people in the private sector is that private sector workers are taxed, so that the 'needy' can be given free housing. That reduces the supply of housing available in the private sector, which pushes up prices does it not? Those working are also left with less disposable income, because of the higher taxes, making that housing even more unaffordable..

Overcome this and everything will fall into place. - Yes, stop taking taxes away from those working and using that money to buy housing for those that are not, and indeed everything will fall into place.

Indeed council housing is the best option at this time Yes it is, given the subsidies available. Free is always the best option. But this IS the problem, it is free to the 'needy' but is paid for by those working who are therefore not deemend 'needy'. As council housing is the best option, many will try and game the system to become 'needy', placing an even bigger bill on the working taxpayer, and at the same time reducing the supply of housing available to the working taxpayer.

though if houses were as 'cheap' as in many European countries I'd prefer to buy.Many European countries dont give out free housing to the needy like we do, which makes it cheaper for everyone.

I just wonder what you propose doing with the 2 million remaining council houses? Sell them to the highest bidder.

Selling them off (RTB) was the biggest fraud of all wasn't it? It wasnt fraud, but it was scandalous. They were sold off cheap to those lucky enough to be living in them. Those who could afford to buy them, clearly had no real need to have a council house subsidy in the first place!

Maybe the Tories will increase discounts again....can't wait! Once again we agree, if they do something like this it will make things worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the flaws of LHA are raising itself.

LHA for a start has to a big of a catchment area, so as someone else has said it can lead to high rents for grotty properties because it also covers better areas. But at the same time it should also mean it underpays for the better areas.

For example me a current housing benefit claimant if I moved on to LHA I would get less benefit as the LHA rate in my area is not enough to pay my rent (395 a month).

This shows how some areas have got out of control, my area the LHA rate is just £80 a week for a 1bed property (55 a week for a bedsit/room) and £95 a week for a 2 bed property. Yet some areas are getting huge amounts.

As for landlords fighting over benefit claimants, it may be the case in london but it isnt in the east midands and east anglia, I wanted to move nearer to my parents and out of my city but all vacant property EA's wouldnt deal with me as I don't work. In my local paper my landlord is the only one out of the entire section who doesn't specifically put no DSS.

Finally, yes the tories are the prime cause of this mess, very short termist policy of buying votes by allowing people to buy houses on the cheap for their own personal profit (like they want to do now with bank shares, promoting personal greed again back to old ways) which has led to these social problems we have today in a lack of cheap social housing. Labour could have halted the right to buy tho but didn't so they are not blameless either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort-of. But it's as things have always been.

Messrs Holmes and Watson were professional gentlemen, yet were thrust upon each other in far worse conditions than today. And that was seen as normal.

And Holmes was a cocaine addict and what's worse... played the violin. :D

Edited by wren
Link to post
Share on other sites

First up, this situation where councils are paying LHA on mansions to house social tenants, who are often not British born citizens, is infuriating people to the point of distraction. In my view, from what I hear and see, this is one of the primary things that will affect working class socially-housed votes for Labour.

Second, a lot of this social housing issue, to my mind, is because of large increases in non-working population, and, indeed, increases in population itself.

Third, right to buy was not a sell-off of "the family silver", or a wish to "create a property-owning democracy" (though it was sold that way) but, when you read between the lines, a way to a) reduce annual liabilities for local councils, B) control and shrink local government spend, and c) claw back some money to deal with the deficits local governments had incurred during the 70s.

People forget that social housing means that local councils are acting as huge landlords (regardless of whether they contract the function out to HAs). It's not just the rent issue (ie. whether or not tenants actually pay the rent themselves or the council pays itself through LHA) but the sheer cost of the maintenance on so many properties -- the boilers, the heating, the kitchens, the bathrooms, the gardens, the decorating, the utilities, the floor coverings.

What this has done is bred a culture where many tenants who have lived in social housing their entire lives actually never take any responsibility for their even small aspects of their accommodation. You could see this most clearly on Tower Block of Commons, where a tiny paint job in a living room is left for "the council" to sort out -- which they never will get round to because pest infestations, smashed baths etc take priority, and often the council only gets round to sorting it out when new tenants move in -- which is even more problematic as old tenants on an estate who have been waiting for a new bathroom for 15 years watch in disbelief as a family moves into a social house across the road and gets all new stuff (this is what has driven a lot of this "asylum seekers get more than us" line, as many of these new families are Non-British Nationals).

The fact is that there is rapidly coming a point where working couples who can not afford private rents without a lot of financial pain or afford to buy a house are funding swathes of housing and maintenance costs for large sectors of the non-working population in a system that they can never hope to benefit from themselves, despite their won low incomes. This is turning a lot of them towards Thatcherite thinking, when, conventionally, they probably would have been on the left.

The solution to all this is very low cost housing across the board. For everyone. To either rent privately, or purchase.

What I find fascinating is when I talk to my grandmother about her family's housing back in the 20s and 30s, before the big boom in social housing postwar. My grandmother was from a working class family in a Northern mill town, and everyone back then rented in a 'private' capacity -- her family from the coal board.

But here's the thing. A month's rent on their stone-built three bed terrace house was the equivalent to a week's worth of her wages ... wait for it .... as a fifteen year old packing soap in a local factory. At fifteen, my grandmother could work for one week and pay a month's rent on a three bed stone-built family terraced cottage.

The argument for the big social housing change was all the "homes for heroes", "slum clearance", "indoor toilets" line, and I have no doubt that was applicable in many inner city areas. But the thing was that in my area, there were back-handers from developers back in the 50s and 60s to designate solid stone built terraces as "slums" and to knock them down and rehouse people in little more than pebble-dashed prefabs on estates on the outskirts of towns and villages. The old "slum" houses that got away - and some did - are still standing, and, at last look, one of them was selling as a character property for over £300K (because so many of them were located in prime areas). All most of them needed was central heating and an indoor bathroom.

To me, where I am, the whole social housing post war phenomenon functioned as little more than a con trick for councilors and developers to make lots of money out of prime land, move people around to their benefit, and render loads of working class people dependent on council largesse for their accommodation and the maintenance of it.

One specific example is that my paternal grandparents were offered a shiny new council house on the outskirts of their town back in the 70s, and they took it. It was little more than a pebble-dashed prefab with some foundational brickwork, and meant my grandmother had to use public transport to get to any shops, rather than just walk down the road as she had once done, and it ripped them out of their old community -- but it had a garden and a new bathroom and was a bit larger, and besides their old 'two-up, two down' house was "a slum."

But they never actually knocked their old "slum" house down and I saw it recently in an estate agents window.

That old two bed "slum" was up for over £170K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, yes the tories are the prime cause of this mess, very short termist policy of buying votes by allowing people to buy houses on the cheap for their own personal profit (like they want to do now with bank shares, promoting personal greed again back to old ways) which has led to these social problems we have today in a lack of cheap social housing. Labour could have halted the right to buy tho but didn't so they are not blameless either.

Right to Buy wasn't actually a new Tory policy. It had already existed under previous Labour administrations in the 70s.

The thing was that the Tories promoted the RTB policy, so it came to be seen as a Thatcherite thing. But they didn't create it. it already existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicester..

You said 'stop taking money from those working and using it to buy houses for those who aren't'. Does this really happen?

Surely you are complaining about something that isn't happening? (obviously there maybe the odd case but nothing on any scale)

Please look at the figures (which you dissmissed as irrelevant) on what happens to my rent. Please point out where the subsidy is. Indeed, there is a historic debt attached to council housing of 18 billion but to pay this debt will cost much less than the 50% of rents which go to central government at present.Hopefully John Healey will start this before the GE.(Btw, 75% of the money from RTB goes to Central government)

You use the word subsidy very freely (as does the Daily Mail) but have no evidence to support these claims.(related to council housing) I've had these discussions before on here and finally the word subsidy has various implied meanings....maybe 'appears to be' a subsidy etc.

Yep, one of us doesn't live in the real world! We can agree on that too...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicester..

You said 'stop taking money from those working and using it to buy houses for those who aren't'. Does this really happen? Yes it does. Housing benefit is paid for out of taxation. They dont get the money from the fairies.

Surely you are complaining about something that isn't happening? (obviously there maybe the odd case but nothing on any scale) £14billion a year is definitely happening, a sum which will get bigger without action.

Please look at the figures (which you dissmissed as irrelevant) on what happens to my rent. Please point out where the subsidy is. Economics is about the rationoning of scarce goods and services. The market rations these things by selling them to the highest bidder, other things being equal. So it is with housing, you will get to rent a room or buy a house if your bid is highest and first. But state provided goods and services dont follow this simple rule. You cant just go and rent a council house, you need to be allocated one by your local authority. The reason it is done this way is that if they offered it to the highest bidder, the needy would be priced out. So they ration housing by using other criteria to decide who gets any particular property. The rent charged on that property is below what the market would charge, otherwise there would be no need to apply the criteria to find out who the most needy is. The difference between what the council charges the new renter, and what the market would charge, is your subsidy. Again, that is paid for by the taxpayer, not the fairies.

Indeed, there is a historic debt attached to council housing of 18 billion but to pay this debt will cost much less than the 50% of rents which go to central government at present.Hopefully John Healey will start this before the GE.(Btw, 75% of the money from RTB goes to Central government) I am sure you are right about this.

You use the word subsidy very freely - you have to when it comes to housing for the needy, as the subsidies are very large indeed -(as does the Daily Mail) but have no evidence to support these claims.(related to council housing) - Please read the above. The subsidy on council housing is the difference between the market and the council charged price. - I've had these discussions before on here and finally the word subsidy has various implied meanings....maybe 'appears to be' a subsidy etc. - I think my definition of subsidy with regard to council housing is pretty clear, to say nothing of selling off council homes on the cheap.

Yep, one of us doesn't live in the real world! We can agree on that too... - But we are closer now than when we started I'm sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with council houses, is that they are a huge one off benefit to people.

Hard as i try, I can't see a problem with people ending up with a benefit

Once you get one, you cant be evicted if you fall upon good times.

And this is very bad - because we want at least some people wandering about with no place to go to the toilet - this is the uk afterall

They are yours for life. It was for this reason that Thatcher sold as many off as she could. Housing benefit was needed to help plug the gap, and it has fallen prey to systemic fraud.

The problem at root isn't council housing or even the housing benefits paid by government; it is the monopolistic nature of the real estate market which makes essential commodities that should be easily affordable, unobtainable. Council housing and housing benefit was introduced to try to deal with some of the the perverse and destructive effects of the real estate market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard as i try, I can't see a problem with people ending up with a benefit The problem is that someone else has to pay for this benefit. Where did you think that the money came from?

And this is very bad - because we want at least some people wandering about with no place to go to the toilet - this is the uk afterall Ho Ho.

The problem at root isn't council housing or even the housing benefits paid by government; - This is certainly one of the major contributors to overpriced housing, perverse incentives, high taxation and systemic fraud- it is the monopolistic nature of the real estate market which makes essential commodities that should be easily affordable, unobtainable. The market isnt a monopoly, but land restrictions certainly make it very tight. That and rising population, and a tendency over time for more households to be created for a given population. All of this affects supply and demand as you have said. Council housing and housing benefit was introduced to try to deal with some of the the perverse and destructive effects of the real estate market. I have to take your word for it that these were the reasons. The legacy has to have been to create greater perverse incentives and larger destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that someone else has to pay for this benefit. Where did you think that the money came from?

From the same magic fairy that provides homeowners with an unearned increment in their asset’s value when the economy grows around them; coercion

This is certainly one of the major contributors to overpriced housing, perverse incentives, high taxation and systemic fraud-

It’s politically and practically inevitable, given the way we have arranged real estate property. Unless you are prepared to have thousands (perhaps millions) of people wandering about homeless and dying of exposure or you are prepared to reform real estate, some provision has to be made for the victims of the real estate market

The market isnt a monopoly, but land restrictions certainly make it very tight.

Every piece of land is functionally irreplaceable and its ownership forms a monopoly – it is the only piece of land that legally can be > there <. The owners of all land strictly form a cartel, but each one also holds a monopoly. It is this monopoly power that makes the real estate market behave so ‘oddly’.

I have to take your word for it that these were the reasons. The legacy has to have been to create greater perverse incentives and larger destruction.

Not really – the perverse incentives are already imbedded in the real estate market and have been there all along, government ends up chasing its tail because it refuses to deal with the nub of the problem . The problem simply hasn’t been addressed (ever). Building council houses and handing out housing benefits are understandable policy mistakes when you examine the likely outcome of simply and only removing them – you can’t remove these things without drastically reforming real estate – it is impractical

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicester....

'the subsidy on council housing is the difference between the market and the and the council rent charged'.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, when council housing in discussed and the onion is pealed we alway get down to the point that however rigged the market is, this is the bench mark. So rents lower than the market rent must be subsidised. The actual subsidy is somekind of ghostly subsidy seen only by true believers, said to originate with taxpayers but after that it lurks in places unknown. The subsidy for my council house of around 400 per month is where at this time?

The way we are going in this country we'll have to pay to breathe.....or escape to countries where air is 'subsidised'.

Has it occured to you that we've all been conned and that the bench marks are those of bankers? Debt slavery is normal now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to Buy wasn't actually a new Tory policy. It had already existed under previous Labour administrations in the 70s.

The thing was that the Tories promoted the RTB policy, so it came to be seen as a Thatcherite thing. But they didn't create it. it already existed.

interesting, is first I heard of this. So the tories made no ammendmants etc. they simply made people aware of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is the UK has now lost control of who it can pay benefits to. So to say the Government will 'slash' the £17bn is wishful thinking.

Final proof that the European Union has destroyed British sovereignty has come with the ruling by the European Court of Justice that a blatant benefits scrounger from Somalia must be allowed to stay in Britain — simply because she draws benefits here. The woman, named as Nimco Hassan Ibrahim in news reports, tried to claim housing assistance after she and her husband, named as a “Mr Yusuf” failed to qualify for right of residence in Britain.

As Mr Yusuf had somehow earlier contrived to obtain Danish nationality, he counted as a “migrant worker from another EU country” which immediately gave him right of residence. His wife there also qualified for residence in the UK, along with their four children who also have Danish nationality.

After working in Britain for a whole five months, Mr Yusuf claimed incapacity benefit after claiming he was unable to work. He was however declared fit for work in March 2004, whereupon he immediately left Britain.

Mr Yusuf’s departure meant that his wife and children no longer qualified for the conditions of lawful residence. This did not stop her from simply claiming benefits from the state courtesy of the British taxpayer for everything — housing, food, clothing, healthcare and so on.

The blatancy of the swindle was too much even for the rotten three-party-but-one-policy-controlled Harrow council, which rejected her claim on the obvious grounds that only people with a right of residence under EU law could apply for benefits.

Ms Ibrahim appealed the decision, claiming that as her children’s “primary carer” she should be allowed to stay on in Britain and qualify for state handouts.

The case was finally heard in the European Court of Justice today — which ordered Britain’s Appeal Court to find in Ms Ibrahim’s favour.

Note the directness of the decision: the highest British court was ordered to rule in the appellant’s favour, despite the fact that she broke the EU’s own regulations on migrant workers.

The ruling means that British courts no longer have the right to decide on legal matters within Britain.

The EU Court ruling means that Ms Ibrahim will now be able to claim thousands of pounds in benefits from the British taxpayers each month — an amount, when totalled, comes to more than the average British workingman’s monthly income.

The ruling has now set a precedent which means that anyone from anywhere will be able to claim benefits in Britain as long as they can show that they are physically present in this country and rely on those benefits to live from day-to-day.

It is the green light for the floodgates of scroungers from all over the world to descend like vampires and locusts on Britain to bleed the taxpayers of this nation dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are u on about 262 4 beds on right move within a radius of 10 miles. How much are they to rent ? how much do you need to be earning to bring up a family and rent one of those ?

sorry I missed off the under a 1000 a month, which was the figure from the previous poster.

I know that the average family can't afford this, but we're trying to get benefits claiments down from 8 grand a month, not up from 800

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I missed off the under a 1000 a month, which was the figure from the previous poster.

I know that the average family can't afford this, but we're trying to get benefits claiments down from 8 grand a month, not up from 800

tim

Yes and if we had not got rid of all the council houses , that would have been a lot eaiser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.