MEGA HOUSING BENEFIT THREAD - MERGED

[winkie]

There was something in the Times today about the housing benefit cap. It said that landlords in London wouldn't be lowering their rents in line with the cap as hoped for by the coallition but instead would be booting out the social housing tenants and then rent out their properties to private tenants for more than the housing benefit cap.

It got me thinking exactly where are these private tenants who are willing to spend substantially more than £1600/month on rent? With the way things are currently and British people's obsession with home ownership I would have thought that most people who are prepared and able to spend £1600 a month of their own money would rather buy a worse/smaller place than rent better/larger place from a landlord. There will be the exceptions of course, such as many enlightened members of this forum, but I think the majority of people would rather and already have bought.

I agree, they will not get their £1600 per month rent for the two bed flat unless it is for a temporary period or an employer is prepared to folk out for it...these landlords will be singing in the wind for the high rents they are after, where do they think they will get the money from?...or sublet the spare room.

[alexw]

If you're spending your own money you're always more careful with it....

Thats anecdotal evidence, much in the same vein as 'house prices only go up'. And we know what that one is worth.

Everyone has taken it as gospel (including me) that HB has pushed up rents but if so there should be hard evidence and anecdotes isnt it.

Anyone have any hard number values for rent changes vs time?

[Si1]

There was something in the Times today about the housing benefit cap. It said that landlords in London wouldn't be lowering their rents in line with the cap as hoped for by the coallition but instead would be booting out the social housing tenants and then rent out their properties to private tenants for more than the housing benefit cap.

It got me thinking exactly where are these private tenants who are willing to spend substantially more than £1600/month on rent? With the way things are currently and British people's obsession with home ownership I would have thought that most people who are prepared and able to spend £1600 a month of their own money would rather buy a worse/smaller place than rent better/larger place from a landlord. There will be the exceptions of course, such as many enlightened members of this forum, but I think the majority of people would rather and already have bought.

This is reminiscent of the fantasist landlords I met who bought new apartments in town centres across Yorkshire - including Leeds and Bradford, apparently expecting to let them to 'Young Professionals' - doing them out with bad leather sofas etc. They ended up letting most of them, AFAIK, to students, DHSS, bar and shop staff, etc on much lower rents, even brothels.

See this from rentergirl in Manchester:

Recently, I have noticed a lot of scallies hereabout. Landlords have entrenched ideas about who makes the ideal rent payer, and scallies are at the bottom of that list, especially unemployed examples. Current economic turmoil is challenging the stereotypes long treasured by landlords who - since they won't actually live in the flats themselves- select a mirror image to dwell in their investment. Even being employed isn't enough; the perfect tenants are established professionals, non-smokers, compulsive cleaners, all obsessive about paying rent on time. Letting agents even check your fingernails.

When I first moved in, I half expected to look around at five thirty and watch a battalion of bowler-hatted city types making their way home to Dovecot Towers. But most solicitors, accountants and internet millionaires with psychological cleaning problems have property of their own, forcing landlords to let go of their desires and accept that ordinary people had better move in pronto if they wish to avoid repossession and ruin. These replacements may or may not have jobs, as long as they pay the rent and behave themselves, then everyone is happy.

In my opinion, this will happen in London once the DSS gravy train ends.

My earlier rhetorical question still stands:

I can't work out in my head whether both parties (amateur BTL landlords, and benefit recipients) won't constitute some of the most non-assertive incompetent negotiators imaginable, if my experience serves me correctly.

There could be an awful lot of pain comes out of this simply off the back of stubbornness by the affected parties.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Si1

[RentingForever]

There was something in the Times today about the housing benefit cap. It said that landlords in London wouldn't be lowering their rents in line with the cap as hoped for by the coallition but instead would be booting out the social housing tenants and then rent out their properties to private tenants for more than the housing benefit cap.

It got me thinking exactly where are these private tenants who are willing to spend substantially more than £1600/month on rent? With the way things are currently and British people's obsession with home ownership I would have thought that most people who are prepared and able to spend £1600 a month of their own money would rather buy a worse/smaller place than rent better/larger place from a landlord. There will be the exceptions of course, such as many enlightened members of this forum, but I think the majority of people would rather and already have bought.

It was a quote from the National Association of Landlords - major VI spin.

I read it and also wondered where this wave of private tenants to take over from the HB tenants was going to suddenly appear from.

Landlords will have to face reality and either chuck out the HB tenants and accept voids, or lower their rents. The only question is whether they can hold out with voids long enough for the Government to back down.

[Si1]

It was a quote from the National Association of Landlords - major VI spin.

I read it and also wondered where this wave of private tenants to take over from the HB tenants was going to suddenly appear from.

Landlords will have to face reality and either chuck out the HB tenants and accept voids, or lower their rents. The only question is whether they can hold out with voids long enough for the Government to back down.

from experience of northern landlords I am pretty sure that enought of them can't go for more than a few months thatthe market will remain liquid and rental prices will be forced to drop

my own landlord pretty much tears my arm off every year when I offer to pay the same monthly rent as I did the previous year on another 12 month AST

[assetrichcashpoor]

It was a quote from the National Association of Landlords - major VI spin.

I read it and also wondered where this wave of private tenants to take over from the HB tenants was going to suddenly appear from.

Landlords will have to face reality and either chuck out the HB tenants and accept voids, or lower their rents. The only question is whether they can hold out with voids long enough for the Government to back down.

The way the statement was worded in my opinion implied that these landlords choose to rent their properties to social tenants out of the goodness of their heart and could easily get more money from private tenants but choose not to because they're such nice people. This is my own biased slant but I wouldn't be surprised if many landlords thought that.

[SHERWICK]

The way the statement was worded in my opinion implied that these landlords choose to rent their properties to social tenants out of the goodness of their heart and could easily get more money from private tenants but choose not to because they're such nice people. This is my own biased slant but I wouldn't be surprised if many landlords thought that.

[Meat Puppet]

I'm not familiar with the rental markets in central London but in the outer boroughs the places that allow HB claiming tenants are all clustered in the not so nice areas. Landlords in the respectable parts would much rather have a lower rent than LHA and get a quality tenant. Conversely no tenant paying their own way would pay anything like LHA to live among the benefit claimants.

My guess is that central London is similarly segregated and the landlords are dreaming if they think private tenants will pay the same as LHA to live around the corner from some sink council estate.

[tim123]

...how many private renters can afford £400 per week in London...?....London basically as a city is unsustainable without these massive to date hidden costs ....time London started living within it's means ...let's face it ...you wish to chase away the Bankers...what's left.?......apart from the Government gravy train which at least this coalition is attempting to reduce....

I dunno. My experience isn't of Central London but of large towns around and just outside the M25. There, the sort of place that a normal person would be prepared to live in, is 100-150 pounds per month more than the current HB limit and local "professionals" find some way to afford them.

tim

[South Lorne]

I dunno. My experience isn't of Central London but of large towns around and just outside the M25. There, the sort of place that a normal person would be prepared to live in, is 100-150 pounds per month more than the current HB limit and local "professionals" find some way to afford them.

tim

...on the basis that the rate will not be the same as central London ...how much is that per month in that area....?....

[crash2006]

hmm thats a thought. To be honest until just now i have taken it as gospel that HB is pushing up rents. But no-one has put forward any hard evidence that this is true, they've also just taken it as gospel and stated it as truth themselves.

Anyone have a graph of average inflation adjusted rents for the uk going back 20-30 years??

Because it isnt true it was propaganda to give them an easy way to help lower spending, by attacking the poor, and not for the lack of social homes, they dont want to admit that social housing plays an important part in keeping universal rents low. What pushed up rents is the tranders of demand from the social to the private sector, because they never built social homes and never allowed the cash from sold social homes to be used to build new homes.

makes you wonder about the CGT not raised back to the 40% market, but are willing to raise VAT to 20% makes you think.

[Bootsox]

BRING IT ON!

I am so fed up of all this bleating about vulnerable people in zone 1. These subsidised rents are ludicrous - its not like it is a stepping stop to assist in a sudden reduction in income - this is a lifelong subsidy for the unemployed or low paid. Take a frigging bus or ride a bike! I have lived in zone 1 - Islington, but it was a bit pricey so I moved further out and bought a travel card.

I have had various chats with people in my office who are at the lower end of the pay scale but with kids to support (£20-25k) they live in the back **** end of zone 5/6 and get public transport and I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the cuts are unreasonable in real life. Living in zone 1/2 is a CHOICE based on how much money you can afford - ergo if your money is a welfare transfer the same rules of affordabilty should apply.

Fluffy guardianista phrases like vulnerable/support networks/community are BS! Plenty of people move around to take advantage of jobs or just a change of scenery without entering into their own personal melt down. Boris is a moron and clearly has aides who read a lot of left wing newspapers and got the wind put up them. People who earn 18 - 25k cannot afford to live in central london - so they don't. They commute, live with their parents and house share. If they back down on this - I hope everyone earning less than £30k signs on for HB to collapse the system.

Sorry about the rant - but this really pisses me off. I don't mind paying tax to support the sick, disabled and elderly but supporting the hard of thinking for daft life choices is annoying. I have a "facebook" friend from primary school who got pregnant during her A -levels - unfortunate timing maybe but she decided to keep the baby - fast forward 6 years and she has had another 2 children - never worked/got further qualifications/married or otherwise taken financial responsibility for HER CHOICES. The fact is those two subsequent children would not have existed if she was not guaranteed housing and benefits that expanded with her brood. In the real world people think about the financial cost of children and adjust their plans accordingly particularly in London because it is pricey. She lives in a nice three bed flat in leafy west london - paid for by everyone else. She is not and never has been down on her luck. She has been a prize prat, a bit lazy and a decent mum to her kids - but thats not what I want my taxes to fund - this girl should have been her families' problem. She is bright (predicted Bs at Alevel) middle class, siblings at uni, working decent parents and normal friends. If her mum and siblings had to pull double shifts/two jobs to fund her bundles of joy she would have got her mind right and stopped at the one child. But they don't so she didn't.

End rant!

A good post that summarises, to me, most sensible people's view of the situation.

I see the BBC is fighting a desperate rearguard action over HB having now solicited the support of the housing charity Shelter. Trouble is the BBC are becoming increasingly out of sync with most working folk's view of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660316

Housing benefit cap to price London's poor away - Shelter

Housing benefit payments will be capped at £290 a week for a two-bedroom property

The majority of two-bedroom properties in London will be beyond the reach of housing benefit claimants once new limits on payments are introduced, according to charity Shelter.

It says a study, done by Cambridge University, shows that much of the capital, including many of the suburbs, will become "largely unaffordable".

The government has accused critics of its reforms of "scaremongering".

But Labour say they will force a vote in Parliament on the plans.

Under the proposals, housing benefit payments would be capped at a maximum of £400 a week, with an upper limit of £290 per week for a two-bedroom flat.

'Poverty and inequality'

The Department of Work and Pensions says nearly two-thirds of housing benefit tenants will be no worse off, or will face a gap of £10 or less a week between their rent and their benefits.

However, official figures also suggest that one in 10 households will face shortfall of £30 or more a week.

HOUSING BENEFIT CAP

£250 for a one-bedroom property

£290 for a two-bedroom property

£340 for a three-bedroom property

£400 for a four-bedroom property

Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said the study showed how reforms would "change the make-up of London" and would affect outer boroughs as well as those in the inner city.

"We are concerned this could mean tens of thousands of households forced from the centre, creating concentrations of poverty and inequality," he added.

This week, London Mayor Boris Johnson was criticised after he told a radio station he would "not accept any kind of Kosovo-style social cleansing of London" as a result of the reforms.

"I'll emphatically resist any attempt to recreate a London where the rich and poor cannot live together," he said.

Mr Johnson said he had been quoted out of context, but Business Secretary Vince Cable accused him of using "inflammatory language".

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would still be "prepared to pay up to £20,000 a year" in housing benefit to families, adding: "I don't think it will be necessary for anybody to go without a home."

Edited October 31, 2010 by Bootsox

[Executive Sadman]

elitist and wasteful, what Tony Bliar said of the conservatives assisted places schemes for private schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_Places_Scheme

Claiming the practice to be elitist and wasteful of public funds, the Labour government of Tony Blair, upon its election in 1997, abolished the Assisted Places Scheme. The government announced that the funds were instead to be used to reduce class sizes in state nursery schools. However, children already in receipt of an assisted place were allowed to complete the remainder of that phase of their education

How is paying a minority of 'poor' people to attend private schools any different to paying a minority of poor people to live in wealthy areas?

Did liebour Kosovo cleanse our private schools? I fail to see the difference, maybe some labour sympathizers can explain to me.

Wouldnt socialists want to make all areas decent to live in, instead of paying a few lucky poor people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. A bit like making all schools better, rather than accepting defeat and just sending a few to private schools.

Whats so bad about giving a few poor people an educational hand, but so good about doing the same thing in housing.

[SarahBell]

Wouldnt socialists want to make all areas decent to live in,

I reckon so.

I reckon the idea of choice in healthcare and education is blox.

All schools/hospitals should aim for the same targets and achieve good standards.

How much money has the choose and book system wasted?

[General Melchett]

Hmm, every single person I've heard on the Meeja arguing against this change (to cap HB) so far has sounded like a spoilt teenager having a strop and every single argument I have heard them make so far has been the sort that has made me want to point out to them, in 50 words or less, each word of no more than two syllables, exactly why they are wrong..

The only argument at all against this which holds water is the one that LLs and their financiers might put forward, but so far dont seem to have had the balls to do publicly. That argument is 'But how else are we going to keep all this taxpayers-money-for-nothing rolling in to our pockets if you do this?'

[Injin]

Hmm, every single person I've heard on the Meeja arguing against this change (to cap HB) so far has sounded like a spoilt teenager having a strop and every single argument I have heard them make so far has been the sort that has made me want to point out to them, in 50 words or less, each word of no more than two syllables, exactly why they are wrong..

The only argument at all against this which holds water is the one that LLs and their financiers might put forward, but so far dont seem to have had the balls to do publicly. That argument is 'But how else are we going to keep all this taxpayers-money-for-nothing rolling in to our pockets if you do this?'

Heres an argument for you -

Housing benefits cancels an extortion which shouldn't occur in the first place. It's a distant second best to letting people live where they like unmolested.

[General Melchett]

Heres an argument for you -

Housing benefits cancels an extortion which shouldn't occur in the first place. It's a distant second best to letting people live where they like unmolested.

Thought you'd come out on this one, as I've seen you stamp your little foot on this in other related threads.

What is your VI in this?

So, paraphrasing your long term arguments, I take it you're happy for the gubberment to use it's violence and threats of violence to extort this (imaginary or not) money to give to these people?

Incidentally, I will not be replying further to anything you write in reply to this. I really can't see the point in doing so.

Edited November 1, 2010 by General Melchett

[Moley]

Thought you'd come out on this one, as I've seen you stamp your little foot on this in other related threads.

What is your VI in this?

So, paraphrasing your long term arguments, I take it you're happy for the gubberment to use it's violence and threats of violence to extort this (imaginary or not) money to give to these people?

Incidentally, I will not be replying further to anything you write in reply to this. I really can't see the point in doing so.

Now you've done it.

[SHERWICK]

Thought you'd come out on this one, as I've seen you stamp your little foot on this in other related threads.

What is your VI in this?

So, paraphrasing your long term arguments, I take it you're happy for the gubberment to use it's violence and threats of violence to extort this (imaginary or not) money to give to these people?

Incidentally, I will not be replying further to anything you write in reply to this. I really can't see the point in doing so.

uh oh!

[Boom Boom]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325560/Im-better-benefits-says-BBC-benefit-cuts-victim-REFUSES-work.html

[Maynardgravy]

In taking a fervent stance against the HB cuts has the Labour party made the ultimate feau pas?

Everyone I talk to at work is totally behind these measures, whether they own property or not. Labour seems to think that they have hit on a raw nerve and a common ideal that lower to middle earners are willing to prop up their brethren in this incredibly unfair scheme.

I feel that Labour have shot themselves in the foot with this stance and the Tories know it, even if reporting has been slightly biased. BTW I am no Tory.

I cycle a round trip of 15 miles each day. If I can do that, others can catch a train or two.

What I want to know is what do others perceive about this policy from their colleagues? Is it the same as mine?

[Coldberry]

Ed Miliband is a fool.

Shot themselves in the foot? Pity it wasn't the head.

[SHERWICK]

In taking a fervent stance against the HB cuts has the Labour party made the ultimate feau pas?

Everyone I talk to at work is totally behind these measures, whether they own property or not. Labour seems to think that they have hit on a raw nerve and a common ideal that lower to middle earners are willing to prop up their brethren in this incredibly unfair scheme.

I feel that Labour have shot themselves in the foot with this stance and the Tories know it, even if reporting has been slightly biased. BTW I am no Tory.

I cycle a round trip of 15 miles each day. If I can do that, others can catch a train or two.

What I want to know is what do others perceive about this policy from their colleagues? Is it the same as mine?

Yes, exactly the same as yours.

[Coldberry]

Remove ALL benefits from EVERYONE.

They will either stand or they will fall.

..... If they fall, then this is no great loss to humanity.

[Maynardgravy]

Remove ALL benefits from EVERYONE.

They will either stand or they will fall.

..... If they fall, then this is no great loss to humanity.

I know your frustration, but benefits as a genuine safety net is no bad thing. Otherwise it is back to the workhouse. But a safety net is just that, to protect people from poverty, not to give an unfair lifestyle choice.