Charity Shelter Campaigning For Higher Housing Benefits.

[Tired of Waiting]

Charity Shelter campaigning for higher housing benefits. (Edit: Against LHA cuts.)

Why are they getting it wrong? VI? Mistake?

(Are they sponsored by Housing Associations??)

((( Edit: If I got this right, their income in 2010 was over £50million?! Is this right?? LINK: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=263710&SubsidiaryNumber=0 )))

Forum veterans will be familiar with this issue. But for the benefit of visitors and Newbies: LHAs pay for 40% of the UK private rental market, and as it was set at the average local rent, it would set this middle point as the new market floor, pushing the average up for the next year. Rinse and repeat every year = increasingly happy landlords, increasingly exploited tax-payers and private tenants.

The problem was obvious, and Ian Duncan Smith understood it perfectly, and set the new LHA at the 30th percentile for 2 years, and by inflation from then onwards. (Still too generous - in my personal view.)

Moreover, local LHAs are set by (1) local authorities, consulting (2) letting agencies. Both have a vested interest in: (1) bringing central government money to the local economy (Brighton Councillors said that out-loud, on record, to the local paper "Argus"); and (2) letting agents interest is obvious.

Today we have news that the charity Shelter sponsored a survey of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors, as part of their campaign against this LHA reforms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13953022

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/councils-fear-over-housing-benefit-cut-2304193.html

But on Shelter's website, on their "about us" page, they do seem to get the main points right:

Still work to be done

Today there is a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the housing haves and have-nots. Housing is now the key factor determining a person's health, wellbeing, and prospects in life.

Because of Right to Buy and a lack of new building, 1.8 million households in England languish on council waiting lists, and the numbers stuck in temporary accommodation have soared.

If you can't afford to buy, and can't get a council house, renting privately may be your only option. But this is often unaffordable to people on low incomes.

The slums of the 1960s are gone, but the housing crisis still exists. Shelter has achieved great things in its history, but our work won't stop until everyone in Britain can access a decent, affordable home.

http://england.shelter.org.uk/about_us/who_we_are/our_history

Hence the (old) question: Are they just mistaken? Or a VI? Like: Are they sponsored by some vested interest, like housing associations?

Does anybody know?

Cheers,

ToW

Edited June 29, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

Most charities and NGo's are either set up by the PTB and then steered or co opted shortly after they start to get traction.

The best way to counter opposition is to run it.

[scrappycocco]

Why higher when no landlord seems to accept it anyway? I'm currently looking for a relative who's lost their job and not one landlord would accept housing benefit.

[tomandlu]

Charity Shelter campaigning for higher housing benefits.

Why are they getting it wrong? VI? Mistake?

I'd take a more generous view - the comments in the Independent article from Shelter chief executive Campbell Robb aren't really supporting higher HB, they just say that measures ought to be in place to cope with the fallout.

It's time councils made clear to Government the true impact of these changes on their local area so that plans can be put in place to prevent complete chaos from erupting in our communities.

It's the politicians who are saying not to cut HB.

It would be nice if Robb gave a more reasoned critique, but, reading between the lines, his comments are more nuanced than at first they might appear.

[tomandlu]

Why higher when no landlord seems to accept it anyway? I'm currently looking for a relative who's lost their job and not one landlord would accept housing benefit.

I'm surprised - during my last rental hunt, I came across landlords who would only accept HB...

[R K]

Govt. housing system is broken.

Take the HB yield, borrow 30 yr gilts with it, build publically owned housing with it. People get homes, brickies get work, private sector gets rental/ownership supply etc etc.

80s sell off experiment failed turning public assets into private sector giveaways that as per usual run into a dead end 20-30 years later.

It's not a failure of budgets or markets it's an ideological failure of common sense, as per.

[Injin]

I'm surprised - during my last rental hunt, I came across landlords who would only accept HB...

Previously HB was a sure thing.

Now it looks like the torylition might pull the plug almost at random.

[Tired of Waiting]

I'd take a more generous view - the comments in the Independent article from Shelter chief executive Campbell Robb aren't really supporting higher HB, they just say that measures ought to be in place to cope with the fallout.

It's the politicians who are saying not to cut HB.

It would be nice if Robb gave a more reasoned critique, but, reading between the lines, his comments are more nuanced than at first they might appear.

Yes, I think (hope) you are right. Thanks.

Have you seen the Charity Commission's page about them? That is a lot of money for a charity.

And why SHELTER, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE LIMITED ?! That is odd. No?!

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=263710&SubsidiaryNumber=0

EDIT: The BBC page says: "Shelter, which commissioned the work, has opposed the government's housing policies." I'll edit the OP with this wording, instead of "higher" housing benefits

Edited June 29, 2011 by Tired of Waiting

[Tired of Waiting]

Good reply from IDS:

Mr Duncan Smith said: "The failure of the last Labour government to reform housing benefit has left us in the absurd situation where some benefit claimants can claim over £100,000 a year to live in large houses in expensive areas.

"This is unacceptable when hard working individuals and families are struggling either to find affordable private rents or pay their mortgages.

"Scare stories that housing benefit changes will force thousands of families from their homes are nonsense and are causing unnecessary distress.

"A small number of people may have to move and we are providing local authorities an additional £190 million over the next four years to smooth the transition.

"Instead of complaining, responsible councils should be working to effectively implement these policies, and recognise that we are trying to get people off benefits and into work, and drive the cost of the benefits bill to taxpayers down."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13953022

[Travisher]

"And why SHELTER, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE LIMITED ?! That is odd. No?!"

Well, check it isn't a 'not for profit limited by guarantee" Ltd company as this is used to limit the liability of clubs and associations and prevents spurious claims against individual members of the organisation since it limits their liability to £1. However, if its a 'for profit' Ltd company then you would be right to be suspicious of perverse incentives etc..

Check out ACPO, various courts and things at companies house.

You might also just find UK Ltd and UK Plc are not just sloppy newspaper headlines.

If you use the Internet to look up some bank domains using whois you used to find some that claimed to be registered charities although that seems to have changed since the government bailed them out.

[leicestersq]

Charity Shelter campaigning for higher housing benefits.

Why are they getting it wrong? VI? Mistake?

(Are they sponsored by Housing Associations??)

((( Edit: If I got this right, their income in 2010 was over £50million?! Is this right?? LINK: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=263710&SubsidiaryNumber=0 )))

Forum veterans will be familiar with this issue. But for the benefit of visitors and Newbies: LHAs pay for 40% of the UK private rental market, and as it was set at the average local rent, it would set this middle point as the new market floor, pushing the average up for the next year. Rinse and repeat every year = increasingly happy landlords, increasingly exploited tax-payers and private tenants.

The problem was obvious, and Ian Duncan Smith understood it perfectly, and set the new LHA at the 30th percentile for 2 years, and by inflation from then onwards. (Still too generous - in my personal view.)

Moreover, local LHAs are set by (1) local authorities, consulting (2) letting agencies. Both have a vested interest in: (1) bringing central government money to the local economy (Brighton Councillors said that out-loud, on record, to the local paper "Argus"); and (2) letting agents interest is obvious.

Today we have news that the charity Shelter sponsored a survey of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors, as part of their campaign against this LHA reforms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13953022

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/councils-fear-over-housing-benefit-cut-2304193.html

But on Shelter's website, on their "about us" page, they do seem to get the main points right:

Hence the (old) question: Are they just mistaken? Or a VI? Like: Are they sponsored by some vested interest, like housing associations?

Does anybody know?

Cheers,

ToW

I have heard a lot of bad things about Shelter. There are bad landlords for sure, but they often support bad tenants in court cases, causing people who might have places to rent to withdraw them from the market.

Their approach to housing appears to be based on the failed Stalinist model. What they dont seem to appreciate is that if housing is provided for out of taxation, you get the absurd situation where some deliberately claim benefits to get housing, and end up taking the housing of those who are providing the taxes that cause them to be outbidded in the market place.

We have seen the disaster of council housing and now housing association unfold over the years, egged on by Shelter and other VI's. The damage to this nations economic well being is huge, as hard working people have been crushed under a ginormous tax bill to pay for all this largesse. We are now spiralling towards state failure as the Stalinist model of housing allocated proposed by Shelter becomes unaffordable, and at the same time politically unacceptable to change.

The people that run these organisations are blind to economic reality, and have no concept of government money reducing the well being of those who have worked hard to give value to that money. Eventually the only way to change such unfairness is for their to be a state collapse. The people in Greece want to bring their state collapse on as soon as possible, so that they can rebuild. Iceland is rebuilding nicely, whereas Ireland voted for perpetual stagnation.

Not sure what will happen here, but if those strikers win, plus a few protests from Shelter, and our own collapse wont be too far behind.

[leicestersq]

"And why SHELTER, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE LIMITED ?! That is odd. No?!"

Well, check it isn't a 'not for profit limited by guarantee" Ltd company as this is used to limit the liability of clubs and associations and prevents spurious claims against individual members of the organisation since it limits their liability to £1. However, if its a 'for profit' Ltd company then you would be right to be suspicious of perverse incentives etc..

Check out ACPO, various courts and things at companies house.

You might also just find UK Ltd and UK Plc are not just sloppy newspaper headlines.

If you use the Internet to look up some bank domains using whois you used to find some that claimed to be registered charities although that seems to have changed since the government bailed them out.

It appears to me that the abuse of charity status is such, that it should be abolished.

I believe that real charities, who do proper work, would actually be better off in such an environment, even after paying such taxes. As it is, more and more people are suspicious of the charities system, which is for many, little more than a tax dodge.

[Tired of Waiting]

"And why SHELTER, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE LIMITED ?! That is odd. No?!"

Well, check it isn't a 'not for profit limited by guarantee" Ltd company as this is used to limit the liability of clubs and associations and prevents spurious claims against individual members of the organisation since it limits their liability to £1.

I see. Thanks. (And welcome to the Forum BTW).

However, if its a 'for profit' Ltd company then you would be right to be suspicious of perverse incentives etc..

Check out ACPO, various courts and things at companies house.

You might also just find UK Ltd and UK Plc are not just sloppy newspaper headlines.

If you use the Internet to look up some bank domains using whois you used to find some that claimed to be registered charities although that seems to have changed since the government bailed them out.

Sorry, "ACPO"? "whois" ?

[Tired of Waiting]

I have heard a lot of bad things about Shelter. There are bad landlords for sure, but they often support bad tenants in court cases, causing people who might have places to rent to withdraw them from the market.

Their approach to housing appears to be based on the failed Stalinist model. What they dont seem to appreciate is that if housing is provided for out of taxation, you get the absurd situation where some deliberately claim benefits to get housing, and end up taking the housing of those who are providing the taxes that cause them to be outbidded in the market place.

We have seen the disaster of council housing and now housing association unfold over the years, egged on by Shelter and other VI's. The damage to this nations economic well being is huge, as hard working people have been crushed under a ginormous tax bill to pay for all this largesse. We are now spiralling towards state failure as the Stalinist model of housing allocated proposed by Shelter becomes unaffordable, and at the same time politically unacceptable to change.

The people that run these organisations are blind to economic reality, and have no concept of government money reducing the well being of those who have worked hard to give value to that money.

Yep. I think you are right.

And very nice turn of phrase there! "worked hard to give value to that money". "Respect"!

That is exactly it. Only work gives value (purchasing power) to a country's currency.

Eventually the only way to change such unfairness is for their to be a state collapse. The people in Greece want to bring their state collapse on as soon as possible, so that they can rebuild. Iceland is rebuilding nicely, whereas Ireland voted for perpetual stagnation.

Not sure what will happen here, but if those strikers win, plus a few protests from Shelter, and our own collapse wont be too far behind.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this point though. I am against defaulting, and against running permanent deficits. Countries, like people, should live within their means, and honour their obligations. Bit old fashioned, I know, sorry.

[leicestersq]

I'm not sure I agree with you on this point though. I am against defaulting, and against running permanent deficits. Countries, like people, should live within their means, and honour their obligations. Bit old fashioned, I know, sorry.

TOW,

sometimes the people of a country need to learn a lesson. Both you and I agree that you should only borrow judiciously, for sensible risks.

However, what appears to have happened in this country is that we have reached a point where huge numbers of people have a vested interest in what the state gives to them, and either dont understand or dont care that this largesse is paid for by others. The system reaches a point where people are encouraged to move into that section of the population supported by the state, given the benefits and taxation regime. This reveals itself through a growing budget deficit, as you run out of people to tax and expenditure runs out of control, and huge opposition in the form of strikes and protest if you try and address the problem by cutting expenditure.

If the government are unable to sort the problem out, then the market will. The state will default, and people will have to go back to creating value themselves, rather than getting it transferred to them via the state.

[Tired of Waiting]

TOW,

sometimes the people of a country need to learn a lesson. Both you and I agree that you should only borrow judiciously, for sensible risks.

However, what appears to have happened in this country is that we have reached a point where huge numbers of people have a vested interest in what the state gives to them, and either dont understand or dont care that this largesse is paid for by others. The system reaches a point where people are encouraged to move into that section of the population supported by the state, given the benefits and taxation regime. This reveals itself through a growing budget deficit, as you run out of people to tax and expenditure runs out of control, and huge opposition in the form of strikes and protest if you try and address the problem by cutting expenditure.

If the government are unable to sort the problem out, then the market will. The state will default, and people will have to go back to creating value themselves, rather than getting it transferred to them via the state.

I agree with that. Mainly because now you wrote "if the government are unable to sort the problem out. I think we still have a chance. The UK gov. may be able to reduce the deficit to some 3% of GDP by the end of this parliament. In your previous post you wrote that "Eventually the only way to change such unfairness is for their to be a state collapse". I don't think collapse is the only way, and I agree with the "if" in this last post of yours. It is an important difference. I am not nitpicking, I think (Sorry if I am.).

The cases of Greece, Ireland and Iceland are fascinating really. Iceland, out of the Eurozone, sees its currency automatically (market driven) devalued, and its international position reset. Greece has to do it by changing the nominal value, in Euros, of all domestic wages and prices. Too visible, too complicated - politically virtually impossible. Though basically the same thing as Iceland.

I'm not following the Ireland's case. Are they cutting the deficit there?

[Tired of Waiting]

It appears to me that the abuse of charity status is such, that it should be abolished.

I believe that real charities, who do proper work, would actually be better off in such an environment, even after paying such taxes. As it is, more and more people are suspicious of the charities system, which is for many, little more than a tax dodge.

Is there some easy way to find out who are the main sponsors of a charity?