Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
cool_hand

Affordable Rent Housing Plans 'to Hit London Families

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14073437

Families will struggle to afford multi-bedroom homes in London if government proposals for a new "affordable rent" tariff are introduced, a report by the London Assembly has said.

Social housing tenants would be charged 80% of the market rent under the plans.

But this is generally higher than the current level and may make payments tricky for families, the assembly's planning and housing committee said.

And the proposed cap on benefits could make things even worse, it added.

The coalition plans a maximum annual limit from 2013 on the amount of benefits which a family can claim.

This is expected to be about £26,000 per year, or £500 each week.

'Rise of 300%'

The committee's report said the "greatest challenge" for housing associations was to find rents which would be affordable to those who need them, but would also generate enough cash to build more properties.

"The new rent levels could potentially see new clients having to pay significantly more for their accommodation than existing clients, or alternatively existing clients could be squeezed out of the sector," it said.

The committee cited the north-east London borough of Haringey, where a housing association charged £85 a week on a one-bedroom flat and £126 for a four-bedroom home.

These figures would rise to £168 and £390 if 80% of the market rate was charged instead, it said.

"In this example, new clients could therefore be facing rents that are higher by nearly 100% for a one-bedroom flat and over 300% for a four-bedroom property."

This week the government said the changes to housing benefits were about "fairness" and were needed to reduce a bill "which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour".

But Labour criticised the coalition after it emerged a senior civil servant had warned 20,000 people could be left homeless by the cap on benefits.

You have to question why would you want to live in social housing of you have to pay close to the market rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14073437

Families will struggle to afford multi-bedroom homes in London if government proposals for a new "affordable rent" tariff are introduced, a report by the London Assembly has said.

Social housing tenants would be charged 80% of the market rent under the plans.

But this is generally higher than the current level and may make payments tricky for families, the assembly's planning and housing committee said.

And the proposed cap on benefits could make things even worse, it added.

The coalition plans a maximum annual limit from 2013 on the amount of benefits which a family can claim.

This is expected to be about £26,000 per year, or £500 each week.

'Rise of 300%'

The committee's report said the "greatest challenge" for housing associations was to find rents which would be affordable to those who need them, but would also generate enough cash to build more properties.

"The new rent levels could potentially see new clients having to pay significantly more for their accommodation than existing clients, or alternatively existing clients could be squeezed out of the sector," it said.

The committee cited the north-east London borough of Haringey, where a housing association charged £85 a week on a one-bedroom flat and £126 for a four-bedroom home.

These figures would rise to £168 and £390 if 80% of the market rate was charged instead, it said.

"In this example, new clients could therefore be facing rents that are higher by nearly 100% for a one-bedroom flat and over 300% for a four-bedroom property."

This week the government said the changes to housing benefits were about "fairness" and were needed to reduce a bill "which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour".

But Labour criticised the coalition after it emerged a senior civil servant had warned 20,000 people could be left homeless by the cap on benefits.

You have to question why would you want to live in social housing of you have to pay close to the market rate?

Not as much as you would have to question why everyone else has to pay so much to keep the 'social' rate so far below the market rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as much as you would have to question why everyone else has to pay so much to keep the 'social' rate so far below the market rate.

Well the council would have made a large profit over the years from it, so is it really subsidised? they are really forcing people into the private sector, they arnt going to build more homes and expect the private sector to take up the slack. This is about justifying the market rates, and selling off whats left in your local councils.

Expect prices to rise, rents to rise and the economy to crash in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The committee's report said the "greatest challenge" for housing associations was to find rents which would be affordable to those who need them, but would also generate enough cash to build more properties.

this view still amazes me - social landlords complaining they can't get an effective unaccountable taxpayer-funded backhander to help retain their cashflow, and they're completely open about it!

I mean, was themoney flowing thru the industry up until the credit crunch not enough?

They may as well stick a big shiny sticker on their forehead saying "CS" for champage Socialist - give me all your money peasants!

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the council would have made a large profit over the years from it, so is it really subsidised?

What you mean is that the local taxpayer could have paid a much reduced tax if councils had charged the market rates for their properties.

The value of a subisidy is the difference between the market rate and the actual rate.

As for the profit, sure there was a profit. I dont see why every penny of that profit shouldnt be returned to local councils and distributed either as lower taxes or more spending. Instead we give it to rich people like Frank Dobson and Bob Crow, and shut out the majority of people from receiving a similar subsidy through a corrupt allocation scheme.

they are really forcing people into the private sector, they arnt going to build more homes and expect the private sector to take up the slack. This is about justifying the market rates, and selling off whats left in your local councils.

Selling off all council homes to the highest bidder would be an excellent policy. The current policy of a right to buy, only available for those lucky enough to have a council home, is clearly crackers.

Whilst there is housing benefit available, I see no justification in having a council housing system as well. They answer the same problem. Only they dont, as some people do tremendously well out of it, whilst the majority of people get to pay for it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to laugh..

Affordable rents are bad - high rents are good... It's like something straight out of 1984.

it's all the fault of the american bankers don't you know and how else are housing officers supposed to retire at 55 and go an 2 cruises a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of a subisidy is the difference between the market rate and the actual rate.

I still don't get this. I assume your a free market wonk, so I hope you agree that a buyer and seller negotiate a mutually fair price. Any price arrived at via that mechanism is a market rate. What the private landlord and tenant over the other side of the road agree on is neither here nor there. In this case, a council (who I presume would be mortgage free and with a more efficient legal/maintenance regime than a small scale LL or BTLer) will generally have far lower overheads than a huge LTV BTL asshat who struggles to put a shelf up.

To argue that a price differential between a council and private rent is a subsidy is daft, and not only that, but to argue that the subsidy is a justification for interfering in the transaction between the council landlord and tenant is anti free market. But it's trebles all round for the rent seekers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the private landlord and tenant over the other side of the road agree on is neither here nor there.

...

To argue that a price differential between a council and private rent is a subsidy is daft,

you don't have a clue mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get this. I assume your a free market wonk, so I hope you agree that a buyer and seller negotiate a mutually fair price. Any price arrived at via that mechanism is a market rate. What the private landlord and tenant over the other side of the road agree on is neither here nor there. In this case, a council (who I presume would be mortgage free and with a more efficient legal/maintenance regime than a small scale LL or BTLer) will generally have far lower overheads than a huge LTV BTL asshat who struggles to put a shelf up.

To argue that a price differential between a council and private rent is a subsidy is daft, and not only that, but to argue that the subsidy is a justification for interfering in the transaction between the council landlord and tenant is anti free market. But it's trebles all round for the rent seekers.

Rent seeking isn't part of the free market, of course.

Even if it's "private."

A simple solution to this problem would to simply stop physically assaulting people arbitarily based on their physical location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

In this case, a council (who I presume would be mortgage free and with a more efficient legal/maintenance regime than a small scale LL or BTLer) will generally have far lower overheads than a huge LTV BTL asshat who struggles to put a shelf up.

To argue that a price differential between a council and private rent is a subsidy is daft,

leicestersq is right.

Suppose the council has an used equipment to sell. Don't you think the fairest thing to do is to auction it? Suppose they decide to chose a preferential buyer, and sell to this person for around 20% below market price. They have cost the tax-payers this 20% gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

enlighten yourself and put some effort in, you need it more than me

You selectively refuted 2 parts of my spiel. Seems to me its on you to put some effort in.

If I am wrong, which is probable, I would like to know why, rather than your haughty nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean that Bob Crow will have to pay more for his HA house?

And Baroness Uddin for hers?

Lady Uddin was exposed as a cheat on May 3 last year, after it was reported that she had never been seen at her designated ‘main home’ in Kent. The small flat in Maidstone allowed her to claim £174 a night while she was actually living at her family home in London, provided by a housing association.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333153/Labours-Baroness-Uddin-booted-Lords-claimed-40-000-AFTER-expenses-fiddle-came-light.html#ixzz1RWRj7N4K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You selectively refuted 2 parts of my spiel. Seems to me its on you to put some effort in.

If I am wrong, which is probable, I would like to know why, rather than your haughty nonsense.

I don't deny I am haughty in this respect, I simply lose patience

You have a very marginalised view of the economy, I simply don't care very much that you don't understand, as your view is not upheld by anyone serious in government, including the liberals in the labour party, I don't have the time to help you, sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leicestersq is right.

Suppose the council has an used equipment to sell. Don't you think the fairest thing to do is to auction it? Suppose they decide to chose a preferential buyer, and sell to this person for around 20% below market price. They have cost the tax-payers this 20% gap.

Truly terrible economics.

Simply awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlighten me then.

Both "private" rents and "public" rents are actually state subsidies - as people have freedom of movement unless the state pens them in like sheep.

The default rent is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leicestersq is right.

Suppose the council has an used equipment to sell. Don't you think the fairest thing to do is to auction it? Suppose they decide to chose a preferential buyer, and sell to this person for around 20% below market price. They have cost the tax-payers this 20% gap.

I think the fairest thing to do is for the council to flog it or give it away to whoever needs it the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't deny I am haughty in this respect, I simply lose patience

You have a very marginalised view of the economy, I simply don't care very much that you don't understand, as your view is not upheld by anyone serious in government, including the liberals in the labour party, I don't have the time to help you, sorry

Good. I am clearly on the right track then. If you cba to explain why though, don't refute. I am amazed considering how time constrained you claim you are you even bothered to edit my quote in the first place.

Share this post


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.

  • 285 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.