Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/ListofRents.aspx?SearchResultsPageParameters=true&LocalAuthorityId=37&LHACategory=999&Month=10&Year=2011&SearchPageParameters=true&BrmaId=61

1%20Room%20(shared).gif

These graphs all point up right at the end ... What's that mean?

Shared Accommodation 2603 rents in total used to work it out... So there's 103 rents at the £80-140 level?

Does it mean some landlords have been aware of how to play the system?

So the graph also tells us that there are 2603 - 800 people now getting less LHA than the rent is... (so 1800 people?) assuming that all the rents used are LHA paid rents?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Took me a while to work out what that graph meant.

'number of rents' is just a number (in order) they've assigned to each rent (each piece of data they have).

The graph is showing that the rents are fairly evenly distributed, but there's a few extremes at the top end. This seems to be what we'd expect?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd that the most expensive is also the most heavily paid out HB. Is that to be expected given the HB rate is lower than the majority of the market rate? or is it landlord profiteering. ?

The graph doesn't show the distribution of HB payments, it shows the rent sample used by the VOA to determine the LHA figure. The VOA do not use rents paid by tenants in receipt of HB.

The LHA rate is set at the thirtieth percentile a long way down the distribution of rents.

The graph is showing that 70% of rents are higher than the LHA rate used to pay HB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph doesn't show the distribution of HB payments, it shows the rent sample used by the VOA to determine the LHA figure. The VOA do not use rents paid by tenants in receipt of HB.

The LHA rate is set at the thirtieth percentile a long way down the distribution of rents.

The graph is showing that 70% of rents are higher than the LHA rate used to pay HB.

Where do they source their rent info from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph doesn't show the distribution of HB payments, it shows the rent sample used by the VOA to determine the LHA figure. The VOA do not use rents paid by tenants in receipt of HB.

The LHA rate is set at the thirtieth percentile a long way down the distribution of rents.

The graph is showing that 70% of rents are higher than the LHA rate used to pay HB.

I would imagine that there is more HB attached to higher rents in LHA, though as you rightly say these graphs do not indicate this, for the simple reason families and especially single mothers will tend to occupy larger properties. We are currently in an LHA block of six one beds paying £77.75 p/w. We pay our rent, one chap with a works pension will have to pay his and there is another working couple. Then there are two unemployed singles and a retired pensioner, minus works pension who are on full HB.

That's probably about as good a proportion of payers you could get in a LHA, the block I am in is considered about the best housing authority unit in town. I certainly wouldn't fancy an area of LHA houses, these areas in Nottingham are rife with thuggery. Doesn't really help when you can only get these places if you are down and out and not working in the first place (my partner wangled the present place somehow before I was living with her).

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/ListofRents.aspx?SearchResultsPageParameters=true&LocalAuthorityId=37&LHACategory=999&Month=10&Year=2011&SearchPageParameters=true&BrmaId=61

1%20Room%20(shared).gif

These graphs all point up right at the end ... What's that mean?

Shared Accommodation 2603 rents in total used to work it out... So there's 103 rents at the £80-140 level?

Does it mean some landlords have been aware of how to play the system?

So the graph also tells us that there are 2603 - 800 people now getting less LHA than the rent is... (so 1800 people?) assuming that all the rents used are LHA paid rents?

Sarah,

What it means when it points up like that, is that there are one or two rents that are very high for the whole selection, so that in that first graph, someone claims to be paying £140 pw for shared accommodation. I know that you get some outliers that are true results, but something is wrong there, I cant believe someone could be paying that much money, must be some sort of fiddle. Presumably the person paying that cant be getting HB, because the difference that they have to pay from what the HB award would be is so great that they must have enough income in the first place to not be awarded HB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These graphs seem to show that changing LHA rates from the median to the 30th percentile will have little effect on the size of the HB bill because rents are so flat across the middle of the range.

The median rent on these graphs is found by taking the highest "number of rents", dividing by two, and then looking up the rent at this price. For example, on the graph in the OP the median rent is at about 1300 and corresponds to a price of around £67pw, whereas the 30th percentile rent is £60.

Can HB landlords swallow a 10% drop in the £20bn+ the government forks over to them each year? Probably quite easily, especially considering that rents (especially in London/SE) are on the rise so the 30th percentile rent may itself be rising anyway. The government's proposed cut sounds harsh, but isn't really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These graphs seem to show that changing LHA rates from the median to the 30th percentile will have little effect on the size of the HB bill because rents are so flat across the middle of the range.

The median rent on these graphs is found by taking the highest "number of rents", dividing by two, and then looking up the rent at this price. For example, on the graph in the OP the median rent is at about 1300 and corresponds to a price of around £67pw, whereas the 30th percentile rent is £60.

Can HB landlords swallow a 10% drop in the £20bn+ the government forks over to them each year? Probably quite easily, especially considering that rents (especially in London/SE) are on the rise so the 30th percentile rent may itself be rising anyway. The government's proposed cut sounds harsh, but isn't really.

The pictures are for Manchester, so I guess that the pic wouldnt be as flat as in London.

Thing is shaving a bit off HB wont hurt anyone, nor will it save much money. Every bit counts though, just need something to count a bit more to make up for the shortfall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lambeth

1%20Room%20(shared).gif

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/ListofRents.aspx?SearchResultsPageParameters=true&LocalAuthorityId=22&LHACategory=999&Month=10&Year=2011&SearchPageParameters=true&BrmaId=144

Inner South East London BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate:

£85.00 per week

One Bedroom Rate:

£184.62 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate:

£235.00 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate:

£294.23 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate:

£369.23 per week

All the figures are there for all areas

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Search.aspx

Edited by SarahBell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah,

interesting graphs. The highest rents, I just hope that they are not HB assisted. They boost the average, but shouldnt move the 30% limit up.

So for shared accommodation in SE London, someone is paying £200 pw?

And for a one bed pad, someone is paying £1000 pw?

It looks to me as if for the same area, someone is paying an eye watering £2200 pw for a two bed house?

The max for a three bed is only £1200 (only used in the very loosest sense) a week.

And four beds the top rent is £1000 a week.

I would go back and check that max figure for the two bed place if I had those statistics, and that £1 grand a week for a one bed place, well it must have a big bathroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, the 30th percantile rate for shared accomodation in Lambeth is nearly £400 per week?

Someone else that needs to either drink more coffee or should have gone to specsavers!

John,

I cant see the graphs on the first link. On the second link I can see an amount of about £80 a week at the 30th percentile. Does the first link work for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The charts seems to concur with the report namely the average loss (if there is one) is £10-15 / week so about £520-780 / year, with about 40% on HB not losing at all (i.e. in cheap accommodation at the moment).

The loss per week chart would be very interesting - bimodal with peaks at £0 and between £10-15 with no virtually non losses elsewhere suggesting that some LL are very good at setting the rent at ~50%. Therefore this could be very effective, the 30% level will also take time to have it cumulative effect and benefite hte rest of the market.

Or rather than trying to deduce what impact the changes will have based on some (dodgy) charts, why not just look at this:

Impacts of Housing Benefit proposals: Changes to the Local Housing Allowance to be introduced in 2011-12

Its broken down by area too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly October 2011 isn't over yet, so I'm not sure how they calculated the rents for it.

Secondly the 30% percentile rule started in October 2011, landlords would not be effected by this depending on 6 or 12 month AST contracts which would make up the data.

I don't think anyone has day to day changes in their rent, usually you agree a figure and then pay that until the contract ends and then renegotiate.

The 30th percentile rule will affect existing tenancies in January 2012, when they will be applied to all existing claimants of housing benefit.

Existing claimants from the anniversary of their claim

Edited by northwestsmith2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The charts seems to concur with the report namely the average loss (if there is one) is £10-15 / week so about £520-780 / year, with about 40% on HB not losing at all (i.e. in cheap accommodation at the moment).

The loss per week chart would be very interesting - bimodal with peaks at £0 and between £10-15 with no virtually non losses elsewhere suggesting that some LL are very good at setting the rent at ~50%. Therefore this could be very effective, the 30% level will also take time to have it cumulative effect and benefite hte rest of the market.

It will, and I think if you're already claiming, the rates don't change until your 'aniversary' (ie the date you first claimed) so that will be gradual too. Also, I'm not sure if this takes into account the change to the shared accomodation rate (from 35 down to 25) from January (happy to be corrected).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will, and I think if you're already claiming, the rates don't change until your 'aniversary' (ie the date you first claimed) so that will be gradual too. Also, I'm not sure if this takes into account the change to the shared accomodation rate (from 35 down to 25) from January (happy to be corrected).

I vaguely recall that claimants who have not worked for a year will only get some lower fraction (90%?) of the benefit. Can somebody confirm that please?

I guess there could be a non-trivial cumulative effect at the "low" end. It could go something like "You used to receive £200 a week for a median 1-bed flat, but being only 34 will now qualify for the shared rate. That would have been about £95 were you still allowed the median property, but it's £80 for the 30th percentile. This is the first anniversary of your claim, and you still don't work. Therefore from now on you will get 90% of that, or £72. Please pass my regards to your landlord, and would you ask the next claimant to come in as you leave?"

If the above is right, I would expect a minor population boom amongst claimants. However, it probably isn't because the pdf linked a few posts earlier shows very few losers above the £15 a week mark (pg 7). Then again, they don't seem to be examining the impact in the increased age limit, or of the cut for claimants who have not worked for a long time (which I might be imagining though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess there could be a non-trivial cumulative effect at the "low" end. It could go something like "You used to receive £200 a week for a median 1-bed flat, but being only 34 will now qualify for the shared rate. That would have been about £95 were you still allowed the median property, but it's £80 for the 30th percentile. This is the first anniversary of your claim, and you still don't work. Therefore from now on you will get 90% of that, or £72. Please pass my regards to your landlord, and would you ask the next claimant to come in as you leave?"

People will either be affected and move or landlords will take less rent.

I hope it lowers rents.

The financial hardships around generally might increase the number of lettings rooms in family homes. Which would help lower rents more too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I vaguely recall that claimants who have not worked for a year will only get some lower fraction (90%?) of the benefit. Can somebody confirm that please?

I guess there could be a non-trivial cumulative effect at the "low" end. It could go something like "You used to receive £200 a week for a median 1-bed flat, but being only 34 will now qualify for the shared rate. That would have been about £95 were you still allowed the median property, but it's £80 for the 30th percentile. This is the first anniversary of your claim, and you still don't work. Therefore from now on you will get 90% of that, or £72. Please pass my regards to your landlord, and would you ask the next claimant to come in as you leave?"

If the above is right, I would expect a minor population boom amongst claimants. However, it probably isn't because the pdf linked a few posts earlier shows very few losers above the £15 a week mark (pg 7). Then again, they don't seem to be examining the impact in the increased age limit, or of the cut for claimants who have not worked for a long time (which I might be imagining though).

The report (now a bit dated) just seems to examine the initial weekly effects implementation (originally all the items were to be implemented much faster, rather than the current spaced out, delayed implementation) not any of the cumulative effects which is where the real cost saving occur for the government (and hopefully most HPCers too due to the downward pressure on rents.

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.

  • 415 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.