Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Housing Benefits: Changes 'sees 6% Of Tenants Move'

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26770727

Only 6% of social housing tenants in Britain affected by changes to benefits partly designed to cut under-occupancy have moved home, BBC research suggests.

Ministers had hoped cutting benefits for tenants deemed to have a spare room would free up larger homes.

A year after the changes came in, BBC analysis of data from social housing providers also suggests 28% of affected tenants have fallen into rent arrears.

The government said the change was saving taxpayers more than £1m a day.

Should there have been more people moving than this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should of not sold off all the suitable council housing these people were expected to move into.

Also actually building new social housing may have helped, but then this policy wasn't designed to make sense or help sort out the issues plaguing social housing and tenants, it's just a dog whistle for daily mail and sun readers to whip them up into a self righteous frenzy and secure their vote.

Without any new social housing built for these under occupying families to move to, this figure of 6% should drop even further. Total failure. Once again the rentier and landlord party ignore the main issue. If it doesn't help HPI, BTL or their donors in the financial or building industry it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they should of not sold off all the suitable council housing these people were expected to move into.

Also actually building new social housing may have helped, but then this policy wasn't designed to make sense or help sort out the issues plaguing social housing and tenants, it's just a dog whistle for daily mail and sun readers to whip them up into a self righteous frenzy and secure their vote.

Without any new social housing built for these under occupying families to move to, this figure of 6% should drop even further. Total failure. Once again the rentier and landlord party ignore the main issue. If it doesn't help HPI, BTL or their donors in the financial or building industry it doesn't matter.

This is one instance where Scotland is leading the way - they have a bill going through to abolish right to buy.

Right to buy has devastated social housing stock, literally more than having it in some cities and removing it entirely in any half-decent rural location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, obviously. But some of the bedrooms were which is the point of the reform.

The thing is, I can't disagree with the principle that if you rely on social housing then you should be asked to move to a smaller place if circumstances change (i.e. kids move out). It just seems to have been done on a maximum-pain, minimum gain basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I can't disagree with the principle that if you rely on social housing then you should be asked to move to a smaller place if circumstances change (i.e. kids move out). It just seems to have been done on a maximum-pain, minimum gain basis.

I entirely agree with that last point.

Welfare reform - great idea. Shockingly badly handled.

They really didn't think it through, all that was required was to do a consultation with the housing associations and the aspects of disabled people with a carer bedroom, shortage of available smaller properties in some areas (not all, some have loads) would all have come up and provision made for it.

Similar shambles with general benefits whereby foodbanks are now an essential, not because people are poorer but because the welfare system now leaves them penniless for weeks before giving them their back payments in one go. Genius.

Edited by Frank Hovis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one instance where Scotland is leading the way - they have a bill going through to abolish right to buy.

Right to buy has devastated social housing stock, literally more than having it in some cities and removing it entirely in any half-decent rural location.

Right To Buy was designed to destroy social housing, so it could be laundered and end up in the hands of private landlords. Partially successful.

However it won't end up in one cheaper house for any of you.

False scarcity is the established policy whether in owner occupation, or social housing. Pretty much the only choice for millions of people now is renting throug a private rentier.

The country is basically run by two criminal gangs, LabourTory on behalf of landowners and the Corporation of London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I can't disagree with the principle that if you rely on social housing then you should be asked to move to a smaller place if circumstances change (i.e. kids move out). It just seems to have been done on a maximum-pain, minimum gain basis.

I have always thought five year tenancy term's for all existing tenats would be much more effective and fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right To Buy was designed to destroy social housing, so it could be laundered and end up in the hands of private landlords. Partially successful.

However it won't end up in one cheaper house for any of you.

False scarcity is the established policy whether in owner occupation, or social housing. Pretty much the only choice for millions of people now is renting throug a private rentier.

The country is basically run by two criminal gangs, LabourTory on behalf of landowners and the Corporation of London.

I thought it was about winning votes, the destruction of social housing is a mere by-product.

One city I know had its stock literally halved in twenty years through RTB.

I remember when it came out there were comedy sketches about people turing their RTB houses into palaces compared to their neighbours. The reality is that you can go to any ex-council estate and spot the RTBs. They're the ones that are in the worst state of repair, not many RTBs get their roofs replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when it came out there were comedy sketches about people turing their RTB houses into palaces compared to their neighbours. The reality is that you can go to any ex-council estate and spot the RTBs. They're the ones that are in the worst state of repair, not many RTBs get their roofs replaced.

The same is now happening with BTL. I volunteered for some leaflet distribution a few weeks back and you could just tell the BTL's (scruffy, uncared for properties with overflowing bins). I certainly know where the cannabis farms are now.

You have to hand it to RentierLabourTory, a humble council flat is now something to be aspire to. A secure tenancy for life (provided you pay the rent and don't upset the neighbours) plus you actually get the boiler fixed and repairs done. Of course they are steadfastly working to ensure even that becomes 'unaffordable' to the average working man (or should I say 'affordable' in Orwell speak).

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same is now happening with BTL. I volunteered for some leaflet distribution a few weeks back and you could just tell the BTL's (scruffy, uncared for properties with overflowing bins). I certainly know where the cannabis farms are now.

I looked at renting one last year and I pretty quickly decided not to, it was in a state.

I haven't seen any estimates but there must be an enormous maintenance backlog building up for these BTL properties. Roofs, heating systems, wiring etc. all need doing on cycles and to pay for that you need to be putting money aside. Which I doubt is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought five year tenancy term's for all existing tenats would be much more effective and fair.

This should be for private tenants too.

I don't see who could object to this, apart from amateur BTLers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at renting one last year and I pretty quickly decided not to, it was in a state.

I haven't seen any estimates but there must be an enormous maintenance backlog building up for these BTL properties. Roofs, heating systems, wiring etc. all need doing on cycles and to pay for that you need to be putting money aside. Which I doubt is happening.

As a rule of thumb maintenance is about 1%* of the properties value each year.

* Excluding extremely overpriced tiny flats and verly large cheap houses up north.

Every 15 - 30 years: New kitchen, New bathroom, New Roof, New windows, Better Insulation, New heating system.

Every 5 - 10 Years: New carpets, general redecoration, fences, outside maintance.

It all adds up, and generally you will find that rented properties wear much quicker than owner occupiers for various [straw man] reasons that I will not get into right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely agree with that last point.

Welfare reform - great idea. Shockingly badly handled.

They really didn't think it through, all that was required was to do a consultation with the housing associations and the aspects of disabled people with a carer bedroom, shortage of available smaller properties in some areas (not all, some have loads) would all have come up and provision made for it.

Similar shambles with general benefits whereby foodbanks are now an essential, not because people are poorer but because the welfare system now leaves them penniless for weeks before giving them their back payments in one go. Genius.

The thing is (which needs repeating again and again..) we could have had a local authority by local authority assessment of social housing stock, waiting lists, and underutilisation to establish the need.. and then a large scale building program to actually address it, funded by the subsequent reduction in housing benefit.

And whilst they were at it, making sure that the houses were deliberately built to minimize maintenance and running costs. Ideally with things like solar panels with net metering, which would make living in the places more affordable.

Then you could ask people to move into smaller accommodation, because you'd have built it. And the presence of new, high quality council housing might make private landlords raise their game a bit..

So - self-funding, reduces benefit costs, reduces costs for private renters, employs people and therefore lowers the overall benefits bill. And obviously cheaper housing makes it easier for people to work. Clearly a totally unworkable policy, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was about winning votes, the destruction of social housing is a mere by-product.

One city I know had its stock literally halved in twenty years through RTB.

I remember when it came out there were comedy sketches about people turing their RTB houses into palaces compared to their neighbours. The reality is that you can go to any ex-council estate and spot the RTBs. They're the ones that are in the worst state of repair, not many RTBs get their roofs replaced.

I thought it was about winning votes, the destruction of social housing is a mere by-product.

Vote buying yes and to destroy social housing by not replacing the stock, the benefit of destroying social housing and lifetime tenancies was to introduce fear and compliance to the working class that lived in them. How can you go on strike or even demonstrate when you have a mortgage to pay for? Ultimately it keeps you as the working class, You are controlled by the state and banks with no voice, to be used up for business interests. Win win for labour Tory, business interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is (which needs repeating again and again..) we could have had a local authority by local authority assessment of social housing stock, waiting lists, and underutilisation to establish the need.. and then a large scale buildiing program to actually address it, funded by the subsequent reduction in housing benefit.

And whilst they were at it, making sure that the houses were deliberately built to minimize maintenance and running costs. Ideally with things like solar panels with net metering, which would make living in the places more affordable.

Then you could ask people to move into smaller accommodation, because you'd have built it. And the presence of new, high quality council housing might make private landlords raise their game a bit..

So - self-funding, reduces benefit costs, reduces costs for private renters, employs people and therefore lowers the overall benefits bill. And obviously cheaper housing makes it easier for people to work. Clearly a totally unworkable policy, then.

You're living in dreamland! ;)

The low maintenance / running costs bit is actually in place with higher build standards for social housing compared to private developers and SAP targets, met by things like solar panels and air source heat pumps.

The new kid on the block is the Passivhaus (google it) with near-zero heating bills, several schemes have already been built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She said her old home had been vacant for three months. She said. "You'd think they'd have filled it by now, but no. I think it's because we're out of the way and a lot of people don't like to be out of the way." "

The way housing organisations manage their housing stock needs looking at.

At least with a private landlord they see the incentive in getting a house back occupied quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She said her old home had been vacant for three months. She said. "You'd think they'd have filled it by now, but no. I think it's because we're out of the way and a lot of people don't like to be out of the way." "

The way housing organisations manage their housing stock needs looking at.

At least with a private landlord they see the incentive in getting a house back occupied quickly.

Like anything in the targets-obsessed public sector social housing is regulated and benchmarked within an inch of its life.

One of these is average void relet time. Sometimes homes are deliberately not relet for specific reasons, such as planned structural work, intended disposal, or demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the presence of new, high quality council housing might make private landlords raise their game a bit..

The absence of new council housing is what I believe is partially responsible for the 'shoe box' builds currently being built.

When I look around where I am living now, I can see some well built social housing stock from the 50's - next to that there is a well designed new estate from the mid 70's. It's quite clear that the 70's stock had to be better than the 50's stock or it wouldn't sell.

In the complete absence of any competition, pritate builders can build what they like as people NEED a home to live in.

Building high quality council estates would force builders to build better quality accommodation as they would have competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was about winning votes, the destruction of social housing is a mere by-product.

Vote buying yes and to destroy social housing by not replacing the stock, the benefit of destroying social housing and lifetime tenancies was to introduce fear and compliance to the working class that lived in them. How can you go on strike or even demonstrate when you have a mortgage to pay for? Ultimately it keeps you as the working class, You are controlled by the state and banks with no voice, to be used up for business interests. Win win for labour Tory, business interests.

Also years of above inflation rent rises are taking their toll. Was discussing with Self Employed Youth social rent levels in Sheffield. They have more or less managed to double them over the past ten years. So even in the North, someone on NMW is going to find half their wage going in social rent + council tax, then have the cheek to say its 'subsidised.' Its only subsidised in comparison to the crazy private market.

And they wonder why the economy is flatlining. But LabourTory don't care, they only care about rent extraction and financialisation of existing property assets.

The reason why we have secure tenancies as that was the only form of tenure politically acceptable at one time. Telling the working class back in the 1940;s that they could be out in six months, and have to pay £60 for an 'AST' to be photocopied every six months would probably have resulted in a mass down tools and Hitler could have walked into the country.

But yes everyone has to be treated as a slave, and kept in a constant state of fear and uncertainly. Because that is the rentier Labour Tory way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.