What effect (if any) will the changes to housing benefit have on the rental market?

FATBALLZ

The government should be buying vacant industrial/commercial premises, buying a few thousand cheapo sleeping bags, installing a couple of portacabins and a hose for washing with and stick all those people who aren't paying for their own housing in there. If they want to live they way the rest of us do they can pay for it like the rest of us.

ukcarper

Just for interest look at this for Guildford http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/HousingBenefit/LHA.htm

Blackwater Valley is near Aldershot

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Well, 2 things.

Firstly, the rents offices don't do site visits. They just compare like for like locally. If that is the going rate, they rubber stamp it. They aren't actually doing these site visits.

Plus, people are different, with different needs. Families are different sizes. & there are different prices in different areas too. So where do you draw the line? 1 amount for London, & 1 for everywhere else? How is that fair? Ok, so SE gets 1 rate, & the same for everywhere else? Still not fair.

See, a lot is made up of the higher cost of living in London/SE, so jobs there tend to be higher paid, so why do other parts of the country have to pay the same tax rates for example?

i don't think comparing like for like locally without actually seeing the properties is a good idea. you're likely to end up with a cluster of overpriced rentals that all justify inflated rental because they are marketted for the unemployed. we don't need any more rubber stamping either - better things for the public sector workers to be doing.

people are different - but this is the same for the waged. you don't get a pay rise just because you have another kid. so why should you if you are on benefits? i recognise there probably needs to be some small increase to reflect a larger family but not to the extent it is done now. how is it fair that workers have to find accommodation to suit whatever budget they have available but the unemployed get the protection of the state? as for different areas being different prices....again, the waged have to settle for affordability but the unemployed can insist on staying put in an expensive area. in london i don't see why it is justified for people to live in benefit paid accommodation in chelsea or kensington when there are far more affordable areas of london to live . maybe there is a need for some london weighting but only of a similar percentage of that given to teachers etc.

drc

I'm surprised this is not a human rights issue - that children of employed people are disregarded when it comes to living in an overcrowded property whereas there are special rules to protect overcrowding of children for those receiving housing benefits. Surely this is discrimination against workers children?

lemonjelly

It isn't.

Rules relating to overcrowding are the same, whether employed, or not employed. & they fall within housing law.

The debate here is whether or not housing benefit should be restricted.

puddy

unless its your own home and then no one cares if you're overcrowded

and what everyone seems to forget in these situations is that people on housing benefits really dont have much of a choice where they live because so many landlords wont take hb claimants, so they will take what they can find even if its a lot of money (because hb will pay)

it all comes back time and time again to the lack of social housing

terryw

The basic problem is that housing benefit is a bad benefit as it skews upwards most claimant's cash in hand. For many claimants, it is a real financial disincentive to finding work or improving their lives. I just wish that someone wiser than me could come up with a realistic alternative.

The old rent rebate which was the grandfather of HB and LHA was actually brought in originally as a political panic measure to avoid social unrest at a time when council house rents were raised considerably. It would be a brave government which tried to alter the system radically because of the political consequences.

ninky_2

drc wrote: »

I'm surprised this is not a human rights issue - that children of employed people are disregarded when it comes to living in an overcrowded property whereas there are special rules to protect overcrowding of children for those receiving housing benefits. Surely this is discrimination against workers children?

someone should actually bring a case.

ninky_2

terryw wrote: »

The basic problem is that housing benefit is a bad benefit as it skews upwards most claimant's cash in hand. For many claimants, it is a real financial disincentive to finding work or improving their lives. I just wish that someone wiser than me could come up with a realistic alternative.

The old rent rebate which was the grandfather of HB and LHA was actually brought in originally as a political panic measure to avoid social unrest at a time when council house rents were raised considerably. It would be a brave government which tried to alter the system radically because of the political consequences.

i have. an accommodation allowance.

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

It isn't.

Rules relating to overcrowding are the same, whether employed, or not employed. & they fall within housing law.

The debate here is whether or not housing benefit should be restricted.

how does this work in practice? so if i live in a one bed flat and have 2 kids but can't afford to move or extend how does this law protect me?