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

SingleSue

MrEnglish wrote: »

Reading this thread is the best advert to quit your job live on benefits and have a few kids.

It's not quite the ideal life you believe it to be.

carolt

It might be if (a) you were the kind of person who didn't care about/ignored their kids, or (b) played the system.

You don't fit into those categories, obviously.

leveller2911

Take a look over on the Bankrupt forum and have a look at some of the SOA.Its fairly common to see a family with 2 adults and 2 children ,income per month £800-00 from employment and £1700 per month from benefits.
Thats roughly equel to an income of over £30k gross.I can totally understand why people are now cutting their working hours per week and let the social top up their income.!!!!!! am I slaving away and working 60 hrs a week for £28k a year having gone through a 3 yr apprenticeship ,followed by crap money for a further 3 yrs.I should have not bothered training,qualifying and become a burger flipper and relied on WTC and CTC.

I have contacted the benefits office (4 times)regarding spongers who also work and still nothing is done.The main reason is because to cover an area of around 150,000 the agency has 3 investigators......Says it all really.

Nothing like a good rant to make you feel alive.....;)

vivatifosi

lemonjelly wrote: »

Since the right to buy was introduced, building of social housing has significantly fallen, & profits from right to buy have been channelled out of the housing budget. We do desperately need to build more social housing.

Regarding social housing, I agree more should be built. What I don't understand with housing benefit is this: when my family had a right to a council house, they had a choice of one; if they didn't like it or it didn't fit their circumstances, they had a choice of one more, after which they were placed down the list again.

Why do people on housing benefit seem to have such a wide choice to start with? Obviously people are going to go for the most lovely place they can get for the money they will be given, that's human nature. But is this in line with what social housing is about? Before I'm flamed for saying this, yes I do know people who are on/have been on HB and their places are nicer than the council equivalents locally, which are older, well serviced but not as pleasant. I'm happy for someone who knows more about this (that'll be you again lj) to tell me I'm wrong and that its a bit different how I perceive things but surely there's scope to save money here.

lemonjelly

vivatifosi wrote: »

Regarding social housing, I agree more should be built. What I don't understand with housing benefit is this: when my family had a right to a council house, they had a choice of one; if they didn't like it or it didn't fit their circumstances, they had a choice of one more, after which they were placed down the list again.

Why do people on housing benefit seem to have such a wide choice to start with? Obviously people are going to go for the most lovely place they can get for the money they will be given, that's human nature. But is this in line with what social housing is about? Before I'm flamed for saying this, yes I do know people who are on/have been on HB and their places are nicer than the council equivalents locally, which are older, well serviced but not as pleasant. I'm happy for someone who knows more about this (that'll be you again lj) to tell me I'm wrong and that its a bit different how I perceive things but surely there's scope to save money here.

Social Housing has limits on the rent levels it can charge (another arguement in favour of more social housing if you ask me...)

The types of excessive rents which you see in the papers are always private rents, not social housing. & It is the cost of privately renting which has become so expensive, & pushed up housing benefit costs. In theory, this could be addressed by limiting the maximum housing benefit payable, or by increasing the powers of rent officers to assess rent levels as being excessive.

Difficulty is, imagine a family in a 3 bed privately rented house, suddenly out of work. Do we turf them out of the privately rented house because the rent is higher than social housing? This would only place additional pressures on social housing.

One solution, perhaps, would be to allow a "grace period", perhaps where hb will meet the full rent for a period, before becoming restricted after say 52 weeks - giving the family time to increase their income or move?

carolt

Quite - that's obviously the sensible solution. That's what people who don't lose their jobs, but just have their income reduced, for whatever reason, have to do, after all - use up their savings and find somewhere cheaper, sharpish.

The same rule should apply to those whose income reduces to zero.

Also, there is no way ANYONE should be entitled to privately rented housing in central London - nothing further in than zone 3, say. If they can get a council house at low rents, fine. If not, private rents are just too expensive for the taxpayer to be footing the bill - they should have to move out to cheaper areas, as any working person would have to do. If that means they are too far from schools/family? Tough - they can get public transport in, the same as any working family would have to do.

vivatifosi

carolt wrote: »

Also, there is no way ANYONE should be entitled to privately rented housing in central London - nothing further in than zone 3, say. If they can get a council house at low rents, fine. If not, private rents are just too expensive for the taxpayer to be footing the bill - they should have to move out to cheaper areas, as any working person would have to do. If that means they are too far from schools/family? Tough - they can get public transport in, the same as any working family would have to do.

I completely agree Carol, I'd also rule out very expensive outer suburbs as there is inevitably somewhere cheaper within 5 miles.

Edited to add: here are some examples of properties in London that would rent for £1,100 per week.

http://www.globrix.com/property-details/15665513-mountview_close-london-nw11-3_bed-apartment
http://www.net-lettings.co.uk/London/Properties/property-to-rent-in-West-Kensington.aspx?propcode=FOXEL_000244
http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?location_ids=84&property_id=717730&search_form=map&search_type=LL&submit_type=search

Seriously, these are nice areas of London, yet for £1100 per week you're getting gated estates and porters. What real person can afford these? I would dearly like to know what areas the government is paying £1100 per week for a home and how big they are. It's madness.

tartanterra

The benefits system was concieved and designed as a safety net for the most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately, over the years, this principle has been lost.
This has been further distorted by the ludicrous tax credit system.

I have recently taken a large drop in income to secure a job in my local area, and I was stunned to see the benefits I am now entitled to.

When I changed jobs, I was fully aware of the income drop I would take and "cut my cloth" accordingly. I was happy with the situation and calculated that I could live comfortably on my new income.

Since changing jobs, I now receive around £400 a month in tax credits, and if I had lied about my savings I could also have received around an 80% discount on my Council Tax. If I rented my house, I would also have been able to claim a percentage of the rent.

Being given money that I don't really need, strikes me as rather odd, especially as my income is just under double the average around here, and it has also got me interested in how the system works.
I have since been on various benefit/tax credit calculators, and was shocked to realise that if I gave up my current full time job, and then myself and my wife worked a mere 16 hours a week each at minimum wage, we would be even better off.

I have discussed this in my local, and it seems that a lot of people have been quite surprised at how much money the government throw at them. It's almost like being paid NOT to work.

I really don't understand what the Government is trying to achieve.

MrEnglish

What percentage of rented houses are rented to LHA tenants and if those rents were dropped by 25% what effect would in have on the housing market, rental and sale. I'm asking because I don't really know.

Can anyone answer?

lemonjelly

I've been having a bit of a plough through various bits of reading material I've been recieving post budget, & found this:

From October 2011

• The housing benefit rules will be amended to exclude the most expensive properties in local areas from calculations. £250m a year savings estimated.

So, it loooks like the very expensive housing issue will be addressed....in 18 months time.