Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

Jowo_2

Not forgetting that before a previous cap, one family in Brent got £147k for a 7 bedroom property, nearly £3000 per week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/21/breakfast-clubs-school-government-support

QTPie

Jowo wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/21/breakfast-clubs-school-government-support

breakfast clubs sound good to me (providing they are efficiently administered): it is ensuring that the people who need (children) it get what they need (healthy food - a good start to the day). Yes parents SHOULD be able to feed their kids, but - as the article says - parents often spend that money elsewhere (high tech toys, drink, cigarettes etc)...

QT

princeofpounds

I'm kind of surprised there are posters here who seem to be arguing that LHA claimants should be entitled to average housing conditions, meaning that by definition claimants with similar housing needs will be housed in better conditions than 50% of working families.

The argument they put seems to be 'why shouldn't they? they don't get treated worse on the NHS or any number of other social services'.

This is a poor argument for a number of quite clear reasons:

- LHA is not a social service in the same manner as the NHS. Councils have a duty to house in acceptable accomodation, not a duty to house in average accomodation.

- LHA claimants and non-LHA claimants DO get the same levels of service no matter what the level of support provided. Both groups get a safety net at a specific level, but only one group happens to be making use of it.

To continue with the healthcare parallel, with private medical insurance I can get much faster treatment for my complaints and normally a greater range of options, but the NHS is not required to treat to the standard of the average private medical policy, which would be a more fair comparison to the LHA situation. State education is another example where a social service is provided to an absolute level and not relative to private education. Disability allowances for transport do not entitle you to an average car.

It's a mistake to confuse equality of social protection with equality of outcome. Absolutely any person should have access to last-resort housing of acceptable quality. That doesn't mean that last resort housing should be more valuable than 50% of normal owner-paid housing! Social services should be based upon need, and the need is acceptable housing, not average housing. In a well-run society, you would hope that average housing is better than just acceptable!

hellokitty08

Ok, look what I have started! Ops!

I was just really wanting to know areas where you couldnt rent a four bed house for £400 a week.

I havent been on all the pages yet, but still seem to have seen so far little actual evidence that you cant.

I will keep looking, I was a bit shocked to be honest, as I lived in the dining room my whole childhood! Well not lived, but it was my bedroom. I would have thought a family of up to 8 could live quite happily in a 4 bed house.

BitterAndTwisted

Jowo wrote: »

Not forgetting that before a previous cap, one family in Brent got £147k for a 7 bedroom property, nearly £3000 per week.

Despite anything newspapers like the Daily Mail have to say about these kinds of instances they are extremely isolated and unusual. I have a feeling that the tenants in these sorts of properties have support from special interest groups which aren't necessarily available to the overwhelming majority of families trying to find a home to let privately.

Jowo_2

Yes, I agree that those in receipt of LHA sums equal or greater to average earnings are in the very tiny minority. Shelter make it clear that around half of LHA claimants already pay a top up out of their own income and the majority are either in work, disabled or collecting pensions.

And while its sensible to cap LHA, the budget didn't address the root cause of high rents (high demand, low wages and low job opportunities and low supply of cheaper properties).

Orpheo

It should be capped at £400 per month.

Stop putting tax pounds into the pockets of BTL landlords. If that happens, rents will drop, house prices will drop and people in London might have a chance of somewhere to live. Failing that, move somewhere you can afford to live, that's what families that pay their own way have to do.

silvercar

Jowo wrote: »

Yes, I agree that those in receipt of LHA sums equal or greater to average earnings are in the very tiny minority. Shelter make it clear that around half of LHA claimants already pay a top up out of their own income and the majority are either in work, disabled or collecting pensions.

And while its sensible to cap LHA, the budget didn't address the root cause of high rents (high demand, low wages and low job opportunities and low supply of cheaper properties).

It seems that those on max LHA will get their payments reduced from the 50th percentile to the 30th. (spot check in my area on rightmove suggested an 8% drop BTW).

For those who only receive a contribution towards rent, what happens? Do they lose contribution £ for £? So someone who would be entitled to say £800 pcm if full benefit gets say £400 due to earnings. If the £800 figure reduces to £700, does the £400 drop to £300 or £350?

Alias_Omega

Im a Landlord, and its 'Up North'

I rent my house out at £390 per month... (3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, new kitchen, end terrace, front & back gardens, large lounge, set in a quiet close etc..)


Maybe they need to start shipping these families up north, and into the cheaper housing. They would save £1200 per house, per month..

Sod the VAT 2.5% rise.

Soubrette

Jowo wrote: »

Unfortunately, it led to thousands of households across the country getting LHA rates in excess of the average persons working wage which meant it became deeply unpopular in some quarters. It's a shame to blame the LHA tenants for the lack of provision of affordable housing or decent wages but easy to understand why those that leave the house at 7 to go to work resent the blinds still being down in workless households enjoying the same standard of accommodation as them.

(bolded by myself for emphasis). I 100% agree with this Jowo - also it's not just about the jealousy of people working - it's about making rational decisions. If I work in a low paid job and it pays more or the same (or even just a little bit less but I have more free time) to not work then it's a rational decision for me to give up work.

It should never be more cost effective to be on benefits because those benefits are paid for by people in work. This is nothing to do with jealousy and all to do with economics. Simply put, we need the tax paying workers to pay for the needy and vulnerable in society. If it becomes rational for a low paid worker to stop work then the system starts to fail.

Of course there is the subsiduary problem that low paid jobs become hard to fill.

Sou