Housing Benefit capped at £400 a week!

C_Mababejive

Bullfighter wrote: »

In one sentence, defend regional adjusted maximums.

HINT: Why should someone on housing benefit have any say at all as to where in the country they get free accommodation?

I doubt i could give a single sentence answer.

I'll just say I am probably right of Genghis Khan in my views but even allowing for this,there will always be a limited need for HB (not further quantified) unless we are happy for the poorest to be homeless. What we must not do is perpetuate a dependency culture in which people are provided with super new housing asscn properties which are fully funded by the taxpayer.

I repeat again,i think the max £400 pw is too high but also that there should be regional maxima to take into account population densities and supply of accommodation such that for example, and as we might expect, rents in London would be more expensive.

HB is not and should not be a means by which those who are not economically active, can procure and have use of a property of equivalent value/facility than someone who works and pays a mortgage.

I am all in favour of the return to council estates for those who need to claim HB. In effect,in my world, HB would not be payable to non social landlords.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

It is if LHA is set at the everage rent for an area.

You said....

ILW wrote: »

I do not think that claimants should be guaranteed a service that is better than 50% of non claimants.

..... so LHA claimants will be IN the bottom 50%, not BETTER than it.

When_is_the_reset?

jenner wrote: »

you also say there are plenty of cheaper houses around, but how many of those would be willing to take the hb claimants, people on benefits have to take what they can, so many landlords dont take dss and until the government put some legislation in for private rentals (to compensate for the right to buy which has decimated social housing), tenants will have to take what they can get, even if it is more expensive than somewhere else

People being gifted lifestyles that are the same as those who work is just weird - whichever way you look at it.

Actually I also hope it brings down the rents and burns the BTLers, then they may not be so choosey.

Jowo_2

jenner wrote: »

we base need on set criteria about what is expected to provide healthy, happy children, yes we can all remember situations from our own childhoods where we shared rooms and property was not appropriate, but how many of us thought that they would change that when it came ot having our own kids, theres a reason we dont live like we used to in the 50s anymore

Are you confusing inequality (which is entrenched in capitalist society) with poverty?

There's no statutory legal obligation that ensures workless households receiving benefits must enjoy the same income and standard of living as working households, but some do. In fact, this new government is determined to ensure that it 'pays' to work and that the best route out of poverty is through employment (though their budget doesn't seem particularly focussed on addressing the housing shortage or increasing job opportunities despite this philosophy).

LHA regulations dictate the eligible rate for a particular size and type of accommodation according to various criteria, including age of the applicant, disability and age/sex of any children.

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.

Imani

my mate was made redundant and has had to claim benefits. she was subsequently made homeless with child in tow as rents could not be met. the council has rehoused her privately so out of whatever benefit she gets she some of the rent out of her dole and still has to find a way to feed her child too. she is desperate to find work and is now looking for jobs in and out of London. her rent is about £1k for 2bed flat south harrow I believe.

puddy

When_is_the_reset? wrote: »

People being gifted lifestyles that are the same as those who work is just weird - whichever way you look at it.

Actually I also hope it brings down the rents and burns the BTLers, then they may not be so choosey.

they/re not being gifted that lifestyle (if by lifestyle you mean a particular property), they just might not be able to rent anything else because that was the only landlord that took hb

i too hope it brings down rent, i think rents are unbelievably high

yes, i was talking about the criteria of allowable numbers of rooms for housing families, not a particular standard of living (although that too is calculated to be provided by the level of IS/CB etc etc). why blame children for the 'crimes' of the parent not working by ensuring that they have a lower standard of accommodation because we dont want to see them growing up in 'average' accommodation because their parents dont work?

i dont have an answer to all this, im split down the middle of not wanting to see people who work (like me) taken advantage of, but also not treating people who cant work as criminals who deserve the gutter

Shakethedisease

so LHA claimants will be IN the bottom 50%, not BETTER than it.

No, from October they'll be in the bottom 30%

Today’s Budget contains some severe cuts in Housing Benefit. The Budget reveals that from October 2011 Local Housing Allowance (LHA) will be set at 30 per cent of local rents. It is currently set at the median of local rents. This means that in any given area the amount available to pay for housing for eligible claimants will fall significantly....

.....But it seems highly likely that they will lead to LHA recipients being marginalised into the worst accommodation in the poorest areas, or to it being impossible for families to be accomodated at all – which will mean that the costs of temporary and bed and breakfast accommodation, as well as social service budgets, will rocket.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/budget-2010-housing-benefit-cuts/

puddy

that blog is incorrect, lha will be set at the 30th percentile, not 30%, i think it approximates to about 70% of the average rent but im not sure

puddy

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, from October they'll be in the bottom 30%



http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/budget-2010-housing-benefit-cuts/

but the end sentence there is very true and an insight into the disregard and lack of knowlege that the tories have about social services budgets. social services have a duty under the law to provide support to children in eed, a child without a home is by definition a child in need and so they will be forced to pay for accommodation for that family, at a time when services are being cut and yet the public want a gold standard of social servicesm, it will take money away from emergency interventions

C_Mababejive

Imani wrote: »

my mate was made redundant and has had to claim benefits. she was subsequently made homeless with child in tow as rents could not be met. the council has rehoused her privately so out of whatever benefit she gets she some of the rent out of her dole and still has to find a way to feed her child too. she is desperate to find work and is now looking for jobs in and out of London. her rent is about £1k for 2bed flat south harrow I believe.

She needs to shop around for something cheaper..

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION^93956&sortByPriceDescending=false&minBedrooms=2&maxBedrooms=2&displayPropertyType=houses&primaryDisplayPropertyType=houses&radius=10.0&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=houses