Private Landlords to Evict up to 200,000 tenants because of benefits cuts

thefenman

Reducing existing benefits is a really underhand trick - maybe, just maybe, new claimants could be given lower amounts and they plan accordingly but these politicians simply do not live in the real world - most of the Cabinet are millionaires, so why should they care? They should care because they pretend that they do. What is certain is that they will feel no pain.

I am disgusted by the whole shebang - I feel a spoilt ballot paper coming on at the next election.

PasturesNew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As an example, lets take a prospective housing benefit tenant, we'll call her 'Ermentrude'.....

Now Ermentrude currently receives housing benefit to the tune of £200 a week. Under the new rules Ermentrude can only get £150 a week.

So Ermentrude goes to her landlord and says "you have to drop the rent".

Her landlord, a nice chap called Hamish, replies "F*ck off, pay up or you're out".

So Ermentrude takes a look around for a cheaper place, and can't find one, because there are thousands of other Ermentrudes out there doing exactly the same thing.

All the cheap places are taken.

So Ermentrude has two choices. Come up with the rent, or be homeless.

But Ermentrude is single, so doesn't have a raft of other benefits she's collecting. Just the £65/week JSA. So stuff the LL and his greedy, sweaty hands.... stuff the system..... and moves into a tent/van.

tartanterra

PasturesNew wrote: »

But Ermentrude is single, so doesn't have a raft of other benefits she's collecting. Just the £65/week JSA. So stuff the LL and his greedy, sweaty hands.... stuff the system..... and moves into a tent/van.

Which pleases all us taxpayers, as it will save us £150 a week.:D

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

silvercar wrote: »

Or:

Hamish polishes his halo and decides that he will put up with the low rent, after all a tenant he knows is safer than one he doesn't and a new tenant could be messy/ stroppy/ abscond/ fall behind with the rent.

Or.....

Hamish calls the council, and explains Ermentrude and the kids are within 30 days of homelessness, so they can cough up the difference or pay double to put them in B&B.

Council pays up from the 60 million emergency fund just announced for that purpose.

Hamish gets the back rent, gives them notice anyway and turns the place into an HMO, getting double the previous rent from a group of Uni students renting rooms instead of the house.

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or.....

Hamish calls the council, and explains Ermentrude and the kids are within 30 days of homelessness, so they can cough up the difference or pay double to put them in B&B.

Council pays up from the 60 million emergency fund just announced for that purpose.

Hamish gets the back rent, gives them notice anyway and turns the place into an HMO, getting double the previous rent from a group of Uni students renting rooms instead of the house.

Who chop up all the furnature and urinate on the walls.

PasturesNew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Hamish gets the back rent, gives them notice anyway and turns the place into an HMO, getting double the previous rent from a group of Uni students renting rooms instead of the house.

Hamish gets the back rent (maybe), gives them notice - but they hold on and it goes the full route of eviction, wasting time. He then tries to do an HMO, but finds out about all the new licensing/etc that came in on 1 April. He then digs deep into his pockets (do his hands EVER reach his money?) and has the work done (cash in hand, cheapest, by some immigrants) ... only to find that he's missed the date/s when students look/book accommodation. So, faced with another year waiting for a student let, he rents the HMO to ... chav scum, who turn it into a cannabis factory, don't pay the rent, then trash the place and leave.

Hamish fondly remembers the good tenant he used to have..... ah, those were the days ......

The goose that laid the golden eggs, is now a duck.

carolt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You really aren't a maths teacher, are you carol?

Benefits claimants previously had access to 50% or so of the market.

Benefits claimants will in the future only have access to 30% or so of the market.

This will result in an increased concentration of benefits claimants at the bottom end of the market.

This does not mean 20% of properties become vacant, leading to voids or "greater choice" for people like you.

As benefits claimants are not 100% of the market at either the 30th percentile or the 50th percentile.

And everyone still has to live somewhere......

So all you do is shuffle the people least able to pay from the higher cost houses into lower cost ones, and shuffle the people most able to pay more from the lower cost houses into the higher cost ones.

It will take time, and there will be market disruption, but it will inevitably happen.

And you also seem to assume that the 1.8 billion reduction in benefits will all be coming from landlords pockets, and not diverted from other areas of the economy. Which is a fallacious assumption.

Housing is an absolute priority for spend, so unless your premise is that 100% of people living in cheaper houses are already paying 100% of their after tax/food/utilities money to landlords, then this 1.8 billion savings will not be coming from the pockets of landlords exclusively.

That money will not neccessarily be "removed from the housing market".... It will be removed from the economy in some regard, but we do not yet know from where.

As an example, lets take a prospective housing benefit tenant, we'll call her 'Ermentrude'.....

Now Ermentrude currently receives housing benefit to the tune of £200 a week. Under the new rules Ermentrude can only get £150 a week.

So Ermentrude goes to her landlord and says "you have to drop the rent".

Her landlord, a nice chap called Hamish, replies "F*ck off, pay up or you're out".

So Ermentrude takes a look around for a cheaper place, and can't find one, because there are thousands of other Ermentrudes out there doing exactly the same thing.

All the cheap places are taken.

So Ermentrude has two choices. Come up with the rent, or be homeless.

Ermentrude decides a roof over her head is the most important thing, so examines her budget for areas she can make a savings. As Ermentrude is on benefits, she obviously has a Sky subscription, smokes 40 a day, and drinks like a fish. (according to all the frothers, anyway)

Ermentrude decides the smoking will have to go, and cuts down on the booze as well.

Ermentrude pays the rent.

The landlords income remains the same. The governments income declines through less tax revenue on fags and booze, (by almost exactly the amount it "saved" on benefits reduction). The tobacconists income declines. The shareholder of Phillip Morris's income declines.

That £50 a week came out of the economy, but not out of the landlords pocket........

The reality will probably be somewhere in between the two extremes.

Rents in some areas will rise a bit, in others will decline a bit. Spending on non-essentials will certainly decrease.

But chances are there will be very little impact to rents as an overall average.

I may not be a maths teacher, but (a) nor are you, and (b) you're not a tenant.

Your argument falls down on the bit in bold. I would presumably qualify as one of your 'people who could pay more' as I'm not on benefits. Except I can't and won't. As you seem to forget that tenants do not - unlike homeowners - borrow to pay the rent, because there is no investment potential and even the dimmest individual can see that spending more than you earn every month just to pay the rent is ultimately a pointless and destructive exercise.

So people like me, at I suppose the 50% mark, will continue to pay that - except we'll have a much bigger choice.Because those 70% of properties will now be fighting over a much smaller pool of tenants. Meaning that many of them - the sensible ones (we won't call them Hamish; we'll call them...George) will lower their rents to avoid long void periods. This will particulary affect the higher end properties, which previously Ermentrude's older sister who works and does not receive any LHA (we'll call her Carol) could not afford - though Ermentrude used to be able to live there for free on benefits.

Carol will now be able to rent a much nicer property. Poor Ermentrude won't; she'll have to move to the dodgy part of town.

BUT this might be just the kick up the backside she needs to pull her finger out and get a proper job; now that she can see that those who don't work live in less rather than more salubrious conditions compared to those who do.

Every time she visits Carol's flash new pad, she becomes more determined to return to education, and work hard. Her kids do too, work hard at school and develop a great work ethic. They then leave school, and/or uni, get great jobs and become productive and happy future citizens.

Amen.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

Your argument falls down on the bit in bold. I would presumably qualify as one of your 'people who could pay more' as I'm not on benefits. Except I can't and won't.

Wrong again.

You're not one of the ones fighting it out for the cheapest 30%...

The housing stock is full carol, they're not creating any more cheap houses whilst they reduce the benefits.

But if you were one of the ones fighting it out for the cheaper houses, and found there were none left, you would pay more to move up to the next bracket. (where you currently are) That, or be homeless.

Housing is a primary need. Everything else, bar food, comes second in prioritising spend.

So people like me, at I suppose the 50% mark, will continue to pay that - except we'll have a much bigger choice.Because those 70% of properties will now be fighting over a much smaller pool of tenants.

I'd agree you'll continue to pay what you do now, more or less a little bit, depending on area.

But you won't have much more in the way of choice..... Those people have to live somewhere. The ones that can afford to move up a bracket will eventually get squeezed out of the lower brackets.

Prices of cheap houses will rise, the median will increase, benefits will increase along with them, and we'll be right back to square one.

This is a very temporary "fix", that risks creating more problems than it solves.

Meaning that many of them - the sensible ones (we won't call them Hamish; we'll call them...George) will lower their rents to avoid long void periods. This will particulary affect the higher end properties, which previously Ermentrude's older sister who works and does not receive any LHA (we'll call her Carol) could not afford - though Ermentrude used to be able to live there for free on benefits.

You're dreaming. The housing shortage is so acute that there simply isn't enough room for everyone to fit in a smaller percentage of housing. The vacancies don't exist.

Landlords know this, and so have no motive to radically reduce rents.

Housing is a primary need. People will find a way to pay.

Carol will now be able to rent a much nicer property. Poor Ermentrude won't; she'll have to move to the dodgy part of town.

BUT this might be just the kick up the backside she needs to pull her finger out and get a proper job; now that she can see that those who don't work live in less rather than more salubrious conditions compared to those who do.

Every time she visits Carol's flash new pad, she becomes more determined to return to education, and work hard. Her kids do too, work hard at school and develop a great work ethic. They then leave school, and/or uni, get great jobs and become productive and happy future citizens.

Amen.

For a tiny minority, perhaps.

But chances are young Ermentrudes kids will fall victim to the local drug dealers and gangs in these newly created ghettos, and Ermentrude will find the jobs to pull herself out of poverty don't exist in the area she has been forced to move to. WHich is the only reason that area was cheap to begin with.

So if she's really desperate to get out, and blessed with the physical attributes to do so, she'll probably end up working as a stripper or hooker rather than a teacher or nurse, as once might have been the case.

I wonder if carol will still be saying "Amen" then........

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Carol will now be able to rent a much nicer property. Poor Ermentrude won't; she'll have to move to the dodgy part of town.

Every time she visits Carol's flash new pad, she becomes more determined to return to education, and work hard. Her kids do too, work hard at school and develop a great work ethic. They then leave school, and/or uni, get great jobs and become productive and happy future citizens.

Amen.

In your scenario, you've chosen to move to a nicer pad rather than save the extra rent you would have obtained on your current property towards a deposit.

Synopsis: Carol will always be a renter

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Housing is a primary need. Everything else, bar food, comes second in prioritising spend.

You could argue that housing is above food in priority.

I currently try to eat organic produce where possible. If I was in financial trouble, I would want a secure roof over my head and drop level of food that I buy.

Organic > Standard > Supermarket Own Brands > Beans on Toast