Family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was in "poor area" - DM

ILW

I dont seem to understand the system. What is to stop people on sink estates scraping up the deposit for a flat in Hampstead, moving in and then getting a couple of grand a month paid through LHA?

alunharford

hippy-chicy wrote: »

I work in housing benefits for a local authority in the north west. We will not be affected by the cap as non of our LHA rates are above the new caps.

...

I know that a lot of people have jumped on the fact that by capping LHA it will cause poorer pockets of society and higher crime rates in these areas. This is a ridiculous notion imho, i think people forget that LHA has only been in force since April 2008. Prior to that we referred every case to the rent officer for a decision on the rent (ROD) and they were no where near as generous as the LHA rates that were introduced.

In the area I live (Canary Wharf) was regenerated in the early 90s. People who spent their whole lives in the area found rental prices going up rapidly. They didn't ask for a load of banks to be built next door, and I find it distressing that these people will now be thrown out of their homes (and their children forced to move schools and have their whole lives disrupted) because some other people with 10% of the money in the UK moved into the area and built a few skyscrapers.

The LHA was paid by my council tax. This political stunt might get some votes up in the north west but frankly they weren't the people paying for this.

So what's Dave doing with the extra money? Giving me an extra £60 a week I don't need. I don't think that's right.


Oh and this story is made up. Clue 1: Asylum seekers don't get LHA and are not allowed to work. Clue 2: It's in the Daily Mail.

Bob_the_Saver

I never buy the Daily Mail

leveller2911

alunharford wrote: »

Oh and this story is made up. Clue 1: Asylum seekers don't get LHA and are not allowed to work. Clue 2: It's in the Daily Mail.

You might wanna pop off and read it again, he's a "Former asylum seeker" ie now has leave to remain here........Work etc etc etc

So you think the current system brought in by Nu-Labour actually worked well???..;)

Would also add, the story does have holes but the principle remains true, the whole scheme was abused and needed drastic overhauling ,which hopefully we will get......
This "Stunt" as you call it will also get some votes down here in the South East too...I hope Dave will pay down the massive debt that Labour left us with......

Fang_3

carolt wrote: »

And the top end properties will come down. This landlord (in the OP) was asking (not getting mind), a grand a week for his mansion. If his friends on benefits can no longer 'afford' to pay that (let alone double that, as he is currently paying), then he'll have to charge a rent working people can afford. And let's face it, not many working families can afford even that 'measly' grand a month ie 52 grand a year, out of taxed income.

Whilst the mega-rich can, the 'sad' truth is, that there are only so many of them to go round...

How many months do you think there are in a year?

carolt

Sorry, Malcolm got there first. See a few posts up.

lynzpower

nearlynew wrote: »

for f*cks sake lynz.


You just don't get it, do you?

No, I dont, not sure what you are getting at here.

At the end of the day, the regulations are in place, they are in place now. They are in place for anyone who is entitled to claim LHA. in line with the agreement of the paying authority.

In time, as we've said it will change. Indeed, this has been clear from the budget. What it will exactly change to, we dont truly know yet, but the £400 a week figure has been placed in the public arena. As graham says, there might end up with some extras to this, we already know that the hardship fund has been doubled at least to pay extra to families who will struggle.

The fact is the LHA rates are set too high! That is not the claimants fault, and as a LA worker you can be fired for not following the regulations, I know that certainly was the case when I worked in that area. Local authorities as far as Im aware didnt set the LHA rates, they were set by the valuation office.

I think its bonkers as well, dont get me wrong. I said way-back-when when the rates were set they were too high and inflating the property bubble here in London to astronomical levels. But this is nothing to do with the fact that this family is Somalian, former asylum seekers, unemployed whatever.

A one bed flat in London here direct from the council is costing 81.65 per week. http://www.thhs.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/83.aspx?PropertyID=17726

Chances of fraud/ back kicks and the like on someone renting this sort of home be pretty slim IMO. A whole lot less than the 200pw minimum figure on a one bed quoted by Osborne.

hippy-chicy

alunharford wrote: »

In the area I live (Canary Wharf) was regenerated in the early 90s. People who spent their whole lives in the area found rental prices going up rapidly. They didn't ask for a load of banks to be built next door, and I find it distressing that these people will now be thrown out of their homes (and their children forced to move schools and have their whole lives disrupted) because some other people with 10% of the money in the UK moved into the area and built a few skyscrapers.

The LHA was paid by my council tax. This political stunt might get some votes up in the north west but frankly they weren't the people paying for this.

So what's Dave doing with the extra money? Giving me an extra £60 a week I don't need. I don't think that's right.


Oh and this story is made up. Clue 1: Asylum seekers don't get LHA and are not allowed to work. Clue 2: It's in the Daily Mail.

Its already been pointed out but your wrong. Asylum seekers can claim LHA and a whole host of other benefits. The amount spent on welfare of every kind effects every tax payer no matter where you live in the country and no matter who it is paid to! What I find distressing is telling a family who are really struggling that there is no help for them and then handing it all on a plate to those few who know and make the most of the system ( and you can't exactly blame them - its there for them to do it)

Do you really think that people will be thrown out of their homes and there will masses left homeless on the 1st April 2011 - now who has been reading the Daily Mail.

Any changes in benefits come with some kind of kind of protection. They will more than likely remain on the rate they are in receipt of prior to April until they change address or have a break in their claim. Just like they did when we moved to LHA. There is also an extra 40 million being put into the DHP fund, anyone affected by these changes can apply for this extra help.

chewmylegoff

alunharford wrote: »

In the area I live (Canary Wharf) was regenerated in the early 90s. People who spent their whole lives in the area found rental prices going up rapidly. They didn't ask for a load of banks to be built next door, and I find it distressing that these people will now be thrown out of their homes (and their children forced to move schools and have their whole lives disrupted) because some other people with 10% of the money in the UK moved into the area and built a few skyscrapers.

The LHA was paid by my council tax. This political stunt might get some votes up in the north west but frankly they weren't the people paying for this.

So what's Dave doing with the extra money? Giving me an extra £60 a week I don't need. I don't think that's right.


Oh and this story is made up. Clue 1: Asylum seekers don't get LHA and are not allowed to work. Clue 2: It's in the Daily Mail.

a quick review of rightmove suggests plenty of properties in tower hamlets for less than the new LHA cap.

should think quite a lot of the LHA being paid out by tower hamlets to its residents is funded from business rates levied on the companies operating in canary wharf. plus there is the further benefit of improved transport infrastructure for the residents, much of which would not be there without canary wharf. plus it has created a lot of jobs. plus all of the big companies plough a lot of money and staff voluntary time into the local community.

all in all it's a bit odd to make a NIMBY argument about something like canary wharf. can't see that tower hamlets would be better off without it - it would be even poorer and more deprived than it is now.

carolt

True - it can hardly be a small employer...