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

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

If it means people have to move out of more expensive areas - tough, but it's the same choice those in work have to make.

Sigh. You missunderstood my point. The whole of the South East is expensive compared to many other places in the country. If you were to lose your job in the SE should you (& family) be forced to move to, for example Wales (not that there's anything wrong with Wales)?

'Expensive' is a subjective term meaning different things to different people.

lynzpower

Malcolm. wrote: »

Sigh. You missunderstood my point. The whole of the South East is expensive compared to many other places in the country. If you were to lose your job in the SE should you (& family) be forced to move to, for example Wales (not that there's anything wrong with Wales)?

'Expensive' is a subjective term meaning different things to different people.

Exactly!

You will find a massive ghetto-isastion of some cheaper areas as everyone moves there, alls the better if there are no jobs for these people to be applying for when they get there ( wales, north east, some parts of the north west etc)

They move there as there is no work, so they cant be expected to work. There is no jobs, so how can they be expected to work.

Housing benefit IS PAID to low paid workers! I know most discussions on here tend towards forgetting that fact. Reduction in HB across trhe board will decimate london. What they should have done is just reduce it at the top.

I do find it astonishing that he and his family have been able to move though. Absolutely astonishing. Its only 10 mins down the road! I'm sure there is more to it to be honest. Well I hope so at any rate.

carolt

Malcolm. wrote: »

Sigh. You missunderstood my point. The whole of the South East is expensive compared to many other places in the country. If you were to lose your job in the SE should you (& family) be forced to move to, for example Wales (not that there's anything wrong with Wales)?

'Expensive' is a subjective term meaning different things to different people.

I didn't miss your point, though you may have missed mine. House prices in the SE are more expensive, but not by that much. You should be able to set a flat maximum housing rate (as the Tories have done) which is generally applicable. If those not in work have to move so they are an hours train ride from mum and dad, or choose to bring up kids in a flat, it's a hard choice, I agree (if you come from down south that is) but no harder than the same choice those in work have to make. If you're not working, being within easy travelling distance of family, though nice, is not as essential as it is for those who work and therefore need to rely on family for childcare. And obviously, if you don't work, by definition you don't need to be within commuting distance of a job.

People can then decide whether it's wise to have more children, or whether they'd rather live in a more expensive but more convenient area, or squeeze all of them into a nicely located but too small flat.

It may not be an easy decision, but it's a choice we (working people) all have to make.

Obviously there is another choice they have I haven't mentioned - they could choose to get a good job (retrain if necessary) and earn the lifestyle they desire.

I can't see any incentive at all to do that at present - as the article amply demonstrates.

carolt

lynzpower wrote: »

Exactly!

You will find a massive ghetto-isastion of some cheaper areas as everyone moves there, alls the better if there are no jobs for these people to be applying for when they get there ( wales, north east, some parts of the north west etc)

They move there as there is no work, so they cant be expected to work. There is no jobs, so how can they be expected to work.

Housing benefit IS PAID to low paid workers! I know most discussions on here tend towards forgetting that fact. Reduction in HB across trhe board will decimate london. What they should have done is just reduce it at the top.

I do find it astonishing that he and his family have been able to move though. Absolutely astonishing. Its only 10 mins down the road! I'm sure there is more to it to be honest. Well I hope so at any rate.

I disagree. Re your first point, I doubt those displaced from London will move to Wales or the N - there are dozens of places far nearer and within commutable distance of lots of jobs. But - re the second point - the lack of taxpayer subsidies to london landlords as in this article means they'll have to charge rents working people can actually afford out of salary. This will either mean salaries get forcd up or - or more likely - rents get forced down.

In this article the rent charged to the taxpayer was almost double the 'real' rent! Which is why average rents in London are so ludicrous.

lynzpower

carolt wrote: »

I disagree. Re your first point, I doubt those displaced from London will move to Wales or the N - there are dozens of places far nearer and within commutable distance of lots of jobs. But - re the second point - the lack of taxpayer subsidies to london landlords as in this article means they'll have to charge rents working people can actually afford out of salary. This will either mean salaries get forcd up or - or more likely - rents get forced down.

In this article the rent charged to the taxpayer was almost double the 'real' rent! Which is why average rents in London are so ludicrous.

Before LHA we used to have the london rents board.

Members of staff from HB ( IIRC) who if someone wanted to rent a house on HB the rent assessor used to go around to the property and assess whether it was worth taxpayers money or not.

The rent levels didnt reflect what HB was willing to pay, in the main.

So even in cheaper areas ( liike say barking and dagenham) the rents were often refused.

This left families literally homeless ( I remember having a few on m caseload like this) where instead they were piled into a one bedroom in a B&B for 350 a week when a house was refused at 250 a week.

That system didnt make sense.

But LHA didnt either as the rates were too high

My feeling is that the rates were set too high, on the back of the assumption that property prices and values would continue to rise, and they were building in some slack.

I share your view that hopefully this means that prices will fall, Im not convinced really, I shall have to wait and see. I have seen many reports that many of the sales seen in london have gone to overseas buyers.

My personal feeling is that we shall see a lot of unregistered and downright dangerous HMO, and much smaller dwellings being created than weve already got ( detached houses being turned into flats for families) Or lots of properties laying empty.
If that's the case then planning, building control environmental health and empty homes officers will have their work cut out to manage this out.

I would have liked this announcement to have gone hand in hand with local government being given the money to build low-cost state accomodation to replace the council houses that are no longer in state control due to the sell off. It would have been good to see building of homes for the low income when land values are low, employment at a low, and to buy products and services now to keep the cogs of commerce turning and people in jobs, but alas.

Generalis suggestion that a flat amount be given stands up, as far as Im concerned, that if a flat fee was say 300 a week per adult, and I was unemployed, sure as eggs are eggs, I wouldnt be in london & would take myself to the cheapest place I could find.

Starrystarrynight

'he insisted his family 'were no better or no worse off than anyone else'.

They're better off than me!

wymondham

Wow, if that area was considered poor, then he must have had a really nice pad in somalia - wonder why he came to the UK??

carolt

lynzpower wrote: »

Before LHA we used to have the london rents board.

Members of staff from HB ( IIRC) who if someone wanted to rent a house on HB the rent assessor used to go around to the property and assess whether it was worth taxpayers money or not.

The rent levels didnt reflect what HB was willing to pay, in the main.

So even in cheaper areas ( liike say barking and dagenham) the rents were often refused.

This left families literally homeless ( I remember having a few on m caseload like this) where instead they were piled into a one bedroom in a B&B for 350 a week when a house was refused at 250 a week.

That system didnt make sense.

But LHA didnt either as the rates were too high

My feeling is that the rates were set too high, on the back of the assumption that property prices and values would continue to rise, and they were building in some slack.

I share your view that hopefully this means that prices will fall, Im not convinced really, I shall have to wait and see. I have seen many reports that many of the sales seen in london have gone to overseas buyers.

My personal feeling is that we shall see a lot of unregistered and downright dangerous HMO, and much smaller dwellings being created than weve already got ( detached houses being turned into flats for families) Or lots of properties laying empty.
If that's the case then planning, building control environmental health and empty homes officers will have their work cut out to manage this out.

I would have liked this announcement to have gone hand in hand with local government being given the money to build low-cost state accomodation to replace the council houses that are no longer in state control due to the sell off. It would have been good to see building of homes for the low income when land values are low, employment at a low, and to buy products and services now to keep the cogs of commerce turning and people in jobs, but alas.

Generalis suggestion that a flat amount be given stands up, as far as Im concerned, that if a flat fee was say 300 a week per adult, and I was unemployed, sure as eggs are eggs, I wouldnt be in london & would take myself to the cheapest place I could find.

Totally agree.

brit1234

Sorry but you should stop having kids if you can't support yourself.

7 is a joke. I understand culturally it may be the norm in Somalia but mobility and mortality rates here in the UK are far lower.

leveller2911

lynzpower wrote: »

.
I would have liked this announcement to have gone hand in hand with local government being given the money to build low-cost state accomodation to replace the council houses that are no longer in state control due to the sell off. It would have been good to see building of homes for the low income when land values are low, employment at a low, and to buy products and services now to keep the cogs of commerce turning and people in jobs, but alas.


I agree , but with the clause that people don't have to have children to qualify for one.....

Thousands of couples are penalised because they can't/choose not to have children.... Having children doesn't necessarily mean your poorer than a couple who don't.....If we want to build real communities then we need both of the above.......

As someone who is lucky enough to have 2 children and living in Social Housing I see time and time again couples in stable relationships being overlooked in favour of single mums with 2,3,4 or even 5 children..I do understand many mums are single again and not through choice.......ie: Not stereotyping....