We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
750,000 to lose homes in South East?
mvengemvenge
Posts: 599 Forumite
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/23/housing-benefits-homeless-budget-deficit
More than 750,000 people are at risk of losing their homes in the south-east because of the government's changes to housing benefit from April next year, according to a campaign group.
The National Housing Federation, the main voice for the country's housing associations, warns today that the tough new rules are likely to lead to the highest number of homeless people in Britain for more than three decades.
It says the benefit cuts could force low-income families out of their homes in swaths of the most prosperous parts of the country. Using data from councils, the federation says 425,000 people in London are at risk of losing their homes, while 326,250 people in the south-east are at risk.
The study estimates that the proposed changes could lead to at least 750,000 people being without a roof over their heads, five times the 140,000 currently considered homeless in Britain, and easily surpassing the 174,503 recorded in 2003, which was the highest figure for homelessness since modern records began in 1980. The concern is that this will lead to a new generation of rough sleepers, especially as councils, which are facing budget cuts, only have a statutory duty to house people classified as being in "priority need".
The stark message comes as Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, prepares to publish an official impact assessment of the effect of measures announced in last month's emergency budget to save £1.8bn from housing benefit and allowances.
It will say that the caps are designed to get claimants to move to smaller and more appropriate homes and will claim that the reforms will help bring down rental prices. Ministers will also argue that almost half the losses stem from reforms introduced but not implemented by Labour ahead of the general election. The aim is to spread the political blame for what is turning into one of the most difficult welfare reforms proposed by the government.
Helen Goodman, Labour's frontbench spokeswoman on child poverty, childcare and housing benefit, said it was plain that the government had "rushed through the changes without thinking through the social consequences".
Many in the housing sector have warned that the measures are too draconian and would disproportionately affect the needy, pushing people on to the streets to pay for the country's deficit.
The changes are designed to force those in receipt of benefits to rely on income rather than on the state to meet their housing needs. In his budget, George Osborne imposed caps on housing benefit of £400 a week for a four-bedroom property and £250 a week for a two-bedroom home. He also proposed cutting the amount of the allowance so that it was pegged to the bottom third of rents in any borough.
Another concern is that future increases to local housing subsidies will be linked to retail price inflation, rather than rents, which will further erode the value of the benefit. Unemployed people are also specifically targeted, with those who claim jobseeker's allowance for 12 months seeing their housing benefit fall by 10% under the coalition government's plans.
David Orr, the National Housing Federation's chief executive, warned that the move would see some of the poorest in society facing "enormous upheaval", and that thousands of children would be shifted out of schools as families move to try to find cheaper accommodation.
"If the government presses ahead, more than 750,000 people would be at risk of losing their home," he said. "The housing benefit caps could see poorer people effectively forced out of wealthier areas, and ghettoised into poorer neighbourhoods. Some people affected by housing benefit caps may successfully find a home in cheaper areas, but many will end up in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation, while thousands will simply become homeless."The minister for welfare reform, Lord Freud, said: "We are working to restore fairness and responsibility to a broken system, so that we are no longer left in the absurd situation where if you are on benefits you can receive an expensive house in a smart area that many working families could not afford.
More than 750,000 people are at risk of losing their homes in the south-east because of the government's changes to housing benefit from April next year, according to a campaign group.
The National Housing Federation, the main voice for the country's housing associations, warns today that the tough new rules are likely to lead to the highest number of homeless people in Britain for more than three decades.
It says the benefit cuts could force low-income families out of their homes in swaths of the most prosperous parts of the country. Using data from councils, the federation says 425,000 people in London are at risk of losing their homes, while 326,250 people in the south-east are at risk.
The study estimates that the proposed changes could lead to at least 750,000 people being without a roof over their heads, five times the 140,000 currently considered homeless in Britain, and easily surpassing the 174,503 recorded in 2003, which was the highest figure for homelessness since modern records began in 1980. The concern is that this will lead to a new generation of rough sleepers, especially as councils, which are facing budget cuts, only have a statutory duty to house people classified as being in "priority need".
The stark message comes as Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, prepares to publish an official impact assessment of the effect of measures announced in last month's emergency budget to save £1.8bn from housing benefit and allowances.
It will say that the caps are designed to get claimants to move to smaller and more appropriate homes and will claim that the reforms will help bring down rental prices. Ministers will also argue that almost half the losses stem from reforms introduced but not implemented by Labour ahead of the general election. The aim is to spread the political blame for what is turning into one of the most difficult welfare reforms proposed by the government.
Helen Goodman, Labour's frontbench spokeswoman on child poverty, childcare and housing benefit, said it was plain that the government had "rushed through the changes without thinking through the social consequences".
Many in the housing sector have warned that the measures are too draconian and would disproportionately affect the needy, pushing people on to the streets to pay for the country's deficit.
The changes are designed to force those in receipt of benefits to rely on income rather than on the state to meet their housing needs. In his budget, George Osborne imposed caps on housing benefit of £400 a week for a four-bedroom property and £250 a week for a two-bedroom home. He also proposed cutting the amount of the allowance so that it was pegged to the bottom third of rents in any borough.
Another concern is that future increases to local housing subsidies will be linked to retail price inflation, rather than rents, which will further erode the value of the benefit. Unemployed people are also specifically targeted, with those who claim jobseeker's allowance for 12 months seeing their housing benefit fall by 10% under the coalition government's plans.
David Orr, the National Housing Federation's chief executive, warned that the move would see some of the poorest in society facing "enormous upheaval", and that thousands of children would be shifted out of schools as families move to try to find cheaper accommodation.
"If the government presses ahead, more than 750,000 people would be at risk of losing their home," he said. "The housing benefit caps could see poorer people effectively forced out of wealthier areas, and ghettoised into poorer neighbourhoods. Some people affected by housing benefit caps may successfully find a home in cheaper areas, but many will end up in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation, while thousands will simply become homeless."The minister for welfare reform, Lord Freud, said: "We are working to restore fairness and responsibility to a broken system, so that we are no longer left in the absurd situation where if you are on benefits you can receive an expensive house in a smart area that many working families could not afford.
Fokking Fokk!
0
Comments
-
yep, i can see half a million landlords taking the option of having their house empty and losing ALL income rather than accepting a 10% cut in rent.
totally idiotic article.0 -
I liked this line (near the end of the article):
""The housing benefit caps could see poorer people effectively forced out of wealthier areas, and ghettoised into poorer neighbourhoods."
That wouldn't happen to be because they're...um...poorer, would it? As far as I know, there is no automatic 'right' for working people to live in any area they choose - they have to make do with what they can afford.
The idea that those in receipt of housing benefit are desperately, uniquely deprived if they can't live all in Kensington is ludicrous, frankly.0 -
The problem will be very real for many ordinary people and the Federation is right to flag this up.
A lot of working families receive housing benefit and will also be affected.0 -
there is a culture of what benifits can i get. Rather than how can i get of benefits.
Maybe these crack downs will encourage people to get work or pressure some people to get off benefits.
Some people have a nice cooshy numbers being bums on benefit.
"You notice the word SOME"0 -
reduceditem wrote: »The problem will be very real for many ordinary people and the Federation is right to flag this up.
A lot of working families receive housing benefit and will also be affected.
totally disagree. the fact that so many working families require housing benefits shows that the cost of living is too high and this should help bring it down.0 -
totally disagree. the fact that so many working families require housing benefits shows that the cost of living is too high and this should help bring it down.
I agree but do not think it will bring rent down in certain areas. Supply and demand.
Some areas will have poverty areas/housing schemes.0 -
but the way housing benefit caps were set was 100% bonkers. A feedback loop was initiated which drove rents higher at each review. A kid who did reasonably well at GCSE maths could spot that (and many did), yet nobody in the Labour party spotted it. Housing benefits, by definition, should pay for the lower end of the housing market. Yet they set it at the median level. This naturally caused more people to lift their rent to this level, so 6 months later when the review was done again, the median was now higher, so the cap was increased, and the loop continued. See the blatant stupidity?
Just stating supply and demand is not an argument. It has to be coupled with ability to pay. However, in areas with no housing benefit recipients of course it will have no effect.0 -
totally disagree. the fact that so many working families require housing benefits shows that the cost of living is too high and this should help bring it down.
.....whcih is fine and well for those who wont find themselves on the streets as a result. I repeat: the Federation were right to flag this up. It's important that some organisations speak up for the poorest in our society, because they have the smallest voice of all of us.0 -
mvengemvenge wrote: »h
George Osborne imposed caps on housing benefit of £400 a week for a four-bedroom property and £250 a week for a two-bedroom home. He also proposed cutting the amount of the allowance so that it was pegged to the bottom third of rents in any borough.
thats still good 400 pound a week for sitting on yah arsse all week watching jeremy kyle.
the sooner they clamp down the better, why should someone who works in london have to commute 50 miles a day, just to go to work, when you have some imigrants who dont work living on benefits in a 2 million pound mansion paid by the council
its a disgrace, i dont blame the imigrants i blame the labour government that done this to our country.
People who dont want to work and who like to scrounge on benefits should not have a choice where they live they should be told where they live, bascally the people paying the rent should decide where the people live.
And i also think benefit claimants should have there housing benefit paid direct to the landlords, ive heard a lot of people claiming more than their rents, they pay the landlord and then get thyre supply of stella for the week with the rest.0 -
Lets say this does happen.
Supply of rented accomodation would rocket, hence prices would dive.
Hence it wont happen.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards