750,000 to lose homes in South East?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The study estimates that the proposed changes could lead to at least 750,000 people being without a roof over their heads

So assume somewhere around 250,000 houses if there's 3 people to a house on average....

That's around 8% to 10% of total private rented stock.

All trying to move into the cheapest 30% of the total private rented stock, which currently has what, around a 3% vacancy rate? Which equates to 1% of total housing stock.

You're trying to move 10% of housing stock occupants into an available 1% of housing..... Within a 3 month period next year. I rather suspect this will get ugly very quickly.

new_home_owner_3

abaxas wrote: »

Lets say this does happen.

Supply of rented accomodation would rocket, hence prices would dive.

Hence it wont happen.

why will it?

if you live in a working class area where most people work it wont effect you, it will only effect people who are living in places that would be out of their price range even if they did work.

Its just re organissing, theres loads of empty houses in the uk and theres loads of posts on here about rows of empty terraced houses up north.

the post about 750,000 people losing there homes may be right but there nearly the same amount of empty houses in the uk, they will just have to move there, it might not be the area they want to live in, but if you dont want to pay yourself why should you have the choice.












Who owns the empty homes?



Region Total Empty Homes Percentage of homes empty Local council Housing association Other public body Privately owned Private homes empty more than 6 months



North East 43,968 3.76% 3,027 4,113 234 36,594 18,379



North West 129,073 4.15% 4,916 10,185 243 113,729 66,691



Yorkshire & the Humber 92,409 4.06% 5,922 4,701 441 81,345 41,299



East Midlands 62,584 3.25% 3,316 2,359 576 56,333 29,095



West Midlands 72,329 3.09% 4,124 4,613 233 63,359 34,511



East of England 64,054 2.59% 2,108 3,013 614 58,319 27,976



London 82,327 2.51% 9,503 6,355 920 65,549 28,377



South East 91,074 2.52% 2,632 4,468 932 83,042 34,663



South West 59,237 2.54% 1,396 2,232 609 55,000 22,294



ENGLAND 697,055 3.10% 36,944 42,039 4,802 613,270 303,285

Prudent

For work reasons, I was considering letting out my home a few years ago. I spoke to four local letting agencies. All gave me the same advice. To let it for the max payable by housing benefit as I would definately get a let. Lots of tennants are aware of the top price and will choose the nicest possible house in that price range. They also said I could raise the rent with every council review.

I know a family with two adults (who choose not to work) and four children who live in a four bed new build, two receptions, two ensuites, ultility room etc. Fully paid for by housing benefit. Plenty of less expensive options in the area.

vivatifosi

Chaos_A.D. wrote: »

It's absolutely insane that house prices have been let go so far out of hand that renting a 4 bedroom house costs more than £400 a week !!!, christ almighty that's £1733.33p a month !!!

That is more than the average wage in this country that is being handed out just to fr!gging rent a house !!!, Then their will be another string of benefits to help them pay for bills, food etc...

Tell me, !!!!!! is the point in working ?

That sums up my thoughts too. However I do think this is going to take longer than anticipated to shake out and that it will have lots of unintended consequences. For example, what will happen in terms of school places if suddenly a swathe of children have to move to different Local Authorities?

I don't think changing the system is wrong, but I do think that the timescale expectations are.

carolt

vivatifosi wrote: »

That sums up my thoughts too. However I do think this is going to take longer than anticipated to shake out and that it will have lots of unintended consequences. For example, what will happen in terms of school places if suddenly a swathe of children have to move to different Local Authorities?

I don't think changing the system is wrong, but I do think that the timescale expectations are.

Usually, there are cheaper pockets within a bus journey of better areas. So I wouldn't expect the kids to need to change schools at all.

TBH, if I had my kids at a nice school in a good area and had to move to live in a worse area, the last thing I'd do is move my kids to a school in my new area - if they're lucky enough to be at a good school, I'd keep them there.

NB In my area at least, those on benefits are entitled to free school buses to get them there. Can cost hundreds for the waged.

So I suspect a proportion of the savings made on housing will now be spent on school transport instead.

arby

reduceditem wrote: »

.....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.

once again, I totally disagree. I don't believe the poorest in society have the smallest voice. I would say they have almost the biggest voice as they speak up for themselves in addition to lots of do-gooders who speak on their behalf. While I think it's great we live in a country that helps those that are struggling, I sincerely believe the group who have the smallest voice are the low to middle earners. Most have to work and worry almost every waking hour in order to earn £400/week on which they have to live. So many people on housing benefits have been quoted as saying 'how can they house their family on £400/week.' Don't feel sorry for them, that's the same as a wage of £25,000. Most working people would be grateful to have that. The difference of course is that then they get other benefits on top of that.

Shakethedisease

Most working people would be grateful to have that.

7 out of 8 getting LHA ARE working. Don't be so self-righteous.

It's those in low-paid,part-time and shift-work jobs that will find things hardest. They'll most likely lose them if they can't find accomodation for thier families relatively near their workplaces or public transport that fit's in with working those shifts, or even worth it, once travelling expenses are taken into account, for that 4-6 hour per day cleaning/retail job ( for example )..

Populations have always tended to move 'where the work is'.. this is going to reverse that for a lot of workers.

reduceditem

arby wrote: »

once again, I totally disagree. I don't believe the poorest in society have the smallest voice. I would say they have almost the biggest voice as they speak up for themselves in addition to lots of do-gooders who speak on their behalf. While I think it's great we live in a country that helps those that are struggling, I sincerely believe the group who have the smallest voice are the low to middle earners. Most have to work and worry almost every waking hour in order to earn £400/week on which they have to live. So many people on housing benefits have been quoted as saying 'how can they house their family on £400/week.' Don't feel sorry for them, that's the same as a wage of £25,000. Most working people would be grateful to have that. The difference of course is that then they get other benefits on top of that.

I must not read the Daily Mail
I must not read the Daily Mail
I must not read..........
(x100)


To be on my desk by morning.

carolt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

7 out of 8 getting LHA ARE working. Don't be so self-righteous.

It's those in low-paid,part-time and shift-work jobs that will find things hardest. They'll most likely lose them if they can't find accomodation for thier families relatively near their workplaces or public transport that fit's in with working those shifts, or even worth it, once travelling expenses are taken into account, for that 4-6 hour per day cleaning/retail job ( for example )..

Populations have always tended to move 'where the work is'.. this is going to reverse that for a lot of workers.

Which will mean 1 of 2 things (or possibly both) as those jobs will still need workers, and landlords will still need tenants.

1. landlords will have to lower rents
2. employers will have to pay living wages instead of minimum wages to attract staff, as currently they know they can get away with payin the minimum because 'the social' will pick up the bulk of the tab.

brit1234

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.

This is the same housing federation which has got every property price prediction wrong by a massive margin. They have a vested interest in dramatising things to get more money. Strange they are complaining about this when their budget is being cut, coincidence or what?

On top of that landlords have been bragging about greater returns from council tenants over professionals for years. Time to cut the theft.