750,000 to lose homes in South East?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

This simply isn't going to happen. Sorry.

The only thing that will happen is landlords will have to reduce their rents. End of. Some families may get moved, but very small numbers.

Mass eviction would leave mass empty rentals. Hamish, you hold supply and demand so dear, I'm surprised you can't see that the end result of mass eviction is mass supply of the leftover homes.

As you preach supply and demand so much, and there isn't going to be enough demand all of a sudden to fill the houses, you know that the end result is landlords having to reduce rents.

Either way, landlords need to reduce rents. They've put them up enough year on year...so I don't see the problem with reducing them.

The only ones who will fail at this point is the over leveraged. In other words, those that took a gamble and it didnt pay off.

molerat

HB reductions will be a difficult thing to achieve overnight. My view is that housing benefit should be limited to the average cost of a LA property to which the claimant is entitled to in the area where the claimant is living. This could be phased over say 5 years. The current system, as others have posted, just pushes rent and house prices up. Any subsidy scheme has the same effect.

davilown

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.

Or perhaps it will have the opposite effect by putting pressure on landlords to reduce they already over priced rents in some areas, thus reducing house prices, allowing them to return to a "normal" level.

davilown

Roberto54 wrote: »

If this absurd plan by the tory scum is allowed to go ahead it will not only cause big problems for me and my family, but also for nearly 1million others!!

I don't believe that theres any chance that the scum will be able to get enough votes to pass this legislation though.

I have been reading lots of the articles that Martin Lewis has written explained in detail how to maximise every aspect of your benefit entitlement,
and it has been of great help as ive managed to get an extra £320 per week partly due to his advice.

But is it actually illegal to maximise your benefits entitlement though like he and this website encourages and helps you to do??

Is that just because you may lose some of the extra £320 per week you now receive by 'maximising' you benefit claims?

How can you work and get this much extra?

And, in theory, it won't cause you any problems, only decrease the amount of HB that you claim, as a direct result of decreasing HB allowances, thus saving taxpayers money.

millym

This is all very worrying for us, as we are in receipt of LHA, and really can't afford a rent increase. We only took this flat when the rent was reduced by £10 per week, bringing it in line with the maximum LHA for a 1 bed flat in this area.

Our landlord is currently trying to sell 4 of his BTLs after long voids, but not really feasible for him to sell this as he bought it during the 2007 peak.

I can't do the maths to work out what our rent at the 30th percentile would be. Anyone able to give an illustration? Thanks.

neverdespairgirl

Roberto54 wrote: »

If this absurd plan by the tory scum is allowed to go ahead it will not only cause big problems for me and my family, but also for nearly 1million others!!

I don't believe that theres any chance that the scum will be able to get enough votes to pass this legislation though.

Try working for a living?

exil

molerat wrote: »

HB reductions will be a difficult thing to achieve overnight. My view is that housing benefit should be limited to the average cost of a LA property to which the claimant is entitled to in the area where the claimant is living. This could be phased over say 5 years. The current system, as others have posted, just pushes rent and house prices up. Any subsidy scheme has the same effect.

Errr - that's already the way it works.

exil

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Try working for a living?

How many times do we have to say it?

MOST PEOPLE ON HB ARE WORKING!

chucky

despite the one dimensional frothing on here, some people are missing the point big time...

tenants who used to receive their HB in one location are going to have to move to an area that is more affordable for them.
the demand in one location is going to reduce and will obviously increase in the other area.
all that will happen is that there will be a shift of demand between two areas.
obviously some winners and some losers. some landlords will have increased demand and some will have to find new tenants.

what could be an issue is the removal of the £££ that were subsidised for these tenants.
not sure if it will be a big effect on a micro level.

chucky

molerat wrote: »

HB reductions will be a difficult thing to achieve overnight. My view is that housing benefit should be limited to the average cost of a LA property to which the claimant is entitled to in the area where the claimant is living. This could be phased over say 5 years. The current system, as others have posted, just pushes rent and house prices up. Any subsidy scheme has the same effect.

i wouldn't believe everything that you read on this forum...