750,000 to lose homes in South East?

molerat

exil wrote: »

Errr - that's already the way it works.

HB is way above the local authority rent prices in my area.

arby

exil wrote: »

How many times do we have to say it?

MOST PEOPLE ON HB ARE WORKING!

and that is the absurdity of the point i've been making! I get moaned at for my views, but my views aren't trying to push down those on benefits, my point is that housing is too expensive when most people in receipt of housing benefit are working a full-time job. that's a crazy situation. Housing needs to be cheaper and the first thing that has to be made sure of is that subsidised housing isn't propping up the insane prices. Nobody is going to be made homeless as a result of this- at worst some people will have to tighten their belts a little, but we've all had times where we've had to do this- that's just part of the joy of life. I'll say it again, a landlord WILL NOT KICK A TENANT OUT AS THE ONE TO REPLACE THEM WILL ALSO BE PAYING LESS UNDER THIS SCHEME.

kabayiri

Adapting to change is very MSE.

This is no different. Those of us who have had to adapt because of the recession know this. You change your priorities and get on with it.

The only real change I would make is to subsidise public transport with money from housing benefits. People will still need to work in expensive places, like London. Good quality public transport should be subsidised for all in my view. Workforce mobility is key to a recovery.

Working people claiming housing support could then commute in from cheaper areas.

millym

Roberto54 wrote: »

The ''lowering housing benefit rates from the current 50% down to 30%'' in maths terms means that you will only get 86% of themonthly housing benefit rate that you currently get.

So if you're currently on £1,000 per month housing benefit, when the changes come in you will only get £860.

Thanks for that Roberto. So, in our case, the rent is £91 per week. We get LHA of £44, leaving us to pay £47 (all rounded to the nearest £1)

Does that mean our eligible rent will go down to £78.26? And we would then pay approx £60 per week? If that is the case, then we will then meet the criteria for free prescriptions, dental treatment, glasses etc, which we currently have to pay for as we get a few pounds more than the threshold for full help. So, not really saving the government any money...

Malcolm.

Chaos_A.D. wrote: »

I think what is most likely to happen is the landlords will gradually realise that the game is up, they will have to reduce the 'skimming' of housing benefit tenants and make do with a smaller more honest return.

What choice do they have ?, empty houses or a guaranteed rent income, although in some cases a much reduced one. It's pretty simple, landlords will just have to curb their fraudulent ways, and think themselves lucky they haven't been prosecuted for it.

I think you've place too much hope in the effectiveness of government policy.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

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.

Right, so lets get this straight.

People are going to have to up sticks throughout a whole area and move to another area.

Forgive me, but I don't see a mass of rentals available in the area they are going to move to.

Neither do I see a mass of people not getting HB lining up to start renting in the areas all the HB claimants have upped sticks from.

Landlords will have to reduce rents. It really is as simple as that. It was only a matter of time before the gravy train ran out considering the housing market.

millym

Roberto54 wrote: »

Yea thats correct.

It will depend slighly on if the 'average house price' in your area increases or decreases though.

But if they remain exactly the same then when they cap rates to 30% of the market average you will only get 85-86% of the rate you currently are on.

Glad to hear you will be ok financially when it comes in though and not lose any money. :beer:

Aw, thanks! Between the 2 of us, we pay a fortune for medicine, as we have a lot of expenses not covered by prescriptions, like electrodes and batteries for my tens machine, and stuff for my cpap. Fortunately I get some DLA, or our ends wouldn't meet

I am concerned that this might just put my landlord out of business though. He is currently selling 4 of his 10 properties as he can't get tenants (and he is an excellent LL btw). He hasn't yet increased our rent, but then, similar properties are now about £45 a month cheaper than this place.

We deliberately took a small, cheap flat, so that when/if my husband is well enough to return to work, we can afford the rent. He specialises in mental health, so there should be lots of jobs available when the time comes...:rotfl:

It does seem like LLs will have to take some rent cuts though, because so many people will be looking for cheaper property, plus house prices seem to be sliding.

The government haven't thought this through though, as many other people might find that, like us, paying more rent opens the doors to things like free prescriptions etc. Sounds like another cost-cutting exercise that will just end up with increased spending in other areas of the budget.

I do think it's wrong to target the poorest families in this way, who are already really struggling. Not sure how local councils will cope either, as I'm assuming the number of people presenting as homeless can only increase. OK, rant over lol!

dktreesea

Roberto54 wrote: »

Yea thats correct.

It will depend slighly on if the 'average house price' in your area increases or decreases though.

But if they remain exactly the same then when they cap rates to 30% of the market average you will only get 85-86% of the rate you currently are on.

Glad to hear you will be ok financially when it comes in though and not lose any money. :beer:

That's a bit different to how it was explained by our council. This is their explanation.

Say, for a three bedroom property, the median rental (so 50% higher/ 50% lower) is £800 a month. So currently someone on housing benefit entitled to a three bedroom house would either get the lower of £800 or (assuming on maximum benefit) their actual rent plus (for some unknown reason) an extra £15 a week. Say at the 30% percentile (so 70% of rents for three bedroom properties higher than this/30% of rents lower) the rent is £600 a month. So if, for example, your property costs £700 a month to rent, whereas previously you would have got the £700 plus an extra £15 a week, now all you would get is £600 a month and you would have to make up the shortfall of £100 a month.

But when I asked what were the settings for three bedroom properties in the 30% percentile, they couldn't tell me, not because they don't have the data but because it's not yet enacted into law. So they don't have to, unless you make a freedom of information request.

neverdespairgirl

exil wrote: »

How many times do we have to say it?

MOST PEOPLE ON HB ARE WORKING!

The man I replied to isn't.

PasturesNew

I don't qualify for LHA top up on my low income, because of my savings.

But, if the savings didn't exist, then on my income, even LHA top up wouldn't enable me to be able to afford to rent.

entitled.to is very flakey and long-winded or I'd go and see. It's a shame it isn't a one-pager. How much have you got ... what's LHA .... you get £X. But they ask all these other daft questions then it gets confusing and you seem to go round twice, and I'm not 100% sure what the questions mean on the 2nd bit as I already put the numbers in.