Changes to Housing benefit how much will rents fall?

Graham_Devon

Sue_S wrote: »

Yes, it's £100 more than the reduced amount. When we first took out the contract with NHHT we were stunned at what they were prepared to pay us. But delighted of course

Anyone would be delighted, I'm sure!

Can definately see why you have chosen to stick with the reduced amount. Wonder if others will do the same, or chuck out the tennants in the hope of private renters paying the old benefit levels of rent. Refreshing to see a landlord state they will simply accept it. So far all I have seen on here, and in the newspaper columns is landlords stating they will evict tennants and find private renters to pay the full amounts.

carolt

Agreed, it is refereshing to hear a landlord openly admit they were getting far more via the taxpayer than they could have got in the open market - we all knew it, but it's nice to hear it openly said.

No doubt that effects of changes will be (a) to reduce all rents as they are no longer supported at artificially high levels and (b) to save the taxpayer a lot of cash.

SingleSue

carolt wrote: »

Incredible figures. If I read this correctly, then ordinary people who work will actually be able to afford to live in London again, as they will no longer be competing with a loaded benefit underclass eg see prices for a 3 bed place in outer S or W London, both nice family areas which I know well - new rents are £287/£253 ish/week - something a working family could afford too.

Great news for renters and taxpayers alike, :j:j:j but bad news for greedy landlords everywhere.

Carol - A fair few who do work also receive some HB/LHA..especially in high rent areas.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

Incredible figures. If I read this correctly, then ordinary people who work will actually be able to afford to live in London again, as they will no longer be competing with a loaded benefit underclass eg see prices for a 3 bed place in outer S or W London, both nice family areas which I know well - new rents are £287/£253 ish/week - something a working family could afford too.

Great news for renters and taxpayers alike, :j:j:j but bad news for greedy landlords everywhere.

The change means: -

153Outer South London £80.55 £155.34 £195.62 £241.64 £322.19 £402.74
152Outer South West London £93.79 £195.62 £253.15 £310.68 £414.25 £621.

going to

153Outer South London £75.00 £149.59 £184.11 £218.63 £287.67
152Outer South West London £83.10 £180.66 £224.38 £276.16 £368.22

What you then need to look into is how many people this will affect.
I certainly recall that the report said it would affect 14,000 in the whole of England.

With 8.3 million properties rented, it's a small fraction

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The change means: -

153Outer South London £80.55 £155.34 £195.62 £241.64 £322.19 £402.74
152Outer South West London £93.79 £195.62 £253.15 £310.68 £414.25 £621.

going to

153Outer South London £75.00 £149.59 £184.11 £218.63 £287.67
152Outer South West London £83.10 £180.66 £224.38 £276.16 £368.22

What you then need to look into is how many people this will affect.
I certainly recall that the report said it would affect 14,000 in the whole of England.

With 8.3 million properties rented, it's a small fraction

Small fraction across the country. Big enough fraction in London to affect average rents. London is a big enough place to affect average rents across the whole of the country.

You are begining to sound like a broken record ISTL

22% reduction in rental prices across a whole housing association is massive. Ok, each individual place will have a different percentage cut off it. But seriously, I don't see why you insist this won't have an effect on rental prices as a whole.

You don't currently see private renters paying more for the same home than the equivalent renter with benefits help do you. So why would you see private renters paying more when the benefits rent is reduced?

chewmylegoff

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

The rest of your post seems bang on, I agree.

But how did you search by borough on rightmove?

i typed in "camden" and it comes up as one of the drop down options.



if you choose the display properties on map option, it appears accurate.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

With 8.3 million properties rented, it's a small fraction

http://firstrung.co.uk/articles.asp?pageid=NEWS&articlekey=9053&cat=44-0-0

this suggests 2.6 million privately rented properties back in 2007.

http://www.bsa.org.uk/publications/newsbite/february2010.htm

this suggests 3 million in 2008/9 (england only).

i rather doubt it is now 8.3 million, unless you are including social housing which of course is irrelevant to this discussion.

still, if only 14,000 people are going to be affected, it is still a small portion. but given that 2,000 people/households in camden alone are affected (according to LB camden - see link from shakethedisease above), which looks like it is probably over 10% of the total number of private renters (see rough calculation in my post above), there is the scope for significant impact in the inner london boroughs.

that 14,000 - or whatever it is - is likely to be almost entirely concentrated in the south east, and more particularly inner london. if camden have 2,000, it seems unlikely that there are only 14,000 people affected, as there are 11 more inner london boroughs with similar populations, and another 20 outer london boroughs where there must be some impact.

edit: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/LHAbriefingFINAL.pdf

this confirms the 14,000 number is entirely concentrated in a specific group of london boroughs.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

that 14,000 - or whatever it is - is likely to be almost entirely concentrated in the south east, and more particularly inner london. if camden have 2,000, it seems unlikely that there are only 14,000 people affected, as there are 11 more inner london boroughs with similar populations, and another 20 outer london boroughs where there must be some impact.

Isn't it 14,000 claimants, rather than people?

Therefore, 14,000 homes.....

I just can't see how this will have no impact.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Isn't it 14,000 claimants, rather than people?

Therefore, 14,000 homes.....

I just can't see how this will have no impact.

yes, 14,000 homes.

well actually, reading the thing i linked to properly, it says 18,645 households in london will be adversely affected (14,661 of these have children).

it says 650,000 privately rented homes in london.

so 2.8%.

but, the map in the link indicates that most of the affected people are concentrated in 16 of the 33 boroughs (including the city).

the remaining 17 boroughs have a max of 99 affected households, i.e. the most affected boroughs must have at least 16,962, lets say 17,000 affected house holds. assuming even spread of population this will be more like 5% of the market in those areas.

i would say that is enough to potentially depress rentals in those boroughs, depending on what the demand for privately rented homes currently rented to LHA claimants in those boroughs is.

Graham_Devon

Well if you assume that 50% of landlords chuck their tennants out. This would, I assume, happen over a 6 month time frame.

You'd have some boroughs with 8 and a half thousand new rentals coming on to the rental market over those 6 months.

That's where I can see the falls in rental prices coming in. IF landlords kick tennants out instead of taking lower payments, supply will surge.