Changes to Housing benefit how much will rents fall?

carolt

Try ploughing through this if you have the time:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/hb/hb33.htm

Some v good data in there.

ukcarper

carolt wrote: »

Try ploughing through this if you have the time:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmworpen/memo/hb/hb33.htm

Some v good data in there.

Yes good data but am I missing something or is it 17,000 not 170,000

IveSeenTheLight

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes good data but am I missing something or is it 17,000 not 170,000

That'll make a huge difference.
Considering 170,000 instead of 17,000

Here's another interesting point

4.1 DWP’s figures in their impact assessment show that, if all rents remain the same and no one moves, the average loss in London will be £17 per week, compared to £9 per week nationally.

IveSeenTheLight

Another interesting section

6. Impact of the Caps and the 30th Percentile combined
6.1 Where the loss is relatively small it is hoped that landlords will accept a reduction in the rent and/or tenants will be able to pay a bit more. However, for 4 and 5-beds across most of the sub-region and for all sizes of property in RBKC the average losses are such that only a small minority of landlords are likely to be willing to accept such losses.
6.2 This means that, over 2011-12, we can expect large numbers of evictions as landlords decide to sell properties or seek tenants who can pay higher rents.
6.3 Landlords are more likely to re-let larger properties to groups of house-sharers in order to maximise their rental income. This will have the effect of further reducing the supply of larger properties for poorer households in the capital, increasing the number of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households, with the accompanying social ills of poor educational achievement and poor health outcomes.
6.4 It also means that many landlords will cease to let to people on benefits. This will reduce the ability of boroughs to prevent homelessness by assisting people to rent privately. This is the main way in which boroughs have successfully reduced the level of homeless acceptances and the use of temporary accommodation in recent years. As a consequence, boroughs will need to place more families into temporary accommodation and the number of homeless acceptances will rise.
6.5 Temporary accommodation, particularly for large families and in central London, will be more difficult to find in-borough. This will mean families having to move away from support networks. There will be migration out of central London into the outer London boroughs and out of London.
6.6 Working families on HB will have to move out of central areas near their work, increasing travel time and cost and disrupting child care arrangements, which could mean loss of employment
6.7 This will create pressure on schools, social and other services in outer London boroughs and will increase the level and concentration of deprivation in the poorer boroughs. Pupil mobility will increase which will lead to poorer academic performance.
6.8 Table removed due to table error in quote
6.9 The HB subsidised private rented sector provides an important and flexible source of housing supply for people who would otherwise be putting pressure on the social rented sector:
‘the impact of reduced numbers of households receiving housing benefit in the private rented sector without being able to reduce the demand for this type of accommodation will require additional provision of social rented dwellings’. (ORS: Draft West London HMA, 2010)
6.10 The draft West London HMA estimates that over the next 5 years the HB changes will increase the demand for social rented housing by 5,273 units across West London.

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That'll make a huge difference.
Considering 170,000 instead of 17,000

Here's another interesting point

so if the average rent is £500 a week and the shortfall is £17 a week that would be... wait for it.... 3.5% less in rent received - as you can appreciate that's a massive crash in rental values... pmsl

RDB

ukcarper wrote: »

Quote: Throw in London Councils' quick estimate that 170,000 households in the private rented sector across the capital will lose out because of the cap, and we're confronted with the prospect of hundreds of thousands of Londoners of all ages being effectively forced to migrate across the capital in order to find places their home boroughs can afford to support their living in :Quote

Where in London are they going to find all those properties?

Exactly they can not find anywhere in or near London under the new reduced rates.

They will have to move far away from London.

PasturesNew

I've spent about 5 hours today trawling through looking for somewhere to rent .... basic rent on a 1-bedder plus basic bills = 75% of my income.... so I daren't do it.

Rents need to come down so they're affordable. In fact, I think a lot in London are cheaper than a lot of places outside of London..... but without the jobs opportunities and high salaries.

You need two incomes to rent. I've still only got one.

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That'll make a huge difference.
Considering 170,000 instead of 17,000

Here's another interesting point

what is quite interesting is that there are only 240 affected households in the whole of southeast london, either noone is on benefits in southeast london, or people on benefits will actually still be able to afford to live there after LHA is capped. the breakdown of the west london figures is interesting too - hillingdon, harrow, hounslow are all clearly still within reach as they have very few affected claims. all of the hillingdon and harrow claims that are affected are for 5 bed houses. boo hoo - 160 people in those areas won't get a free 5 bedroom house any more. hardly a massive population shift on the horizon for those areas.

and yes, it is 17,000 as the link quoted on this page, and earlier links in the thread show. the 170,000 is probably just a deliberate "typo". lots of stupid reporting on this now from the left wing press who want everyone to believe that there will be an apocalypse of social cleansing, rather than just all the people on benefits who can't afford to live in expensive areas of london having to move to the cheaper areas of london.

so basically the left wing press is having a fit about a pretty small percentage of people having to experience the same thing as thousands upon thousands of working people who aren't propped up by the state but can't afford to live in westminster.

RDB

Those links with those figures are talking about next April cap of 400wk.

We were talking about the yr after when 500wk total ben cap. This will bring the 400wk down to 250-300.

I cant find any figures for how manyin London will be affected by this.

chewmylegoff

RDB wrote: »

Those links with those figures are talking about next April cap of 400wk.

We were talking about the yr after when 500wk total ben cap. This will bring the 400wk down to 250-300.

I cant find any figures for how manyin London will be affected by this.

yes, but not everyone is in a 4 bed house. whilst the 500pw cap may be a problem for people who are, we are talking small numbers in many of the boroughs. according to the figures there are only 60 households in hammersmith & fulham and 50 in kensington & chelsea who are in 4 or 5 bed properties (assuming that noone is renting in those areas at levels below the cap - seems pretty unlikely that they would be).

65% of all claims affected by the LHA cap in west london are for 1 or 2 bed properties. 85% are in 1,2 or 3 bed properties. although some 3 beds are still likely to be hit by the 500pw cap, in most areas this is still not going to be the holocaust that some people are trying to say that it will be.

would be interesting to see a breakdown of westminster, as that is the one area i think could really be affected in a significant way, although there is no real reason why it shouldn't be seriously affected as the reality is that very few of us can afford to live in a shoebox in westminster let alone a 4 bedroom house. it doesn't make economic sense, it's like the state giving everyone a free car instead of subsidising public transport - we'd all love not to have to get on the bus, but unfortunately it doesn't (or shouldn't) work like that.