Changes to Housing benefit how much will rents fall?

Jazzshed

They kicked the can down the road when they changed the cuts to not apply to those already renting over the capped amount. But next year these ones will be forced to move out of London.

neverdespairgirl

wotway wrote: »

There is a big move by landlords to get out of any DSS letting in any case.

They can't all just let to private tenants, though. Not enough of them about.

greenbubble

wotway wrote: »

There is a big move by landlords to get out of any DSS letting in any case.Most landlords don't want these people as they are not seen as good tenants.If you disagree fine put your own money up for a deposit! Since it became law that tenant gets paid the money instead of direct to land lords. All very well to snipe at private landlords , but as they have to put 25% deposit in and mostly are making up the biggest part of rentals in averge areas then where is the alternative if local authorities are not playing their part in housing?. So it's easy to say' greedy landlords' they are caned by legislation and lets face it why would they invest without a vision of some profit for all the agro?. If they just bought gold or invested in financial services where are people going to live?. Easy to comment when it's not your hard earned cash gone in. It's an easy equation; private landlords will not exist as charities that's the job of government. It's only private investors using their cash to buy that has stopped the market following Fukashima

am i correct in thinking that there are tax breaks for BTL over and above the FTB ? if there is , until that changes and the playing field is leveled then i doubt your going to change the masses attitude away from present 'slumlords' and 'parasites' im afraid.

greenbubble

ps. neverdespairgirls comment is the true question that needs to be asked by all these 'no DSS' squealling piggies

silvercar

Curiously (or so I thought) I got the council letter about the rent my tenant pays. The tenant started claiming just before LHA came into being, so gets the HB predecessor - the HB level is unchanged!

So out of curiosity, I looked at the new LHA levels. Helpfully the directgov site shows it in graphics form. Look at the graph below, the green triangles are at the 30 percentile level ie the amount of LHA now paid (except in expensive areas). The difference between the 30th percentile and the 50th is neligible. The rent curve is flat at this point. So the conclusion is that there is very little change in LHA by this rule.

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/ListofRents.aspx?SearchResultsPageParameters=true&Postcode=wd23%2b3lj&LHACategory=2&Month=4&Year=2011&SearchPageParameters=true&BrmaId=98

Poshbird

The housing benefit cuts do not really show up yet, because they postponed them unless people move.

So when people in London come to move for whatever reason they will get a shock that they will get less money than they did before they moved. This will have a knock on effect of lowering average rents.

In North London for instance it used to be about 340 per week for a 2 bed place now 290, and just a bit further North than that it used to be 230 now down to 220. Doesnt sound like much but these cuts will continue.

Also they have just postponed forcing the cuts on everyone who gets help with the rent, but when they do have to force it because they just can not keep paying out so much in housing benefit, then you will see average rents crash.




Wait for a load of distressed landlords to say "it will only affect London, rents will even go up round my way as all these low income families cant afford London and have to move blar blar blar"

They do not understand that average rents for the UK will be slowly falling as housing benefit keeps getting cut every year.

Its no point saying it will only affect London, it will only affect low income families - AVERAGE RENTS WILL FALL. This affects everyone and house prices.

lemonjelly

I have posted this on another thread, but it also relates to this one, so please excuse the kinda double post:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13671653

According to the Welfare Reform Bill, those currently living in social housing with one spare room can expect to lose £11 a week while those with two or more extra rooms may lose around £20 a week.
The proposals aim to address the shortage of social housing by matching families to the right size of accommodation but critics argue that there simply aren't enough smaller properties available.
Figures from the National Housing Federation suggest that around 180,000 social tenants in England are "under-occupying" two-bedroom homes, but just 68,000 one-bedroom social homes became available for letting in a single year.
The legislation will affect England, Scotland and Wales and is expected to come into force in April 2013.

So a first step towards addressing some of the under occupation which exists currently. Though I would argue that it will only affect people who are in receipt of benefits, and I'm not 100% that this is the right/morally ciorrect way to do this by marginalising benefits claimants.
I say this because imo addressing the whole under occupation issue is something which I would like to see. Under occupation is not exclusive to benefit claimants.

wotsthat

lemonjelly wrote: »

So a first step towards addressing some of the under occupation which exists currently. Though I would argue that it will only affect people who are in receipt of benefits, and I'm not 100% that this is the right/morally ciorrect way to do this by marginalising benefits claimants.
I say this because imo addressing the whole under occupation issue is something which I would like to see. Under occupation is not exclusive to benefit claimants.

It will only affect people on benefits but as the wider taxpaying public are paying those benefits it makes sense to ensure that they fund needs rather than wants.

If, say, a single person (not on benefits) buys a 4 bedroom house for their own use then I'd argue that they are already paying a premium, and therefore a disincentive to under occupy a house, in the form of higher housing and utility costs.

Poshbird

MajorJohn wrote: »

"In North London for instance it used to be about 340 per week for a 2 bed place now 290, and just a bit further North than that it used to be 230 now down to 220. Doesnt sound like much but these cuts will continue."


Thinking about this carefully surely anyone who thinks it through would move from North London (where they now would only get the reduced 220wk) further South where they would get the reduced but still more 290 per week.

Everyone has been saying there will be a mass relocation of low income families to poorer areas, but the smart ones will move to the areas where they will get the most benefit.

But still yes the cuts will be bringing down average rents every year. The only thing that will stop rents falling is if the government can afford to keep propping up the rental market by keep paying these high housing benefits. Unfortunately Austerity is forced on us, the cuts will continue and get more and more as the crisis worsens.

Yes at the moment the smart ones may realise they could get more per week by moving to a better broad market rental area.

But plans are to cap all benefits at £500wk then the smart ones will move to a cheaper area so as not to use as much of their £500 per week on rent.

FTBFun

Why are you talking to yourself?