Councils to move LHA claimants out of London - Inside Housing

Jowo_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

For some, I think it may come down to just that. I expect many won't want to move away from areas, schools and people they're familiar with without protest.

I, too, would expect massive resistance to what amounts to be involuntary moves but at the end of the day, their landlords will get possession of their properties through the courts and then enforce this with bailiff's if necessary, plus their local councils may not be obliged to help them if the tenants wracks up rent arrears.

These are the ultimate sanctions, last resorts once cooperation has broken down, but perhaps the tenants will be incentivised by the fact that they've no real choice, and resistance will be counter productive.

Those that appreciate that ignoring the new changes doesn't mean they'll go away will be the ones snapping up the best properties early elsewhere rather than expose themselves to sanctions.

vivatifosi

Jowo wrote: »

There is 7.5 million people in London (officially) so the 200,000 (if those are the numbers affected) represents around 2.6%. They aren't all affected on the same day, it comes in on the anniversary of their claim, so is very staggered.

I hear what you are saying, however this would potentially be on top of any normal inward/outward migration. Plus a 2.6% outflow from a city with a population of 7.5m may be much greater in percentage terms as an inflow into a county with a much smaller population: Berks, Herts and Beds (ie the main counties named in article) have a total population of a bit over 2m.

Here's the issue for me. The implication is that these are households with children, not singles or couples who are less likely to impact on education resources. I can't see Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire or Berkshire having a spare 5% school places. The area around Watford, which is one of the towns mentioned, already saw 423 of its primary school children not achieve a place in one of their chosen schools in 2009, whilst others lost out on their preferred secondary school: http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4166528.Hundreds_of_children_face_secondary_school_heartbreak/

However I do wonder whether a large part of this is more opposition scaremongering in which case the numbers will be much lower.

amcluesent

The last thing that visa-overstayers, 'seekers' etc. will want is any hint that they are rootless and can be moved about easily.

The No.1 goal is to prevent deportation by showing that you are 'settled' with a job, house, kids in school etc. It's no surprise that 2nd task when arriving in Britain is to get an British passport holder preggers (1st task is destroying all ID "papers" in transit), knowing that Immigration won't dare break-up a 'family' by sending you back to country of origin.

Jowo_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I hear what you are saying, however this would potentially be on top of any normal inward/outward migration. Plus a 2.6% outflow from a city with a population of 7.5m may be much greater in percentage terms as an inflow into a county with a much smaller population: Berks, Herts and Beds (ie the main counties named in article) have a total population of a bit over 2m.

Yes, the maximum potential migration of 2.6% of households would be additional to standard migration but London is a city in a state of constant population flux, always has been.

Not all of those affected by the housing benefit caps will move out of London anyway - I expect the majority will simply move a couple of zones out from where they are now.

London is surrounded by many counties containing many millions of households within an hour or so of public transport, including the ones you mention, plus places like Essex, Kent, Surrey, Northants,Bucks, East and West Sussex, etc.

We shall have to see what happens but I don't think the south-east will have any significant new problems accommodating a few tens of thousands of households dispersed over a wide area and a year plus in timescale, any much different from the way it's absorbed easily a million plus over the last decade because of EU and non-EU migration, plus UK born population growth too.

Yes, there could be logistical problems but nothing particularly different from the conventional ones caused by economic migrants attracted to the job opportunities in the south-east. Crowded transport, strain on medical services, schools and housing sounds like business as usual!

vivatifosi

amcluesent wrote: »

The last thing that visa-overstayers, 'seekers' etc. will want is any hint that they are rootless and can be moved about easily.

The No.1 goal is to prevent deportation by showing that you are 'settled' with a job, house, kids in school etc. It's no surprise that 2nd task when arriving in Britain is to get an British passport holder preggers (1st task is destroying all ID "papers" in transit), knowing that Immigration won't dare break-up a 'family' by sending you back to country of origin.

Oh amc, why do you have to make everything boil down to immigration? For sure some people who will be hit by the changes will be immigrants, but also a large number will be born and bred here. It's about the cost of housing benefit, not the ethnic breakdown of its users.

Incidentally, whenever you read papers saying there are x number of Pakistanis or x number of Indians living in the UK, you should consider the fact that under the bonkers way our census is constructed, a black or asian person whose family have lived here generations still needs to declare themselves as, for example, Black Caribbean and not Black British. On the other hand, if a Polish family arrive and have kids then they can call those kids White British. This is ethnically divisive and gives the impression that there are far more people that have just arrived in the UK whereas in reality they could have been born here. I'm not saying that the government needs to address the issue of immigration overstayers and illegal immigrants, just that the picture is more complex.

drc

silvercar wrote: »

But no-one is actually moving them are they? "They" will realise that they can't afford the rent in that area, so will seek a more affordable area themselves. In the same way that people in employment move to the location of a new job.

The effect will be a slow and gradual dispersement, rather than people being bussed out by the coach load.

Absolutely, the people being affected aren't automatons, they do have a choice.

If I was on LHA and knew I might not be able to stay in one of the more expensive London boroughs, I would be making plans now - either to find work which would cover the rent or move out to a place that would be more affordable. It's the exact choice that my family has had to make as non-LHA private tenants. We have moved 3 times in the past 5 years and each time paying a deposit, inventory etc and paying the going rate of rent with no subsidies. I don't understand why there so much sympathy for those on LHA that *might* have to make a choice that working people who don't get their rent paid have to make all the time. It's all just totally bonkers imo.

amcluesent

>why do you have to make everything boil down to immigration?>

Because England was settled and doing fine before we were subjected to the unasked for, unwanted, and now failed, multi-culti experiment. Now we're battling a fifth-column.

vivatifosi

drc wrote: »

I don't understand why there so much sympathy for those on LHA that *might* have to make a choice that working people who don't get their rent paid have to make all the time. It's all just totally bonkers imo.

Mine isn't concern about the people being moved out, it is for those already here, who may have lived in the Home Counties for years and have siblings in the same schools. Of course, this could all be Labour spin and nothing could happen, but if I live in Hertfordshire and its budgets are being cut, I don't see why the inhabitants of London should be dumped here by its councils when local resources are already stretched. I'm sure people in Berkshire, Bedfordshire etc or in the specifically named towns feel the same. Though, as I said, if it is all spin then there's nothing to be concerned about.

ruggedtoast

It's pretty rough on people who have homes they've been living in under the old arrangements and will now have to move to be honest.

However from any other viewpoint I cant see why the tax payer should be funding huge amounts for unemployed people to live in places most working people could never aspire to.

As a hopefully soon to be ex renter, from my experience its just so annoying to be priced out of private rentals by people on housing benefit.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

amcluesent wrote: »

Because England was settled and doing fine before we were subjected to the unasked for, unwanted, and now failed, multi-culti experiment. Now we're battling a fifth-column.

Are you and poppycod related by any chance?