Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.
Social housing impacts

lemonjelly
Posts: 8,014 Forumite


There seems to be a big focus on how the spending review will impact on rented properties. What has taken me by suprise is that pretty much all the focus seems to be on how the private sector will be affected. I suppose part of this is because this is where the juicey headlines are: "NEVER WORKED FAMILY GET RENT OF £8000 A WEEK PAID BY HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS" (Copyright, the daily mail)
However, it has struck me that there could be a bigger impact on social housing. After all, what will happen to these tenants? Will they give notice to their LL's that they need to move out? Will they wait & play chicken with the LL? Will LL's lower rents?
Anecdotally, it appears LL's are unwilling to lower rents, save for cases where they may exercise discretion, as they are happy with the tenants they have. I am not aware of the kinds of financial pressures LL's are under.
However, I wonder how many people are aware that under the homelessness act, the LA may have a duty to re-house you, and you may not be intentionally homeless if it is no longer reasonable for you to stay in the property as it is not financially viable?
This will surely have a big impact on LA homelessness services, and also LA/HA stocks. It could lead to rises in the numbers of people in "temporary accommodation" (this includes B&B's, for which the bill is taxpayer funded, & is vastly more expensive than long term housing) and will also stifle movement within current social housing stock, as people who are due to move out of overcrowded flats/houses will be passed over & therefore have to remain in these overcrowded conditions, as those found to be homeless owing to the benfits cuts will be prioritised for social housing, on the grounds they are homeless.
Unsuprisingly, councils have started raising this as a possibility:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-11644088
So perhaps the logical arguement would be to invest in social housing you may think? Well, Grant Shapps disagrees http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11634490 . Social housing investment & new schemes will fall. This will only compound a problem which has grown since the introduction of right to buy, where stock was sold off, but the proceeds weren't invested back in to housing.
Oh, & the social housing budget has been cut by 74%.
Worrying. All we are doing, is shifting a problem sideways, instead of actually dealing with it.
Thoughts?
However, it has struck me that there could be a bigger impact on social housing. After all, what will happen to these tenants? Will they give notice to their LL's that they need to move out? Will they wait & play chicken with the LL? Will LL's lower rents?
Anecdotally, it appears LL's are unwilling to lower rents, save for cases where they may exercise discretion, as they are happy with the tenants they have. I am not aware of the kinds of financial pressures LL's are under.
However, I wonder how many people are aware that under the homelessness act, the LA may have a duty to re-house you, and you may not be intentionally homeless if it is no longer reasonable for you to stay in the property as it is not financially viable?
This will surely have a big impact on LA homelessness services, and also LA/HA stocks. It could lead to rises in the numbers of people in "temporary accommodation" (this includes B&B's, for which the bill is taxpayer funded, & is vastly more expensive than long term housing) and will also stifle movement within current social housing stock, as people who are due to move out of overcrowded flats/houses will be passed over & therefore have to remain in these overcrowded conditions, as those found to be homeless owing to the benfits cuts will be prioritised for social housing, on the grounds they are homeless.
Unsuprisingly, councils have started raising this as a possibility:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-11644088
So perhaps the logical arguement would be to invest in social housing you may think? Well, Grant Shapps disagrees http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11634490 . Social housing investment & new schemes will fall. This will only compound a problem which has grown since the introduction of right to buy, where stock was sold off, but the proceeds weren't invested back in to housing.
Oh, & the social housing budget has been cut by 74%.
Worrying. All we are doing, is shifting a problem sideways, instead of actually dealing with it.
Thoughts?
It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
0
Comments
-
Most will not be homeless, some will just have to move to cheaper areas. What is the problem?0
-
lemonjelly wrote: »... All we are doing, is shifting a problem sideways, instead of actually dealing with it.
Yes, the govt is only tackling some of the symptoms (high rent causing high rates of LHA) rather than the underlying structural problems (lack of housing and increasing demand for it due to increases in population and household numbers).
But its not about shifting the problem sideways but about shifting some tenants into less expensive areas which may be within the same borough or adjacent ones...
For some of the fans of the LHA caps, its about reintroducing the concept of a social contract, that benefits are about a temporary measure at subsistence level and re-educating people about their entitlements, namely that they cannot and should not expect to enjoy a similar or better standard of living to those in employment.
As one satirical wit wrote in a comments forum of a website, the problem is that former Somalian goatherders can be found living in luxury townhouses in Kensington..
That's not what Beveridge envisaged. It may feel like a punishment by the claimants but it's a bit weird that those on benefits are permitted to live in the size and location of properties that a couple in full time employment can only dream about.0 -
How are they shifting the problem sideways? If you move a family currently receiving £2000k per week LHA from Central London into an exactly the same sized house in a nice area, outside London (or even very doable in suburban London) for £400 per week or less, that is a huge saving. The people that seem to be complaining are the LL's who are going to miss out on their guaranteed high rents and people like Boris Johnston who is probably worried about losing some votes. The people who will be moved will still be living in huge houses, courtesy of the taxpayer, just in much cheaper areas. There is no human universal right to live in Central London, anymore than it is my human right to have a taxpayer funded ferrari (although I would prefer a Nissan Figaro :cool:).0
-
All we are doing, is shifting a problem sideways, instead of actually dealing with it.
I was always under the impression that this was the primary function of Government.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
How are they shifting the problem sideways? If you move a family currently receiving £2000k per week LHA from Central London into an exactly the same sized house in a nice area, outside London (or even very doable in suburban London) for £400 per week or less, that is a huge saving.
Assuming there is accommodation available to house them and they are willing to move. Of course moving a large population will mean that rents increase in these areas.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages, student & coronavirus Boards, money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
However, it has struck me that there could be a bigger impact on social housing. After all, what will happen to these tenants? Will they give notice to their LL's that they need to move out? Will they wait & play chicken with the LL? Will LL's lower rents?
How will the tenants priced out behave is probably worthy of a PHD thesis.
Daily Mail readers will assume these chavs will stay put and wait until they are dragged out of their (ex-) homes by balliffs. Others may expect the tenants to plan ahead and, realising they can't afford to remain in their current home, pro-actively search for affordable accommodation.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages, student & coronavirus Boards, money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0 -
I suppose the rents in the cheaper areas will rise to the maximum amount allowed to be claimed.
I do believe that if you are allowed a property on benefits then you should be grateful that you have somewhere to live even if you have to move further afield.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »So perhaps the logical arguement would be to invest in social housing you may think? Well, Grant Shapps disagrees http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11634490 . Social housing investment & new schemes will fall. This will only compound a problem which has grown since the introduction of right to buy, where stock was sold off, but the proceeds weren't invested back in to housing.
Oh, & the social housing budget has been cut by 74%.
Worrying. All we are doing, is shifting a problem sideways, instead of actually dealing with it.
Thoughts?
The "Pathfinder" schemes do seem dreamt up by the soviet politburo of town planners.
Part of the justification was to arrest what was described as "market collapse" in certain places. There have been huge number of properties in Liverpool either demolished or boarded up, that whilst not great properties, were ideal for social housing. They could have been rennovated at significantly lower cost than the re-build schemes.
The only people who have benefited are BTL landlords who will have bought such properties for less than 20k in the mid 1990's and are now selling / compensated at £80-100k per time. Hardly a market collapse.
The daily mail loonies on here who think its going to be a nice seamless process of people moving from central London to the far outskirts are going to have a fit of the vapours when the see the stories of families in B & B accomodation.
I do however, think that the government are doing the right thing. It can't be right that people can get £1000 a week in housing allowance, regardless of where it is. Too many landlords and tennants have been playing the system for too long, and now everyone will be suffering.0 -
Assuming there is accommodation available to house them and they are willing to move. Of course moving a large population will mean that rents increase in these areas.
If you look on Rightmove you will find 500+ properties to rent that are 4 beds at £1600 per month or less WITHIN London. Ok, perhaps not Westminster or Kensington, but beggars can't be choosers and those in receipt of LHA may have to live amongst the middle class, tax paying, working riff-raff - terrible I know. As for "willing to move" it's not really up to them if the taxpayer is paying their rents. Working families in private accomodation who pay their own rent don't have much choice whether they are "willing to move" or not. They do what economics (and their landlord) dictates.0 -
If you are not working the barriers to moving must be lower than for those that need to be within commutable distance of their work.I'm a Forum Ambassador on the housing, mortgages, student & coronavirus Boards, money saving boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Forum Ambassadors are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 241K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.7K Life & Family
- 254.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards