Social housing impacts

blueboy43

drc wrote: »

I get the opposite impression about Tower Hamlets. That it is turning into a very nasty place, especially with the "election" of their new mayor.

Andrew Gilligan is the journalist who reported very critically on the Iraq invasion before anyone accuses him of being a racist;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100060304/labour-london-borough-becomes-islamic-republic/

sadly, I wouldn't trust a word Gilligan said after he deceitfully revealed David Kelly as a source.

A despicable individual.

Morglin

lemonjelly wrote: »

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?

Well, according to councils, these tenants can present as homeless the week their LHA drops below what the landlord is charging them, and seems to be no acknowledgement of proper notice periods.

Some, those with children, or those considered vulnerable, will become the 'problem' of councils.

As it's being stated at the moment, the 'evictees' will be rehoused by the 'host/original' council in different and cheaper areas (which can be miles away) in B&B's, paid for the by the original councils, along with any storage and moving costs, and then the recieving council will eventually take responsibility for them and have to offer them social housing wherever they have landed up.

So, yes the problem is just being moved sideways and putting a further strain on social housing lists.


And, it won't just affect those out of work:

............Taken together the two measures are expected to hit 939,220 households including almost 800,000 outside the capital.
More than a quarter of those affected, 241,700, are in work compared to the 206,470 on Jobseeker's Allowance.
The number of workers who qualify for help with rent has risen sharply over the past two years as struggling firms have cut back their hours.
Only about one in 20 jobless people claim unemployment benefit for more than a year meaning most will have recently been laid off.
More than 50,000 pensioners are among those who will be worse off because of the housing benefit cuts.
Another 308,540 people on disability benefits or Income Support will lose cash too.
Things will get even tougher for those who rent privately because the coalition will change the way that housing benefit rates are increased. In future payments will rise in line with shop prices rather than rents.....................

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/10/30/condem-cuts-will-target-families-all-over-uk-in-work-or-not-115875-22675645/

Lin

olly300

The thing is the number of unemployed will increase. If the working on LHA aren't moved to an area where they can get a bus to work then they will have to make their employer sack them.

silvercar

olly300 wrote: »

The thing is the number of unemployed will increase. If the working on LHA aren't moved to an area where they can get a bus to work then they will have to make their employer sack them.

They have had enough notice, they could look to moving to an area where they can afford the rent and commute to work.

"make their employer sack them" is an odd turn of phrase. Failing to turn up to work without reasonable emergency would be classed as gross misconduct and liable for dismissal. I doubt you would then be eligible for job seekers allowance!