LHA gravy train still in full swing in London...

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, blame Maggie then.

As I say, a lot of changes have happened since then, and it's only those changed which allow the description in the OP.

Contrary to what a lot of people think not all bad things were the responsibility of Labour. Housing benefit might have been changed to LHA in 2002 but that doesn’t mean that is was Labour who enabled people to rent expensive private houses at the tax payers expense.

Eskimo12345

So why is the LHA cap based on location? As someone who pays for these people's accommodation, why should those who rely on this state enforced charity have the option to make the taxpayer pay more so they can live in better areas?

Can anyone justify this?

(also thanks to misskool for merging my thread with this one, I promise I did look to see if it was already posted but didn't spot this one!)

ukcarper

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

So why is the LHA cap based on location? As someone who pays for these people's accommodation, why should those who rely on this state enforced charity have the option to make the taxpayer pay more so they can live in better areas?

Can anyone justify this?

(also thanks to misskool for merging my thread with this one, I promise I did look to see if it was already posted but didn't spot this one!)

I think LHA can be justified to some extent as a lot of people who claim it are in low paid jobs and would not be able to find accommodation without it. But I would imagine no one would justify someone who is unemployed moving to the most expensive part of the country and getting their rent paid.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

I think LHA can be justified to some extent as a lot of people who claim it are in low paid jobs and would not be able to find accommodation without it. But I would imagine no one would justify someone who is unemployed moving to the most expensive part of the country and getting their rent paid.

You'd only move if you were certain of acquiring the new property.

And just how do you find out about this quality rental if your English is poor?

I think there are a lot of layers to this story, masked unfortunately by the "Somali" tag.

Some people are clearly able to work the housing system to their advantage, whilst others sit on growing waiting lists. Without fuller facts we will never know.

Eskimo12345

ukcarper wrote: »

I think LHA can be justified to some extent as a lot of people who claim it are in low paid jobs and would not be able to find accommodation without it. But I would imagine no one would justify someone who is unemployed moving to the most expensive part of the country and getting their rent paid.

I begrudgingly agree on the first point (to an extent, ie max 3 bed property for HUGE family, and definitely in the cheapest part of town), however someone who wrote the proposals for the current legislature for unemployed folk must have managed to justify the way things currently are?

The_White_Horse

they should be given a card board box or a plane ticket home. another lefty triumph. the most dangerous cancer in the west.

staffie1

ukcarper wrote: »

Housing benefit might have been changed to LHA in 2002 but that doesn’t mean that is was Labour who enabled people to rent expensive private houses at the tax payers expense.

Labour may not have enabled it in the first place, but they had an opportunity between 1997 and 2010 to stop it. But they didn't.

ukcarper

Eskimo12345 wrote: »

I begrudgingly agree on the first point (to an extent, ie max 3 bed property for HUGE family, and definitely in the cheapest part of town), however someone who wrote the proposals for the current legislature for unemployed folk must have managed to justify the way things currently are?

I don't think you will find many people in £8000 a month houses and has been pointed out the new maximum is £400 a month and that only applies to a few councils.

ukcarper

staffie1 wrote: »

Labour may not have enabled it in the first place, but they had an opportunity between 1997 and 2010 to stop it. But they didn't.

True but so did the conservatives between 1982 and 1997.

staffie1

ukcarper wrote: »

True but so did the conservatives between 1982 and 1997.

LOL true. All I can say is that all our elected representatives must think it's the right thing to do. We should stop arguing about it and accept it