London council's 'social cleansing' of housing benefit tenants

DannyRadclif

RenovationMan wrote: »

"A London council has been accused of starting "social cleansing" in the capital by asking a Stoke-on-Trent housing association to take on up to 500 families on housing benefit.

Newham Council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation.

The gap between market rents and the housing allowance is too big, it says.

But the association says such a move could mark the start of "thousands of needy people" being dumped elsewhere.

Labour MPs say the decision to seek accommodation outside London is proof that the government's policy of capping housing benefit is already "beginning to unravel". "

If these people are unemployed, then I don't see the point in housing them in an economic hub like London, they might as well sit on their couches and watch Jeremy Kyle in Stoke as in London. This will simply allow us taxpayers to help house more layabouts per tax £.

This is real progress. If these people want to stay in London, then they can get jobs like the rest of us. There are plenty to be had in the Capital.

Will more families be asked to leave London if they cant afford to pay their own rent? Surely the rents should get lower if housing benefit stops paying out for families.

socrates

I was on hold to speak to the MP on LBC today regarding this subject - I could not hold on as other things came up LBC called me back 3 times as they knew I was going to be controversial but backing my opinions up with facts

The last time I aired my views on this subject on this forum the whole thread was pulled - more to do with the fact that a particular school had been mentioned by the newspaper in the original article that caused the debate

I would love to have an hour with one of these MP's and tell them exactly what the score is - problem is they are powerless and spineless

DannyRadclif

socrates wrote: »

I was on hold to speak to the MP on LBC today regarding this subject - I could not hold on as other things came up LBC called me back 3 times as they knew I was going to be controversial but backing my opinions up with facts

The last time I aired my views on this subject on this forum the whole thread was pulled - more to do with the fact that a particular school had been mentioned by the newspaper in the original article that caused the debate

I would love to have an hour with one of these MP's and tell them exactly what the score is - problem is they are powerless and spineless

You can have as long as you want here. So what is so controversial that you have to say? Do you think the next round of cuts will come in next year forcing even more low income families out of London?

heathcote123

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It isn't free though otherwise I would could have/ demand one.

It is an legislated entitlement through justified need.

If one side agrees to the entitlement it also needs to provide the resources to meet it.

Whether that legislated entitlement is fair and just is another argument.

You can go and demand one, you'll be in place 23001, and you'll probably stay there as more needy cases leapfrog you. I think the list would be a bit shorter if it wasn't for free housing.

Which legislated entitlement do you refer to?

vivatifosi

I was listening to an article about this on Three Counties Radio on my drive home this evening. They stated that it wasn't just Newham, but other areas in London too. Hillingdon for example. Also families aren't just being moved to Stoke. Hillingdon - per Three Counties - has a policy of moving their families no more than 20 miles from the borough. So what's the name of the cost-effective town that they've managed to move tenants to? Chalfont St Giles. I kid you not.

PasturesNew

vivatifosi wrote: »

So what's the name of the cost-effective town that they've managed to move tenants to? Chalfont St Giles. I kid you not.

Well, you might not be kidding .... but we did all have to get open the map to find out where the 'eck that even was. my guess was 100 miles out, so I probably get a prize anyway.

chris_m

vivatifosi wrote: »

So what's the name of the cost-effective town that they've managed to move tenants to? Chalfont St Giles.

Isn't that an ailment?

PasturesNew

Radio Cornwall had quite a bit on this issue as there's an urban myth going round that a lot are headed this way, not just from London, but from Manchester too.... and the radio and others said "Well, housing's not affordable here either .... and with 20,000 on our waiting lists there's no chance". Rumour had it that the councils had bought houses down here to stick them into... which was then rubbished, with statements being read out on t'radio.

Callie22

yertiz wrote: »

The problem is that property in that area is now too expensive, greedy landlords realising that they can cash in on HB which the councils have been hoodwinked into paying. Reduce the rents to a reasonable amount. Would private tenants pay the sort of money that HB tenants are charged? I don't think so.

But don't they already have to? In my area, you'd struggle to find properties that are cheaper than the local LHA levels, regardless of whether the LLs/LAs will actually rent to tenants who are claiming LHA. I've always thought that these published levels of LHA have shafted private tenants - used to be that LLs could only charge what a property was actually worth, now they're told by the council that 2 beds equals £x, 3 beds equals £y, and that's what they charge and there's no room for negotiation. As a private tenant, I don't now have much choice but to pay that sort of money ...

vivatifosi

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well, you might not be kidding .... but we did all have to get open the map to find out where the 'eck that even was. my guess was 100 miles out, so I probably get a prize anyway.

Ahh, you may not have heard of it Pastures but, trust me on this, it is very worthy of a Posh Alert.