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

Wookster

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

Interesting... and maybe this will actually start to spur some house building.

That having been said, £400/ week on state benefits is quite a lot more than I would be happy to pay in rent, and definitely more than any of my friends pay for in rent. It is still a good chunk of cash.

And if council buildings hadn't been sold, the problem would be much much smaller.

chewmylegoff

vivatifosi wrote: »

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.

Families aren't been moved to stoke at all. It was all a coordinated labour stunt, the head of the relevant housing association making an obviously pre-prepared public rejection expression their grave concern about the so called attempt.

DannyRadclif

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There appears to be a tripple whammy going on at the moment. These two news articles are from the past 24 hours.

Firstly, landlords are experienceing higher levels of tenants unable to pay:
Secondly, more than half of landlords according to one study now believe it's unaffordable to rent to those on housing benefit:

And if the story from this thread actually does go ahead (which it won't I don't believe) landlords are going to have to find themselves private tenants willing to pay HB rates.

All 3 things together and it all looks a bit of a mess. But above all, every single one surrounds unaffordable properties.

So these 3 things together certainly make it look like lower average rents down the line. The question is with lower rents all round and slowly but consistently rising mortgage payments also to follow - Will the flood of repossessions that has been put off be able to be avoided?

N1AK

It's a blatant political stunt by Labour. Even if it wasn't then I doubt I'd really care. People who have to pay for their own houses don't get to live wherever they want; they have to live where they can afford. There is no reason why people who are reliant on the state should be given preferential treatment.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

It's a blatant political stunt by Labour. Even if it wasn't then I doubt I'd really care. People who have to pay for their own houses don't get to live wherever they want; they have to live where they can afford. There is no reason why people who are reliant on the state should be given preferential treatment.

Doesn't really matter if it a stunt or not it merely hi-lights the problem.

Capping HB is trying to arrest a symptom not deal with the cause.

People who buy/rent themselves can at least choose where they afford.

ruggedtoast

From the Groaner:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/london-vulnerable-families-forced-north

Is this the beginning of an exodus of all but the highest paid from London? Is its status as a plutocratic city state, detached from the rest of the country, about to become permanent? If so, you wouldn't expect Newham, one of the city's poorest boroughs, to be the first to try moving its statutorily homeless up north, where there are few jobs – and where, in the words of the council's letter to a Stoke-based housing association, "communities may benefit from additional family integration within their local area".

It's a sign of how impossible the mismatch between housing and job supply has become that an area that once had some of the cheapest homes in the capital and which retains a high proportion of social housing compared with other inner-city boroughs, can no longer afford to pay the market rate to make up its shortfall in affordable housing.

I would like to know some of the individual cases making up this story.

When I lived in Tower Hamlets the council was always trying to get people to take a relocation package up North to free up housing, with next to no success.

There is no reason for any able bodied person not to have a job of some sort in London, so if we're talking about career doleys being moved somewhere cheaper to be a burden on the taxpayer I have zero sympathy.

However if it genuinely is vulnerable families, or people who are working but on a low wage, it seems a bit harsh to move them completely away from London.

AMILLIONDOLLARS

The mayor of Newham has made the point that 1.)almost all letting agents will not accept HB tennants 2.) that the HB can only be paid to units under the 33% of average rent barrier reducing choice further.

I reckon if the cap was lifted they'd soon change their tune!!

AMD

chewmylegoff

It's also demonstrably untrue (for anyone who can be bothered to do 30 seconds of googling) that private landlords in London do not accept housing benefit. I can't find any figures but if there are less than 200,000 households claiming HB in private rentals (out of the 800,000 in total who claim HB in London) then I will eat my hat and your hat.

Whilst landlords may prefer tenants who are not in receipt of HB, they would have to be pretty !!!!!! to prefer a lengthy void to a tenant in receipt of HB.

drc

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Doesn't really matter if it a stunt or not it merely hi-lights the problem.

Capping HB is trying to arrest a symptom not deal with the cause.

People who buy/rent themselves can at least choose where they afford.

They should be reintroducing rent controls instead. Cheaper rents = more money in the economy and less in landlords pockets, less social housing needing to be built, those LL that don't want to rent for less or can no longer afford to pay their mortgage would sell = more houses on the market for FTBs :T.

There is more and more talk about the need for rent caps to be reintroduced and I think this or something similar will come in the next few years.

CLAPTON

drc wrote: »

They should be reintroducing rent controls instead. Cheaper rents = more money in the economy and less in landlords pockets, less social housing needing to be built, those LL that don't want to rent for less or can no longer afford to pay their mortgage would sell = more houses on the market for FTBs :T.

There is more and more talk about the need for rent caps to be reintroduced and I think this or something similar will come in the next few years.

surely better for the state to confiscate all housing and have a commission to distribute housing by need.