Just received 'Housing Benefit changes' letter, not sure of the implications.

MissMoneypenny

earthbound_misfit wrote: »

However, as I pointed out, when people are facing massive shortfalls in rent that thay cannot afford (hence getting means-tested benefits!), then they will have to leave their home.

The tenant can ask the landlord if they will reduce the rent. If the landlord has to use an agency to find a new tenant, then they will to pay that agency a fee anyway. Plus no landlord likes a void while he finds a new tenant; nor the uncertainty of what that new tenant will be like i.e will they trash the place; be late with the rent; not pay the rent.

earthbound_misfit wrote: »

It's being kicked out via the middle man I suppose.

They can either renegotiate the rent, pay the top up out of other benefits or find a job and pay their own rent.

They can also be "kicked out" by the landlord anytime they want their property back. The mortgage lender can take the property back too in certain circumstances.

Sandwich

whitelabel wrote: »

just been looking in to this some more, seems that call centre person wasnt totally clued up
£94.62 is the new 1 room rate, where as it was 103.56
so it seems that my friend will be continuing with the 1 room rate entitlement !>
so may be what sandwich was saying is right and that 9 months will be starting again as they failed to notify people ?
The person was adamant that my friend would have been notified, though they deny it and the council person couldnt give me a date when it was sent...

sounds like an absolute mess at both a national and local level

I think so. When I spoke to someone from the council they also mentioned that there was a cut coming in soon, but it was only by a few quid, like in your case. They said the more substantial cut was coming in 9+ months. I got the person I was speaking to to go a check with a manager that this was definitely the case. He did and he came back and said the manager had told him it was basically a fault of the council that they hadn't notified some people in good time, and that was why they were delaying the cut.

LouLou

I remember when I was in my first (proper, not landlord with hugely inflated rent) flat around 1993, and my dad told me he lived in bedsits for years, even comparing my humble pokey flat with my *own furniture* he reckoned it was the lap of luxury to where he lived in his younger days.

Call me a bleeding heart but it's the vulnerable ones I feel sorry for; those who have mental or physical issues and just can't flat-share. From the articles I've read, the exemptions seem very slim, only those who are on assisted living and need a carer appear to be exempt (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, it's always those who are suddenly affected by new rules who bear the toughest brunt. I'll never go back to a private landlord if I can help it..finding a good landlord is one thing, then finding decent people to share with...absolute nightmare.

Suitable alternative accomodation boils down to finances for these under-35s. Which likely means very undesirable places.

It could mean the skankiest of flats, filled with the cheapest rubbish to make them habitable, in the wildest areas. Whereas some of these people could currently have a good support network of friends, family, and be happy in the homes they've made for themselves. It's not something anyone should have to go through.

Greedy landlords have caused some of this mess.

Sandwich

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The tenant can ask the landlord if they will reduce the rent. If the landlord has to use an agency to find a new tenant, then they will to pay that agency a fee anyway. Plus no landlord likes a void while he finds a new tenant; nor the uncertainty of what that new tenant will be like i.e will they trash the place; be late with the rent; not pay the rent.

Are you referring to people in the private sector dealing with the transition to the 'single room' rate?

If so, I'm sorry but that is just complete nonsense. How can anyone in their right mind go to their landlord and say, 'would you mind taking a nearly 50% cut in what you are paid in terms of rent each month? Don't worry, it will save you the trouble of having to look for a new tenant'. I would love to see how that conversation would turn out. Quite entertaining I suppose.

Sandwich

LouLou wrote: »

I remember when I was in my first (proper, not landlord with hugely inflated rent) flat around 1993, and my dad told me he lived in bedsits for years, even comparing my humble pokey flat with my *own furniture* he reckoned it was the lap of luxury to where he lived in his younger days.

Call me a bleeding heart but it's the vulnerable ones I feel sorry for; those who have mental or physical issues and just can't flat-share. From the articles I've read, the exemptions seem very slim, only those who are on assisted living and need a carer appear to be exempt (correct me if I'm wrong).

However, it's always those who are suddenly affected by new rules who bear the toughest brunt. I'll never go back to a private landlord if I can help it..finding a good landlord is one thing, then finding decent people to share with...absolute nightmare.

Suitable alternative accomodation boils down to finances for these under-35s. Which likely means very undesirable places.

It could mean the skankiest of flats, filled with the cheapest rubbish to make them habitable, in the wildest areas. Whereas some of these people could have a good support network of friends, family, and be happy in the homes they've currently made for themselves. It's not something anyone should have to go through.

Greedy landlords have caused some of this mess.

This gets to the heart of why these reforms are not only quite callous, but also bonkers.

If you're in a council flat and under 35, what incentive do you have to rent in the private sector? Imagine you're in a council flat on benefits, then you find a decent job and can suddenly afford to move out. You move out and sign a tenancy agreement for your own flat for 12 months. After 3 months you lose your job. What are you supposed to do?

LHA will only pay the one room rate which would cover approximately half your rent, which is obviously not good. Meanwhile, you can't move back into a council flat because there's a 2 year waiting list, and you can't move into a cheaper place (e.g. flat/house share) in the private sector because you are legally required to keep paying your current landlord rent for another 9 months.

Anyone with a council property at the moment would be bonkers to even think about moving out until they are over 35. And I thought the government wanted to reduce 'welfare dependency'?

LouLou

There is an element of "I'm alright Jack" going on in this thread. Have some of the people offering "advice" (which appears to be served in a judgemental tone to boot) actually dealt with the private sector? Actually lived in a council flat? On your own?

My first (private landlord) flat had a three-piece suite with stains all over it (not mine) and was probably rescued from a skip, no fridge, cheap cord carpet, bare plaster walls and a 1970s automatic washing machine that left "bits" over my clothes. And in a lovely area too (not)..for £240 a month in 1992. It was "furnished" but only with junk, to bump the rent up.

I was working too, and desperate to get out of an abusive family environment. I left with a bag of clothes and a portable TV as my belongings. The landlord was happy to take my money, but it was hardly a des res.

As for haggling with a landlord...unless he is your best mate or distant uncle, he'll quite plainly tell you to sling your hook. Or worse.

MissMoneypenny

LouLou wrote: »

There is an element of "I'm alright Jack" going on in this thread. As for haggling with a landlord...unless he is your best mate or distant uncle, he'll quite plainly tell you to sling your hook. Or worse.

What does the "or worse" mean?

The tenant and landlord are in a contract together; it's a business deal.
As I said above, the reduction in rent may be better for the landlord than having to pay an agency to find another tenant. They also have the uncertaintly of what a new tenant will be like.

If you don't ask, then you don't get.

LouLou

It's interesting that you quote "if you don't ask, you don't get" in this thread, as these new rules have NOTHING to do with "choices". And if I was a betting woman, I'd say most landlords wouldn't haggle. I've dealt with many in my time, have you?

I get the feeling they'll have plenty of alternative tenants, particularly now; so why get less money if they can help it? Bottom line, it's money, not people, and whilst I can understand some of the reasons behind it, it's vulnerable people who suffer.

princessdon

I think a lot depends on the "area" and how desparate the landlord is. My GM rents her house out (a 3 bed) with loads of stairs and a downstairs only bathroom and toilet - hence the reason she had to move as going down the stairs at night frightened the life out of me. She gets £450 a month in rent (minus agency fees and insurance and maintenance - new boiler and new cooker in last 2 months).

She needed tennants ASAP as can't afford to pay the very high rate on her sheltered accomodation so took the hit. She started it at £600 and after a while had to take a lower fee to get a tennant.

Incidently the LA housing rate for 3 bed in the area is £225 a week, so shows how under the rate this is and if she was on HB she would get her full rent covered at new accomodation. Certainly in her area the rates that the LA pay are well above the average housing rates - but that may be because all things considered it isn't a "nice area" being all she could afford whilst working. Those entitled to HB live in nicer areas with higher rent.

MissMoneypenny

LouLou wrote: »

It's interesting that you quote "if you don't ask, you don't get" in this thread, as these new rules have NOTHING to do with "choices".

If you want someone else to pay for you, then you don't get "choices" in how much you are given.