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

LouLou

princessdon wrote: »

So are people in council houses part of this new downsizing rule?

Or does this only apply to private rents and therefore unlikely to be in an area that is predominently local authority homes?

PS I grew up in a council house and I can personally say it was far from tatty and my garden was twice if not thrice the size of the one attached to my house now. I'd happly live on my old estate but the council would never house me as I work.

I agree, not all housing estates or council properties are terrible environments, ugly and crime-riddled, I just made the point that young, single people get put into tower blocks or scumsville apartments.

A friend of mine got put in an absolutely shocking hovel of a council flat when she wanted out the family home a few decades ago. Leaking roof, ceiling about to cave in, brickwork showing through the walls, damp everywhere, junkies regularly kicking the close door in to sit on the stairs...don't know if they'd offer that to a young person nowadays. Hope not! (And she was working, but she was a teenager!).

MissMoneypenny

princessdon wrote: »

So are people in council houses part of this new downsizing rule?

They are going to be subject to the "bedroom" rule I believe, but only those of working age.

princessdon

Then it goes back to my earlier point that private landlords who often charge above rental value (as per the HB Rate) especially if they are in a "nice area" and attractive are part of what has led to this.

My best friend still lives on the estate a grew up in (and again I repeat it is a pleasant place to live) and she pays £68 a week rent on a 3 bed, yet the HB Rate is £225 a week

How can there be such a big disparity between what the council charge and the HB Rate?

Surely either council rents should be higher or the HB lowered?

Sorry and I know this is OT - But I can't figure it out, especially when my GM can't rent her home for a decent fee (and yes she accepted HB and even waived the deposit) because people would rather live elsewhere. Now granted it's got a poor transport link (lack of buses past 6pm) and isn't close to any schools which is part of it but her private rent is well below the 30% of the borough.

Sandwich

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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

You could say the same thing about the NHS: if other people are paying for your granny's hip replacement then she doesn't get "choices" and should have to go to the worst surgeon in the area. You could even do it with police: poor? Well that's just too bad. Your area is going to be policed by CSPO's and all the real police are going to be saved for the wealthy areas.

It's just callous and cold-hearted. I've already explained in this thread why the policy is counter-productive (i.e. because it gives people an incentive to stay in social housing even if they move into a well-paid job) so I can only assume you favour the policy for reasons other than the fact that it actually works (because it doesn't). I think for some people they just think everyone on any kind of benefit is barely any better than scum and needs to be 'incentivised' to take one of the many, many jobs that are available at the moment.

whitelabel

princessdon wrote: »

Then it goes back to my earlier point that private landlords who often charge above rental value (as per the HB Rate) especially if they are in a "nice area" and attractive are part of what has led to this.

My best friend still lives on the estate a grew up in (and again I repeat it is a pleasant place to live) and she pays £68 a week rent on a 3 bed, yet the HB Rate is £225 a week

How can there be such a big disparity between what the council charge and the HB Rate?

Surely either council rents should be higher or the HB lowered?

Sorry and I know this is OT - But I can't figure it out, especially when my GM can't rent her home for a decent fee (and yes she accepted HB and even waived the deposit) because people would rather live elsewhere. Now granted it's got a poor transport link (lack of buses past 6pm) and isn't close to any schools which is part of it but her private rent is well below the 30% of the borough.

that is one of the causes of the problem
historically council rents have remained stupidly low
then tenants can buy the property way below market value
which doesnt get replaced as councils havent built new council properties
which leads to a shortage of properties,
which drives up prices for everyone else as demand outstrips supply


in my area a 1 bed flat in most areas start from £450 a month unfurnished up to £575 for a 2 bed and about £650-800 a month for a 3 bed....

im not surprised your friend chooses to live there if its nice and the rent is that low.. i guess most people would

LouLou

I really think some of the posters on here assume everyone on Housing Benefit is sitting in a mansion flat in Knightsbridge.

Look at private landlord advertisements: most say "no DSS", and a would-be tenant has to make their choices accordingly. The only way round it, I assume, would be if you "know" someone who will let you rent out a decent property.

The ones who end up in posh properties, how they get there and why on earth they speak to the tabloids I've no idea, as the Daily Mail isn't going to do a fluff piece. I read the figure of astronomical rents being met by HB currently was reckoned to be a very small figure, throughout the UK. I smell propaganda.

Next it'll be flaming torches and throwing people in the river to see if they float...

princessdon

No I go off what I see with my own eyes

Neice recently moved out of home - living in a 2 bed above shops in town centre, £400 a month (4 of them / 2 couples share) so £100 a month each or £200 a month for a couple.

HB rate for a couple is £96 a week. There is no way that they can afford to pay double the rent they do and equally no way that anyone who has that sort of "budget" at their disposal would choose to live over a shop.

Obviously I am not niave enough to assume that this is the same in all areas of the country and maybe the North East is the exception, but the only people I see in "tatty and run down accomodation" is those young people who can't rely on benefits.

LouLou

I would say, though, that if someone is in a well-paid job, they don't have to stay in social housing. They could look into mortgaging rather than lining a landlord's pockets...though I know that's easier said than done with the property market as it is/lenders not as generous as they once were.

All depends on the individual and the salary they're on, I suppose.

LouLou

Where I live, a one-bedroom flat is around £280 a month. Private let properties in the same building are around £600 upwards! so it's not just your area. Some are Housing Association and some are owned.

Whether you're working doesn't really determine where you'll live, it's more your salary, what you can afford.

The media encourages ENVY*, pitting working people against those on benefits, and it makes me very uncomfortable. The curtain twitchers cling to their bigoted views from the tabloids and won't budge, tarring everyone with the same brush.

I don't agree that people of very little means should be living in mansions, but how common is it really? Will (some) greedy landlords suffer? Doubt it.

You're dealing with young, sometimes vulnerable, people's lives, they deserve a fair hearing before calling them, ahem, "quitters".

Why is there an "under-35" rule anyway?

*I have had nothing, been at my lowest, barely been able to eat, just the clothes on my back to wear, and watched some friends, and enemies, prosper...Yet I've never succumbed to envy or resentment. That's for true quitters.

I wish people well. Life is sometimes about surviving; and it's hard enough without comparing yourself to others and coveting what you assume they have. It's never as black and white as it appears.

Morlock

princessdon wrote: »

I'd happly live on my old estate but the council would never house me as I work.

A lot of local authority housing polices award more points, higher priority, to working people. You are be more likely to rehoused sooner because you work than someone who doesn't, even voluntary work counts towards points for higher priority.