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

Dunroamin

LouLou wrote: »

PS: I'm sure Dunroamin can stick up for herself MissMoneypenny, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was an alter-ego, your voices sound so similar you could be twins.

Good luck to you too.

PPS: BigAunty's post is the most sane and level-headed on this whole thread.

I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between two very different posting styles bt I can assure you that I have no connection with MissMoneypenny.

perthperson

Dunroamin wrote: »

Unfortunately your "estimate" isn't based on fact as about 75% of prospective tenants negotiate rent with it being common to get reductions of around 10%.

http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/its-time-to-negotiate-lower-rent-48902

http://propertytalklive.co.uk/letting/1757-75-of-tenants-seek-to-negotiate-rent-reduction

Well, my estimate I guess is only based on my local area but also on working over 20 years in homeless and housing, including with a rent deposit scheme - so generally at the lower end of the market and I can honestly say that very very few landlords will consider any negotiation. Generally they don't need to as there's a queue of people for every flat (though even the ones who have somewhere that's lying empty, probably because it's really grotty, have a complete blind aversion to lowering the rent at all)

The picture may be very different with very expensive properties I guess but we are talking about housing benefit in this thread.

Dunroamin

perthperson wrote: »

Well, my estimate I guess is only based on my local area but also on working over 20 years in homeless and housing, including with a rent deposit scheme - so generally at the lower end of the market and I can honestly say that very very few landlords will consider any negotiation. Generally they don't need to as there's a queue of people for every flat (though even the ones who have somewhere that's lying empty, probably because it's really grotty, have a complete blind aversion to lowering the rent at all)

The picture may be very different with very expensive properties I guess but we are talking about housing benefit in this thread.

Perhaps it varies from area to area although possibly LLs who accept benefits have less need to negotiate.

dktreesea

dseventy wrote: »

Well how do you know if you have not tried?

Getting a room in a shared house is much easier than renting the whole property. The rent is cheaper, lower deposit (though you have less rights).

Don't say how difficult it is without trying.

I never said you are a "scrounger".

What I did say is that you can't pay your own rent and rely on others to do it for you. While you rely on others you are subject to the "others" rules.

D70

With shared houses, don't the existing tenants have to choose someone to move into the available room? Or do you mean shared housing as in a rooming house, where each room has their own key, they have shared facilities, but are independent of each other i.e. haven't actually chosen each other to live with?

While I agree with you when you say "while you rely on others you are subject to the "others" rules" - after all, that literally is true - for the individuals who are affected, it can be impractical. Say you're in a job and you rent a flat you can afford. A couple of years later you lose the job and go onto housing benefit. If you are currently unemployed, and if the council has no social housing to offer you, I don't believe it will be easy to find a room in a shared household, let alone a cheaper flat. I don't see many places in the private sector advertised as "DSS welcome" except in quite poor areas.

Plus, someone used to living in a better part of a town isn't necessarily going to be able to cope with moving to a poorer area. Yes, I understand the overall view, that it's taxpayers money, there isn't enough of it to go around, so the government have to spread it more thinly than before. But how do they intend to safeguard the people forced to move to poorer areas? There's someone who has moved into a poorer area near to us, who had to move out of her flat (made redundant, hb not enough to cover the rent). She says she shakes with fear every time she walks home from the bus now to the flat, especially in the dark. Sometimes her neighbours knock on her window (she's on the ground floor.)

It's not easy moving to a poorer part of town because that's all you can afford. I wouldn't have minded the reforms if the government were saying to people "we're reducing your housing benefit from £104 a week to £55 a week. That will leave you with a shortfall of £49. We have determined if you work two days a week at the local Tesco/Sainsburys/local farm/wherever you will easily be able to cover the shortfall. If you want to take up this opportunity you can come here for an interview on this day. If, for whatever reason, you don't feel you can cope with that, then you will have to move. We have located x number of available rooms at these addresses, " then maybe I would support the changes.

Yes, I know this is ultra "nanny state" but the whole point about any people on benefits is that they can't earn enough to support themselves. For all the people saying they could get a job, they could do something, I am not so sure. It's not their choice whether they work or not - it's the employer's. From what I see, a lot of employers these days prefer to employ our European neighbours in British based jobs.


The government should be helping the affected people transition to this "new world order", not just saying "this is the way it is going to be. Cope with it!"

dktreesea

Dunroamin wrote: »

I'm sure you're right but I don't see what's wrong with that. Surely we all have to live within our means or make sacrifices to have what we want?

If you're under 35 and want someone else to pay your rent you need to live in shared accommodation. Otherwise you have to work more hours, stop running a car or make whatever sacrifices that are necessary to have a place of your own.

After all, that's the choice that people paying their own rent have to make all the time.

"Having to move" or "working more hours" is not in the same category as stopping running a car. In the latter situation, that decision is entirely under the person's control. They simply sell the car. Just because someone's housing benefit has been cut doesn't mean that they can move. They are not fully in control of that event. There has to be a landlord willing to rent them a room. The same with working more hours. Or even getting work. No matter how many jobs you apply for, ultimately it isn't your decision whether you get the opportunity to work.

Someone who pays taxes, doesn't claim housing benefit and can afford their current accommodation, or decides they can't so moves to something cheaper, isn't in the same situation as someone unemployed and on hb. Even though they are still at the mercy of the landlord saying yes to letting them move into where they now want to live, they are a relatively attractive prospect as a tenant. They already have established work. They can probably afford things like the down payment, reconnection/transfer fees for electricity and the like.

Someone on hb is in a different situation. They are likely to be living hand to mouth. Where's the money going to come from for them to move? How are they going to persuade a landlord to rent to them in their current straitened circumstances?