arrears have increased by 340% following the housing benefit cuts

dktreesea

ermine wrote: »

There are other responses possible to high housing costs than house prices coming down. I have no personal desire to see house prices as high as they are relative to earnings, but don't see that changing too much because of the cultural expectations in the UK.

When I started work in London I shared a house with four other guys, simply to reduce housing costs because London, then as now, was damned expensive to live in.

Over the interventing decades Brits have been thinning ourselves out. More of us want to live on our own. Families want a house to themselves. Families want a room for each child. These are all developments in recent decades, and have resulted in more of our individual income going towards housing.

There's no law saying the direction of living density must always go down. There are great economies of scale in sharing your accommodation with other households - you share all your white goods, you waste much less food, and you pool skills. I repaired the electrical bits, and the plumbing others did a better job of cooking and bicycle repairs

As Britain gets a little bit poorer though the whole world in general gets a bit richer we will rediscover some of those ways of reducing our accommodation costs. If it makes us a little bit less narcissistic and consumer-orented that may not be altogether a terrible thing...

Housing benefit does tend to set a minimum rent because in theory it's the rent everyone can afford, whatever their circumstances regarding earning their own income. But in London I would think that the main pressure on the rental market comes from population growth, and the failure of the government to either build sufficient additional housing units to accommodate that growth or to release land to the private sector so they can build the housing instead.

Dunroamin

dori2o wrote: »

This really annoys me, not only with the lies etc that come from IDS, Osborne, Cameron, McVey etc, but also those benefit bashers on here. They all seem to imply that only non-working people or rather non-taxpayers are the ones receiving these benefits, when the reality is that the majority of housing benefit claimants are 'hard working taxpayers' who have been caught up in a period of rising rents caused almost entirely by Landlords greed.

Given that many "working people" are only working part time, with much of their income coming from other benefits. it's something of a red herring to say that many of them are claiming LHA/HB if, for example they're a couple only working 24 hours pw between them.

What most people mean by "working people" is where at least one person in a couple is working part time and probably both.

JencParker

Dunroamin wrote: »

Given that many "working people" are only working part time, with much of their income coming from other benefits. it's something of a red herring to say that many of them are claiming LHA/HB if, for example they're a couple only working 24 hours pw between them.

What most people mean by "working people" is where at least one person in a couple is working part time and probably both.

I agree, and I realise some do it out of choice, but for most it is the unavailability of work - zero hour contracts etc. It's all very well saying can't you work more or harder when it isn't out there.

dktreesea

ukcarper wrote: »

Explain how

Housing benefit is already being cut. You can achieve a cut in more ways than actually lowering the amount of LHA. For example, restricting who can claim housing benefit (the assault on the under 25s comes to mind), capping the amount that can be claimed, or introducing what is effectively a tax on the housing benefit via things like a bedroom tax.

When UC comes in there will be a significant drop in income for the working poor who are self employed, the impact of which could be that they go from having the vast majority of their rent paid to none of it being paid at all, simply because of the deeming rules, which set a minimum income floor for them. While, of the 4.2 million self employed people, only 20% or so claim any kinds of benefits, the impact of UC on those who do will be to cut all their benefits, including the housing benefit.

Council tax benefit, which is closely related to housing benefit in the way it is calculated, has already been cut for many people. This reduction in income can impact on their ability to apy for other parts of their budget, i.e. money that was earmarked for housing goes on council tax instead, meanignt ehy ahve to cover any housing shortfall they may currently ahve out of other funds, thus reducing their disposable income.

dktreesea

grizzly1911 wrote: »

That 90% of HB claimants that are working presumably buy consumer items, find money for holidays, buy cars, have children etc. Presumably some of this stuff will have to stop being brought if they want shelter.

I don't necessarily agree with the way changes are being implemented but on a sinking ship priority calls have to be made. Ladies,children and wealthy people will no doubt survive.

Where does the "90% of housing benefits are working" statistic come from? It's not the case.

February 2013 statistics:

All HB claimants: 5,078, 523 8source Feb 2013, DWP)
made up of
People on pensions: approx 1.25 million, so about a quarter
Working people: around 900,000 as of Oct 2012 (so about a quarter of those who are working age, and 20% of the overall total)
Working people who are of state pension age (women 60 to 64 years of age) around 135,000 as of october 2012

The remainder, i.e. the majority, are non working people of working age.

dktreesea

JencParker wrote: »

I agree, and I realise some do it out of choice, but for most it is the unavailability of work - zero hour contracts etc. It's all very well saying can't you work more or harder when it isn't out there.

But there's always something people can do to earn income. They don't have to wait until someone else gives them a job. Or restrict that to being the only way they can earn some income. What about things like leaflet distribution? Or telemarketing?

dktreesea

grizzly1911 wrote: »

As we keep growing both statements can be true.

If accommodation is not keeping pace with growth then demand can only grow. If demand grows then prices will follow unless supply is increased.

I think the gap between rich and poor is growing in income and personal wealth. I am sure the demand from the higher earners will take up the slack from the those that can't keep up.

I think the mix of property will change.

Change to what though? That implies some kind of building response, doesn't it? It's hard to get good statistics on how many homes were built last year. The Guardian claims fewer than 100,000; the Builder and Engineer puts it at 110,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/24/affordable-new-homes-britain-future
http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/feature/how-do-we-get-250000-homes-year)

As to the claim we need 250,000 homes a year for the next 25 years, what underpins that? If net migration runs at, say, 150,000 a year, then on average three people per house would equate to 50,000 new dwellings to meet demand. But where are the statistics that could underpin such calculations?

Then there is the birth rate. The latest available figures for 2011 show there were 723,913 births and 484,367 deaths. Even if no new homes were built and the only housing freed up was if a person died, all those extra people would still get accommodated.

Even Parliament are in on the act:

".....up to 290,500 additional homes may be needed in each year to 2031..."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/social-reform/housing-supply-and-demand/
That seems to me to be so pie in the sky, it's laughable. 5.2 million homes to accommodate 7.2 million people (based on today's growth in population of around 400,000 people per annum)? They can't all be wanting to live on their own!

grizzly1911

dktreesea wrote: »

Change to what though? That implies some kind of building response, doesn't it? It's hard to get good statistics on how many homes were built last year. The Guardian claims fewer than 100,000; the Builder and Engineer puts it at 110,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/24/affordable-new-homes-britain-future
http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/feature/how-do-we-get-250000-homes-year)

As to the claim we need 250,000 homes a year for the next 25 years, what underpins that? If net migration runs at, say, 150,000 a year, then on average three people per house would equate to 50,000 new dwellings to meet demand. But where are the statistics that could underpin such calculations?

Then there is the birth rate. The latest available figures for 2011 show there were 723,913 births and 484,367 deaths. Even if no new homes were built and the only housing freed up was if a person died, all those extra people would still get accommodated.

Even Parliament are in on the act:

".....up to 290,500 additional homes may be needed in each year to 2031..."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/social-reform/housing-supply-and-demand/
That seems to me to be so pie in the sky, it's laughable. 5.2 million homes to accommodate 7.2 million people (based on today's growth in population of around 400,000 people per annum)? They can't all be wanting to live on their own!

Greater shared/multi occupancy.

Some form of high density,poor quality, low cost government sponsored build.

More poor quality shanty style developments.

dktreesea

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Greater shared/multi occupancy.

Some form of high density,poor quality, low cost government sponsored build.

More poor quality shanty style developments.

The government's already been down the track of high density, loor quality, low cost government housing when they put up the highrises. And they are now pulling them down just as quickly, up in Scotland at least. Too hard to police and way to expensive to maintain.

Even shanty town developments need land to be released - or something to be knocked down to make way for them. Even when the land is released to developers and planning permission is granted, it appears they are just sitting on it, building nothing, watching it appreciate. According to this article, http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/miliband-targets-land-banking-in-building-drive/6527446.article there is land released for 400,000 homes, all of which are yet to be built. The government's been parroting on about how they are going to get developers building 100,000 extra new homes a year for at least the last couple of years. It seems to be all talk.

Even when these houses are built, who will be able to afford them? It would be great to see more social housing built but, for example, Fife council, one that is actually building new council homes, only has 355 such homes scheduled to be completed by March 2016. Only 355 new council homes. For a population of 367,000 people. I realise they don't all want a council home, but even if only 1% of those were seeking to be new council tenants, this figure wouldn't even meet 10% of that demand.

And meanwhile we already have large leaps in rent arrears. What's going to happen after UC when the rent money all arrives in one lump sum, bundled up with everything else? Those arrears could well soar. I wonder how many BTL landlords are going to end up defaulting on their mortgages because their tenants run out of money before the rent is due?

CLAPTON

dktreesea wrote: »

intain.


Even when these houses are built, who will be able to afford them? It would be great to see more social housing built but, for example, Fife council, one that is actually building new council homes, only has 355 such homes scheduled to be completed by March 2016. Only 355 new council homes. For a population of 367,000 people. I realise they don't all want a council home, but even if only 1% of those were seeking to be new council tenants, this figure wouldn't even meet 10% of that demand.

And meanwhile we already have large leaps in rent arrears. What's going to happen after UC when the rent money all arrives in one lump sum, bundled up with everything else? Those arrears could well soar. I wonder how many BTL landlords are going to end up defaulting on their mortgages because their tenants run out of money before the rent is due?

What has the population of Fife got to do with housing need?

The growth / decline in its population may be relevant but its size is clearly irrelevant.

If there is a shortgage then why is that; do you lack suitable building land?

If people can't afford the rent then it would seem that there is a lack of work : maybe better they migrate elsewhere where there are jobs.