arrears have increased by 340% following the housing benefit cuts

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumbaly the vacated property will not remain empty so presumably some-one from private rental could move in and so savings could arise?

overall, if there is a redistribution of larger families to larger properties and smaller families to smaller properties then there will be more happy larger families whilst providing adaquent housing for smaller families.

whether there is an overall reduction in total cost of housing is more difficult to determine but one would expect so.

I accept that families may upsize and be happy. If the the person leaving stays the same (bedroom wise), because of insufficient smaller property supply (or choice), in the private sector and the bills will still be met regardless, then I am not so sure I would expect savings apart from where B&B type accommodation is being vacated.

As demand outstrips supply even if someone is bumped out of B&B another family turns up to take their place.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I accept that families may upsize and be happy. If the the person leaving stays the same (bedroom wise), because of insufficient smaller property supply (or choice), in the private sector and the bills will still be met regardless, then I am not so sure I would expect savings apart from where B&B type accommodation is being vacated.

As demand outstrips supply even if someone is bumped out of B&B another family turns up to take their place.

It would be somewhat surprising if all or even most down sizing moves were thwarted by the lack of smaller properties.

Logically it would mean that there could be no upsizing either as there were no smaller properties to move out of.

If the 'downsizer' choose to get the same number of rooms then they wouldn't be funded by HB.

Demand does NOT exceed supply; they are balanced by price and regulation.

Wishes for property certainly exceed supply but that is a different matter.

I'm surprised that you don't think that, give the shortage of property, that a better distribution based on NEED rather than historical accident is desirable whether or not significant cash saving are made.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

It would be somewhat surprising if all or even most down sizing moves were thwarted by the lack of smaller properties.

Logically it would mean that there could be no upsizing either as there were no smaller properties to move out of.

If the 'downsizer' choose to get the same number of rooms then they wouldn't be funded by HB.

Demand does NOT exceed supply; they are balanced by price and regulation.

Wishes for property certainly exceed supply but that is a different matter.

I'm surprised that you don't think that, give the shortage of property, that a better distribution based on NEED rather than historical accident is desirable whether or not significant cash saving are made.

If there are enough properties why are there large waiting lists and people living in temporary accommodation? Is there a surplus of suitable small property if so why aren't prices falling?

Demand and supply is balanced only by higher and higher prices being charged for a scarce resource. It just means that growing numbers can't participate or are prepared to pay the premium. There is a difference between need and wish I accept.

If I were an individual renting a two bedroom flat, lost my income and needed to claim benefits how would my entitlement be assessed providing it was within the overall cap? I appreciate that is a maximum and it is unlikely that many get anywhere near it . I was under the impression that private rental accommodation was treated in different manner to social provision, hence my original question.

Historic mis-mangement of available stock is certainly an issue for those on HB or similar. If cost wasn't an issue I am sure we would be seeing large scale building by the government to resolve the issue..

The_White_Horse

i haven't read any of this thread, but just wanted to say - the benefit cap is massively high and a disgrace. why should these drains on society have a cap that is higher than half the people who work????? the cap should have been set at just UNDER what someone working full time on minimum wage would get. Why on earth is it set higher???

silverwhistle

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i haven't read any of this thread, but just wanted to say -

a load of rubbish. I haven't read much of the thread either, I own my own house and even I know that you can't afford housing on minimum wage in this country, and that most housing benefit is paid to those _in_ work.

Perhaps you should read a bit of it, rather than reading too much Churchill, who was born into a life of privilege.

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i haven't read any of this thread, but just wanted to say - the benefit cap is massively high and a disgrace. why should these drains on society have a cap that is higher than half the people who work????? the cap should have been set at just UNDER what someone working full time on minimum wage would get. Why on earth is it set higher???

Because it is an absolute maximum and it is deemed necessary by the powers that be that will have no doubt pared it to the practical bone.

Many get no where near the maximum from what I have heard.

Those that do will no doubt be mainly families with children for whom the real benefit is for. AIUI child benefit is included in the cap.

If you know differently you will no doubt provide the evidence.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If there are enough properties why are there large waiting lists and people living in temporary accommodation? Is there a surplus of suitable small property if so why aren't prices falling?

Demand and supply is balanced only by higher and higher prices being charged for a scarce resource. It just means that growing numbers can't participate or are prepared to pay the premium. There is a difference between need and wish I accept.

If I were an individual renting a two bedroom flat, lost my income and needed to claim benefits how would my entitlement be assessed providing it was within the overall cap? I appreciate that is a maximum and it is unlikely that many get anywhere near it . I was under the impression that private rental accommodation was treated in different manner to social provision, hence my original question.

Historic mis-mangement of available stock is certainly an issue for those on HB or similar. If cost wasn't an issue I am sure we would be seeing large scale building by the government to resolve the issue..

I'm not an expert on HB but I believe the 'bedroom' tax doesn't apply in the private sector as the state has no mechanism of knowing how many rooms a private flat has.
There will be a HB allowance that is acceptable based on local conditions.

In the 'social' sector the occupancy and property size would be known.

I made no comment about there being 'enough' housing but only about the relationship between supply, demand and price in an unregulated market.

Waiting lists and 'temporary accommodation' etc are only applicable to bureaucratic regulated (rationed) supply systems where 'price' isn't a factor.

dktreesea

silverwhistle wrote: »

a load of rubbish. I haven't read much of the thread either, I own my own house and even I know that you can't afford housing on minimum wage in this country, and that most housing benefit is paid to those _in_ work.

Perhaps you should read a bit of it, rather than reading too much Churchill, who was born into a life of privilege.

This is so not the case! Of over 5 million recipients of housing benefit, less than 1 million are in work. (source DWP). What is the case is that in work people form the fastest growing group of new claimants.

You can afford housing on the full time minimum wage in most parts of Britain, but it is likely to be a room in a multiple occupancy house or a shared house.

PaulF81

woodgreen2013 wrote: »

This is just 2 months in! the real effects have not yet started to bite. What will happen when these families get evicted over the next few months and the landlords try to find someone else to live there paying out of their own pockets?

How much will that 340% number go up on the next benefit cuts? Then the next cuts and so on?

David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, told BBC Radio 5 live's Breakfast, "We now have some housing associations who are training their frontline staff in dealing with people who are suicidal... this is causing real misery for hundreds of thousands of people."

If the suicide rate jumps up so much for this little cap of £26K year, what will happen when Universal credit comes in and even more low income families can no longer afford their rents?

On the bright side...

In a statement, the Department for Work and Pensions said, "This reform will save hard working taxpayers almost £1 billion over the next two years and will help restore fairness to our housing benefit system."

Find it difficult to believe that "hard working tax payers" will actually notice a significant difference whilst those struggling to move to a cheaper area will.

No doleites please working in the city. We need people on 60k+ paying lots of tax.

The paupers can move up to burnley or some such. 1 billion is a lot of money. It's going to be even more once they cut the 26k limit further next electoral cycle.

The_White_Horse

the cap should be no more than £12k - £1k of free money a month is MORE than enough. If you can't get by on that level of hand out - tough. move somewhere cheaper, cut out more spending, or starve to death. all options. Oh yeah, there is another option, i fogot. GET A JOB.

not working is a state of mind. as i have said many times before, none of my friends live on the dole. when they lose a job, within a few months they always find another. it is because their mind set is to work rather than scrounge.

the mind set of the majority needs to change.