arrears have increased by 340% following the housing benefit cuts

IveSeenTheLight

bulccp05laer wrote: »

I thought I did prove it. Before the caps came in there were families in London, one particular large family from Somalia getting £4000 per week housing benefit to live in a nice area in London. There were many other families with lots of kids getting £2000 or £3000.

Are you seriously suggesting that this did not push up average rents? And if the government was not paying these high weekly rates rents would still have gone up regardless?

The problem now is the caps on benefit mean these families have to move to cheaper areas. Are you seriously trying to tell me there are other working families ready to pay £4000 per week to replace the low income families relying on £4000 per week housing benefit?

Well if you are saying that then you are clearly wrong. Most of these large houses that used to be rented out to large families on housing benefit are still empty today, as it says in the article. The real effects of these cuts in April have not yet filtered through the system. Lots of these families are still in the homes they can no longer afford, but they will be evicted sooner or later.

The exceptions do not prove the rule.

What has the overall average rents risen as a result of Housing Benefits?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/poll/2012/mar/06/poll-housing-benefit-rent-increase

IveSeenTheLight

In a Commons debate about welfare reform, Cameron said: "Rent levels have come down, so we have stopped ripping off the taxpayer." Number 10 later expanded on the subject, stating private landlords were reducing rents, which would lessen the impact of benefit cuts, in return for local housing allowance being paid direct to them.

But this simply isn't the case. A study carried out by my colleagues at Inside Housing revealed that, of 204 local authorities who responded, just 36 reported any rent reductions in return for direct payment in their area. And of these, the numbers of landlords to have reduced rents are reportedly "miniscule". In fact, 12 of the councils reported a combined total of just 65 landlords reducing rents.

At the same time, figures released by LSL Property Services showed that average rents in the private sector actually rose in January for the first time since the organisation began compiling its survey. This is up by 4.3% annually.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/inside-housing-proves-cameron-rent-claim-wrong/6520500.article

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Similarly as I asked elsewhere, can you quantify specifically how much rents have increased because of HB?

You know this is an impossible question to answer. There is nothing to compare against and therefore quantify.

However, put it another way. If you are giving money to people in order that they can afford their rent, obviously the rental market can be held up at a certain level.

You and I both know that if housing benefit was removed tommorow, rents would fall off a cliff.

Therefore, I think it's fair to suggest rents are held higher thanks to money being given to people in order to be able to afford to pay them.

The market is made up of people with the ability to pay, and landlords with the ability to offer a service.

If housing benefit is removed, you have a LOT of landlords with the ability to offer the service, but a drastic reduction of approximatley 5 million households who no longer have the ability to pay the level of rent demanded.

The only way the landlords in this scenario would be able to rent out their empty homes would be to lower the rent to a price that these 5 million could afford to pay.

shortchanged_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Mortgage owners were able to afford payments when prices and rents were higher.

For many there has been rent inflation in the last 5 years.

In that time, they've been able to benefit from lower interest payments allowing many to overpay their mortgages significantly reducing their amortization period.

For many, this economic recession has financially saved them tens of thousands.

Cost of living in general is much higher now and wages are down. So unless these balance out many will not cope with significant interest rate rises.

bulccp05laer

Iveseenthelight I repeat my questions. Are you seriously suggesting that this did not push up average rents? And if the government was not paying these high weekly rates for poor families to live in nice properties then rents would still have gone up by the amount they did regardless?

The problem now is the caps on benefit mean these families have to move to cheaper areas. Are you seriously trying to tell me there are other working families ready to pay £4000 per week out of earnings to replace the low income families relying on £4000 per week housing benefit?

It certainly sounds like that is what you are trying to say.

bulccp05laer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You know this is an impossible question to answer. There is nothing to compare against and therefore quantify.

However, put it another way. If you are giving money to people in order that they can afford their rent, obviously the rental market can be held up at a certain level.

You and I both know that if housing benefit was removed tommorow, rents would fall off a cliff.

Therefore, I think it's fair to suggest rents are held higher thanks to money being given to people in order to be able to afford to pay them.

The market is made up of people with the ability to pay, and landlords with the ability to offer a service.

If housing benefit is removed, you have a LOT of landlords with the ability to offer the service, but a drastic reduction of approximatley 5 million households who no longer have the ability to pay the level of rent demanded.

The only way the landlords in this scenario would be able to rent out their empty homes would be to lower the rent to a price that these 5 million could afford to pay.

The voice of reason. It is obvious you are right but the perma prop bulls would have it that as housing benefit keeps getting cut back every year rents will not fall.

After all if you can not specifically quantify to two decimal places how much high housing benefit payments pushed up rents then that proves that rents would have gone up that much on their own:rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You know this is an impossible question to answer. There is nothing to compare against and therefore quantify.

Why then do people claim it has significantly increased rents?

You can;t make assertions without merit.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If housing benefit is removed, you have a LOT of landlords with the ability to offer the service, but a drastic reduction of approximatley 5 million households who no longer have the ability to pay the level of rent demanded.

Hmmm, okay, breaking this down.
There are only approx 1.46 million BTL,

There are now around 1.46 million buy-to-let mortgages in the UK, accounting for around 13% of the total estimated stock of 11.26 million mortgages.

yet your saying 5 million households would be affected.

How does that compute?

I rent out three properties privately, none of which receive Housing Benefit.

So how does HB reduction for 5 million affect the 1.46 BTL privavte landlords?

Where are the 3.5 million HB claiments renting from?

IveSeenTheLight

It seems Graham_D, Shortchanged and bulccp05laer need to do a bit more research before making such wild assertions.

None have been able to back up with facts their claims, despite being politely invited to do so.

ukcarper

What percentage of BTLs tenants receive LHA.

Mr._Pricklepants

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It seems Graham_D, Shortchanged and bulccp05laer need to do a bit more research before making such wild assertions.

Why do you waste your time debating silver sockies, ISTL?

bulccp05laer wrote: »

It is obvious you are right but the perma prop bulls would have it that as housing benefit keeps getting cut back every year rents will not fall.