MSE News: Benefits cap comes into force

zagfles

Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »

Yes your right, and again this is the endless argument I have with my Missus, Frazzy. She always says we have to start somewhere. But my concerns about this particular way of 'Starting' is that it may not produce the desired results in time before costing us all more than the intended cuts were designed for.

I'm old enough to remember when Britain went decimal. For two years leading up to it there was a massive TV advert campaign, reminding everyone 6 times a night that changes were coming. Why didnt government use the same route?

As far as I am aware the DWP sent out a single letter which, having spoken to various recipients was so full of jargon they didnt get it and threw it in the bin. In my job I train tenants every other week in groups of 20. I am lucky if I find two people on the course who have even heard of benefit capping and universal credit. It takes me two minutes to precis and everyone looks suicidal. They just dont know what is about to hit them.

Going back on my main point you could take the view "Well they should know".....but the reality is, they dont, so what is going to happen? All of us are going to pay the bill and homelessness will go through the roof.

Cutting benefits does not change a person's mindset. It may do over time but while that culture shift is happening how are families to deal with it? how are councils going to cope? How will landlords be affected by it? will this affect the property market?

Benefit caps are akin to amputating a leg to cure an ingrowing toenail

Well as I said above I don't really like the benefit cap, like the child ben changes it's a political stunt meant to appeal to Sun readers rather than intelligent well thought out policy.

But why do you think it's inconcievable people will move to somewhere where their benefits will pay the rent? In most cases it won't be too far. Do you think they'd rather sleep on the street than in a house 20 miles away?

As for the property market, hopefully it'll counteract that other stupid "help to buy" policy, which is pushing prices up and so making it harder to buy!

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

Well yeah that goes back on my point about simplistic, argument stopper comments.

You could certainly take the stance that they should just move somewhere cheaper but when you drill down to individual cases it doesnt hang right, neither personally nor legally.

I remember seeing a stand up comic (name forgotten) who complained about those adverts on afternoon TV about people living a two hour walk from clean water, saying "Why dont they just move nearer the water" Good point and very funny but it really isnt that simple.

There isnt an ideal template family who fits that demographic and the law doesnt help either.

in November 2012 a new set of laws was introduced, the homelessness (Suitability of accommodation ) Order (England) was ushered in, which allows homelessness units to discharge their homelessness duty to a family by finding the accommodation that is affordable and reasonable. the arguments against relocation are subject to a raft of case law and legal precepts. Put basically a London council, which lets face it, is where the runaway rents are, can theoretically send a a homeless family to Dunoon if it is cheaper for them, but they also have to take into account family support networks, medical treatment, job prospects etc.

It isnt just a case of saying "You cant afford to live in London, lets send you to Worcester". People's family lives are more complex than a basic mathematical equation. And there is a veritable army of lawyers seeking to make a reputation and capital in taking the government to task over sweeping generalisations.

Each case for relocation relies on the specific circumstances of that particular family. Sweeping generalisation beloved of the Daily Mail do not refelct the legal perameters

zagfles

Ben_Reeve-Lewis wrote: »

Well yeah that goes back on my point about simplistic, argument stopper comments.

You could certainly take the stance that they should just move somewhere cheaper but when you drill down to individual cases it doesnt hang right, neither personally nor legally.

I remember seeing a stand up comic (name forgotten) who complained about those adverts on afternoon TV about people living a two hour walk from clean water, saying "Why dont they just move nearer the water" Good point and very funny but it really isnt that simple.

There isnt an ideal template family who fits that demographic and the law doesnt help either.

in November 2012 a new set of laws was introduced, the homelessness (Suitability of accommodation ) Order (England) was ushered in, which allows homelessness units to discharge their homelessness duty to a family by finding the accommodation that is affordable and reasonable. the arguments against relocation are subject to a raft of case law and legal precepts. Put basically a London council, which lets face it, is where the runaway rents are, can theoretically send a a homeless family to Dunoon if it is cheaper for them, but they also have to take into account family support networks, medical treatment, job prospects etc.

It isnt just a case of saying "You cant afford to live in London, lets send you to Worcester". People's family lives are more complex than a basic mathematical equation. And there is a veritable army of lawyers seeking to make a reputation and capital in taking the government to task over sweeping generalisations.

Each case for relocation relies on the specific circumstances of that particular family. Sweeping generalisation beloved of the Daily Mail do not refelct the legal perameters

Please don't turn this into a typical DT thread by bringing the Daily Mail into it. Or strawmen like moving 100 miles away. For some it might just mean moving across the river, eg from Westminster to Southwark. People move for all sorts of reasons, not being able to afford a house is a common one. People who live in some towns in places like Devon are forced to move away simply because they can't afford to live where they grew up. I moved north partly because it's much cheaper up here. Do you think people claiming HB/LHA should be immune to moving for financial reasons?

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

Sorry I dont know what a DT or a strawmen thread is but I take note about my reference to the Daily Mail What a curse haha . Should people be immune from moving for financial reasons?

No but working in a homelessness unit I am mindful that it isnt the sole arbiter for a relocation. If you try to discharge a homeless duty on the basis that it is simply more affordable for them you are going to come unstuck in a county court.

I was born and bred in South East London, Deptford to be precise. I currently live 1 mile from my home town and pay 64% of my take home pay on rent. My family live here, my friends live sort of local, if you count Galway and Marbella . I dont have small children but I am tied to the area by having a disabled mother in law, whose close family live in Barbados, apart from her daughter (my partner) and her son, who also live local. (Sorry to Top trump you with a wheelchair :rotfl:)

Frazzy and I could certainly move north. I really like Birmingham and we could have a better quality of life there but it aint gonna happen because we have her mum to look after.

That is a basic example of why it isnt just a case of "You cant afford it so move".

Going across the river for a London tenant doesnt solve the problem because London rents are pretty much the same anywhere within the M25 ring. Moving for affordability stakes means a major relocation and our situation isnt a particulalry complex one.

Of course there is another possibility.......rent control for London landlords??????????????? Sorry to raise the heresy but you could just as easily argue that publicly funded subsidies are putting cash in private pockets charging extortionate rents simply because the market warrants it

gettingready

BRL - I kind of see your point as far as people settled here (London) already are considered BUT there is a lot let's say newcomers, why house them in London?

People who work in London can not afford to rent/buy here and commute from far away wasting an awful lot of time and money to get to/from work.

People who have no links similar to what you described above - why house them in London?

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

Oh for sure but how many people would that apply to? My point here is to not apply a general rule "If you cant afford it, move". If someone had only recently fetched up in London and had no ties/connections then yeah, by all means.

The new Homelessness (Suitability of acommodation) Order 2012 allows council homelessness teams to discharge duty by offering private sector accommodation anywhere in the UK.....in theory.but there are 4 categories of 'Suitability' and it isnt just 'Affordability'.

My personal example is but a simple one and people's lives are often far more complicated. The old Norman Tebbit "On your bike" ethos in many cases just doesnt hold up.

gettingready

Perhaps I am weird but lets imagine I am out of work, have kids, no chance (desire?) to get a decent job and say total of 2k per month in benefits.

Do I rent a flat/house in A and spend 3/4 of my "income" on that or do I move to B and spend 1/3 of my "income" on accommodation having money left for other essentials.

Perhaps giving people money this way and letting them make a decision would be an option? One sum and let them decide where to live? As accommodation is always the biggest expense. And let them know that they won't get any more if the have more kids/plan to live in Chelsea?

That is if the benefit system is still in place.

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

If you were single with no kids and presuming you dont hypothetically have any disabilities you wouldnt get anywhere near £2,000 in benefits. £71 a week job seekers allowance, thats it.

Even in London those kinds of people arent really going to be affected by the benefit cap. It's when you get to 3 kids that the faecal matter and the fan come into play.

Depending on the age of the kids they may well need a 4 bed property, which currently runs at something like £400 a week in an average part of London but the maximum benefit allowed, including housing benefit will be £500 a week so if mum pays her rent religiously she will have £100 a week left to feed and clothe the kids and pay utility bills.

If you have 5 kids, 6 kids, etc you still only get a maximum of £500; the size of property you need goes up along with the rent for it so the benefit cap probably wont even pay the rent, let alone provide food.

Now going back the point I've been banging on about in this thread, you could take the view that she shouldnt have had all those kids if she cant afford to care for them. I agree with you, it's irresponsible and where is dad in all this? Why isnt he paying his fair share? Absolutely, its an outrage, also, why should we working people be the ones paying for her to live a lifestyle she chose.....couldnt agree more.

Having gotten our sense of unfairness out of the way and having established that we all agree that our admittedly rather generalised sample needs a wake up call what next? What are we going to do with her? let her and the kids sleep on the street? The law wont allow that so she has to live somewhere, paid for by the rest of us.

Even if you went really hard core and say take the kids into care and let mum (and dad) fend for themselves, who is going to be paying the social services bill for the kids? We are.

We can rail against the unfairness of it all as much as we like but the problem wont go away and capping benefits just compounds the problem, making it more expensive than it is now.

The whole notion of benefit cuts is a nonsense, they arent cuts at all. Any savings made in state and housing benefits merely gets passed over to other service like homelessness. in the past two years homelessness applications have risen 38%. The press regularly run stories about councils keeping huge amounts of families in expensive bend and breakfast accommodation, completely ignoring the fact that they have no alternative because there is a shrinking pool of landlords who will take tenants on benefits.

Amid much government and press uproar some London councils are biting the bullet and farming people out to South Wales, Birmingham, Stoke, Hull, Manchester etc but in a recent article in Inside Housing these councils who are the recipients of these farmed out benefit people are complaining that the influx is pushing their local rents up to meet demand as well as causing their social service bill to rise, their housing benefit bill to increase and putting pressure on the local school system.

Lets get away from this simplistic notion that cutting people's benefits will force everyone back into work and we can all go home smiling

Dunroamin

Surely the idea of most of these cuts is to change people's attitudes and behaviour in the future rather than to do much for those who are already in poor situations? Breaking the cycle of benefits dependancy in the longer term seems to me to be a worthwhile thing to do.

Ben_Reeve-Lewis

Yes changing attitudes and behaviour is the stated aim but how long will it take? and how long is too long?

Also what carnage is going to be wreaked while people gradually change their ways?

Dont get me wrong I think benefit culture has come a long way from the Beveridge report and people are held back by it. In many ways I am less sympathetic than many as in my day job I have to deal with those families with 10 kids who turn down properties because they dont like the area and I'm the one who has to call the police when some yob with tattoos on his neck kicks off in reception because his housing benefit has been stopped. I'm no bleeding heart and neither is anyone else in my office but working at the coalface as it were I am immersed in the practicalities more than most. I know how much these things cost and the demands that initiatives like this place on dwindling services and resources and I have to say that if benefit capping does end up changing attitudes and behaviour it wont happen without us all paying a hell of a price