MPs debate Housing Benefit, 12 November c.1.45pm

dodger1

woodbine wrote: »

the noes to the left had it big surprise
as labour mp after labour mp said...the economics of the mad house

And let's face it, Labour MPs are experts where mad house economics are concerned.

MissMoneypenny

dodger1 wrote: »

When I was in private renting I never had a single problem with repairs getting carried out in a timely manner, I can also say the same about both daughters and my ex. Landlords are the same as tenants, there are good and bad, and tarring all of either group with the same brush is frankly daft.

As far as cheap rents are concerned you need to differentiate between social housing and social housing through a housing association. Certainly where I live (Southampton) HA rents are on a par with private rents. For me the security of tenure was the main reason for getting and staying in my HA flat.

On the bit of my post that you chose not to quote, I mentioned "good" and "bad" landlords.

It's lucky that your daughters' had good landlords, but it's blinkered of you to believe that there aren't people out there suffering at the hands of bad landlords. Try reading all the posts on the housing and renting board of this site or on other sites. Even Shelter warns tenants' that if they complain about their landlord because of the poor repairs on the property, then that landlord can throw them out with a Section 21 (no reason needed to throw a tenant out).

These vunerable people in private lets who are stuck with a bad landlord, do not have the laws in the UK to protect them (unlike other EU countries where the rent would immediately be reduced if the tenant's quality of life suffered).

The vunerable in private lets cannot get social housing as either there isn't enough to go around; or social tenants are sitting in a property that has too many bedrooms for their needs; or a social tenant keeps a social house when they no longer need social housing.

MPs should be debating about the UK adopting housing laws that other EU countries have i.e. Germany, Austria; to protect the vunerable in private lets.

MPs should be debating about the UK adopting laws that other EU countires have on social housing i.e.Italy. Italy assess their social tenants every year to see if they still meet the criteria for the social house they are living in. Not that I can see some of the Labour MPs going for that and having to give up their council properties in London for a family in need!

Those in social housing who are of working age; but don't work; are not the most vunerable people - not even close!

Just so you know where I am coming from; I was able to by a house in my 20s.

I see that you live in social housing, so it 's unclear why you think social tenants are more vunerable than those parents/elderly, who are stuck with a bad landlord in private lets? Do you even care about these people and their families?

UKParliament

For those interested in reading the contents of the debate on Housing Benefit we can link to the official transcript at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131112/debtext/131112-0002.htm#13111276000001

Thanks
DOT

jacques_chirac

Such a shame that IDS couldn't even be bothered to attend ...

dodger1

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The time would be better spent if parliament discussed how they were going to give better housing to those in private rents i.e. adopt our European cousins housing laws from EU countries that have large numbers of citizens in private lets, as we are now getting.

In the UK, if a private tenant dare complain about the repairs not getting carried out i.e. leaks in the roof or the boiler not being fixed, they get given a Section21 by the landlord and get chucked out! That's really hard for those that have school age children as they may then have to move areas and schools if that happens, so they put up with the lack of repairs. Hard too for the old or those that can't find a new deposit while they wait for the other deposit to be returned. These are the most vunerable people for housing in our society, yet parlaiment isn't discussing how to protect these people!

If a landlord lets out their property without getting their mortgage lenders consent, their tenants do not have the same security as those who rent from a landlord who did have consent. When one of these types of landlords get repossessed by the lender, the remainder of their tenants contract isn't recognised by the lender if they have more than 2 months on their contract to run and they often have to go to court to get those 2 months granted, but the tenant has to keep paying their rent to that landlord right up to the repossession and will often will have to pay for their new rental too, as the law makes the tenant honour the contract!

Even with consent from the lender, the private renting tenent does not have the same security or rights, that the social tenant has.

Those in social housing have security, cheap rents and they get their repairs caried out in a timely manner.

MPs should be prioritising their debate on the most vunerable first; and that isn't the non-working social tenants' of working age.

In terms of votes: How many voters are there in private lets and decent landlords? How many non working tenants of working age, are there in social housing and bad landlords?

dodger1 wrote: »

When I was in private renting I never had a single problem with repairs getting carried out in a timely manner, I can also say the same about both daughters and my ex. Landlords are the same as tenants, there are good and bad, and tarring all of either group with the same brush is frankly daft.

As far as cheap rents are concerned you need to differentiate between social housing and social housing through a housing association. Certainly where I live (Southampton) HA rents are on a par with private rents. For me the security of tenure was the main reason for getting and staying in my HA flat.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

On the bit of my post that you chose not to quote, I mentioned "good" and "bad" landlords.

It's lucky that your daughters' had good landlords, but it's blinkered of you to believe that there aren't people out there suffering at the hands of bad landlords. Try reading all the posts on the housing and renting board of this site or on other sites. Even Shelter warns tenants' that if they complain about their landlord because of the poor repairs on the property, then that landlord can throw them out with a Section 21 (no reason needed to throw a tenant out).

These vunerable people in private lets who are stuck with a bad landlord, do not have the laws in the UK to protect them (unlike other EU countries where the rent would immediately be reduced if the tenant's quality of life suffered).

The vunerable in private lets cannot get social housing as either there isn't enough to go around; or social tenants are sitting in a property that has too many bedrooms for their needs; or a social tenant keeps a social house when they no longer need social housing.

MPs should be debating about the UK adopting housing laws that other EU countries have i.e. Germany, Austria; to protect the vunerable in private lets.

MPs should be debating about the UK adopting laws that other EU countires have on social housing i.e.Italy. Italy assess their social tenants every year to see if they still meet the criteria for the social house they are living in. Not that I can see some of the Labour MPs going for that and having to give up their council properties in London for a family in need!

Those in social housing who are of working age; but don't work; are not the most vunerable people - not even close!

Just so you know where I am coming from; I was able to by a house in my 20s.

I see that you live in social housing, so it 's unclear why you think social tenants are more vunerable than those parents/elderly, who are stuck with a bad landlord in private lets? Do you even care about these people and their families?

I see nothing in your post I quoted from which mentions "good" or "bad" landlords. I'm not blinkered about bad landlords, that's why I did mention "good" and "bad".

As for the forum on this site for selling and renting it's the same as most things like this, it's only the people who have a problem that will start a new thread, those of us with good LLs have nothing to complain about so no point in posting a question.

As for your last paragraph, well I suppose you need to read my post again. There is absolutely nothing in my post which could be even be misconstrued as social tenants being more vulnerable than private renting tenants, they aren't.

Morglin

I think what is most irritating is that the bedroom tax 'cuts' are actually costing taxpayers more in many cases!

Councils are moving tenants out of social housing for the sake of approx £14 per week, and then putting them in smaller private lets that are up to £100 more.

No wonder a few councils have just decided to ignore any arrears from this and pay it themselves from central funds.

Restrictions on cost are well and good, but it's fairly pointless to force people out of one property straight into a more expensive one.

However, I get the impression that, as with the Poll Tax, this is proving more political trouble than it's worth and may soon be gone.

Lin

dodger1

Morglin wrote: »

I think what is most irritating is that the bedroom tax 'cuts' are actually costing taxpayers more in many cases!

Councils are moving tenants out of social housing for the sake of approx £14 per week, and then putting them in smaller private lets that are up to £100 more.

No wonder a few councils have just decided to ignore any arrears from this and pay it themselves from central funds.

Restrictions on cost are well and good, but it's fairly pointless to force people out of one property straight into a more expensive one.

However, I get the impression that, as with the Poll Tax, this is proving more political trouble than it's worth and may soon be gone.

Lin

It was a good idea if there were enough smaller properties to move in to. What they should have done is no sanctions if a suitable property wasn't available.

catz1ct

I'm more interested in how the benefit cap is affecting people because some claimants have gone from having their full rent paid to 50p a week! I assume most of these cases are being covered by DHP at the moment and that's why we haven't heard much about it.

CACHAF

The bedroom tax should only be scrapped if the local housing allowance LHA is scrapped too. This is far more damaging and yet never publicised. If you rent privately and find yourself in the position of needing housing benefit and yet have extra bedrooms then the amount you have to pay towards the rent shortfall is a far higher amount than the bedroom tax even though you have the same level of benefit income. You also have far less options to move as you would need to find a private landlord willing to take on someone on housing benefit plus the costs of the estate agents fees, credit checks, first months rent in advance and deposit all of which are not required by social housing.
I agree to scrap the bedroom tax, but only if the bedroom tax on private tenants goes as well.

Heycock

CACHAF wrote: »

The bedroom tax should only be scrapped if the local housing allowance LHA is scrapped too. This is far more damaging and yet never publicised. If you rent privately and find yourself in the position of needing housing benefit and yet have extra bedrooms then the amount you have to pay towards the rent shortfall is a far higher amount than the bedroom tax even though you have the same level of benefit income. You also have far less options to move as you would need to find a private landlord willing to take on someone on housing benefit plus the costs of the estate agents fees, credit checks, first months rent in advance and deposit all of which are not required by social housing.
I agree to scrap the bedroom tax, but only if the bedroom tax on private tenants goes as well.

Couldn't have put it better, though I've tried in the past.
but you may as well p**s into the wind as try to get anyone to take notice. You see, the little word "private" preceding tenant means you must be a rich, tory-voting, DM reading b*****d in the eyes of the bien pensants, the Guardian, the BBC, the labour party (who introduced LHA) and Unison.
You're not one of theirs you see. You may be on a low income, you may be on benefits, you may well be the partner carer of someone disabled(so you're expected to share one room under LHA), but as far as those aforementioned groups are concerned, you don't count. You're not invited to the party.
Even if you're in Unison, your membership fees are being used to fight "the bedroom tax" but they won't lift a finger to help reform LHA. Similar story if you're a paid up member of the labour party. The modern "labour" party is such a disgrace it isn't even embarrassed by it's hypocrisy.