MPs debate Housing Benefit, 12 November c.1.45pm

Heycock

CACHAF wrote: »

Our LHA actually went down recently plus the introduction of the council tax payments means we have to pay an extra £30 a month than 6 months ago. How on earth are they able to keep increasing the amount we have to pay and yet say the amount weneed to live on can stay the same? The maths just doesn't work.

At a time when rents nationally are rising how did your LA justify lowering LHA?:eek:

CACHAF

I have no idea why it went down, just got a letter saying it had dropped £2 a week which doesnt seem much but it really is to us.

Heycock

Typical social rent for 3 bed house, regardless of standard (and the social housing stock around here is generally good) ...LA or HA, makes no difference our way, is around £360 a month.
With security of tenure.
LHA for ONE room is £375. Private rents now unsurprisingly generally START from £375 upwards. A friend of mine has a 3 bed HA house. "Entitled" to 1 bed. She pays around £80 month top up. Me in the private sector, similar situation, I pay £220 top up. I COULD find a 2 bed property(still only "entitled" to 1 bed") but it wouldn't be any cheaper.
The properties we NEED are "bed-blocked" by single pensioners exempt from the changes. One of my local councillors confirmed to me that over 50% of the local social 2 bed bungalow stock is occupied by single pensioners.

dodger1

Heycock wrote: »

LHA for ONE room is £375. Privaterents now unsurprisingly generally START from £375 upwards.

In that case you should see the councillor you mentioned and challenge the LHA rate as it's supposed to be set at the thirtieth percentile.

Heycock

dodger1 wrote: »

In that case you should see the councillor you mentioned and challenge the LHA rate as it's supposed to be set at the thirtieth percentile. Where I live that's pretty much spot on.

In local government, what is supposed to happen, and what does happen are unrelated. In our LA at any rate. 100% corrupt and incompetent. The LA is in several constituencies. Either rock solid safe labour or rock solid safe tory. So no incentive for central government to get involved. No votes in it. They do what they like. Councillors around here, regardless of party, are defined by the sizeof the brown envelope in their back pocket. Change LHA...what's their incentive?

turkleton

Heycock wrote: »

In local government, what is supposed to happen, and what does happen are unrelated. In our LA at any rate. 100% corrupt and incompetent. The LA is in several constituencies. Either rock solid safe labour or rock solid safe tory. So no incentive for central government to get involved. No votes in it. They do what they like. Councillors around here, regardless of party, are defined by the sizeof the brown envelope in their back pocket. Change LHA...what's their incentive?

How corrupt your LA are won't effect the LHA rates though as they fall under the jurisdiction of the Valuation Office Agency who are a completely separate entity.

Morlock

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Social tenants were the last group to be "targetted" and they are still better off. Someone on benefits who has a bedroom allocation of 2 bedrooms in a private let, might have to top up their rent from other benefits.

A private tenant might also get a spare bedroom without having to top up rent, unlike in the social sector where it automatically triggers a reduction. LHA often covers the cost of a spare room without penalty.

If a private tenant chooses to rent a property and has to top-up the LHA by any amount, they are living in a property that is deemed to be too expensive for their circumstances, and should move to a less expensive property or cheaper area of the country.

Perhaps social housing tenants should qualify for the same obscene amounts of housing benefit that private tenants are entitled to, which in some areas is over £400 per week. That would mostly solve their bedroom tax crisis.