Advanced search

40,000 families homeless due to benefit cuts - and no money saved...

(207 Posts)
pointythings Sun 03-Jul-11 19:01:47

story in today's Guardian

I am just shock.

So what can we do to keep people in their homes, especially given that the majority of these families will be working families? How are low-paid jobs in places like London going to be done without penalising the people earning this low pay by forcing them to move away and incur huge travel costs? Are we ever going to have the house price readjustment that is needed so that people can live where they work, have sensible mortgages they can afford and are able to save a bit too?

Aaaargh, I wish I had some answers, I am feeling really depressed about this...

Riveninside Sun 03-Jul-11 19:02:30

Gosh, didnt see this coming......


BooBooGlass Sun 03-Jul-11 19:04:27

The whole thing is just so shortsighted. I know of one family already who have had to move since the housing benefit cuts came in. Not living in an extravegant house at all, just that the real rents and the rents the council say are reasonable are 2 different things, with the gap between the 2 seemilgly ever widening. And where are they now? In a B and B, at the councils presumably enormous expense. Absolute madness.

lachesis Sun 03-Jul-11 19:06:27

The problem is how private renting operates in this country and how landlords are fleecing people - their tenants and the government. But no one in this government will do anything about that because there are so many BTL landlords in this country.

pointythings Sun 03-Jul-11 19:07:05

Well, of course we did all see it coming. I'm just sad about it, like you are. I do understand that the deficit has to be dealt with, but this makes me wonder how many more of the government's projects are actually not going to deliver any savings whilst at the same time bashing the poor?

[disclaimer: I am a non-naturalised EU national living in the UK, so I have no vote in general elections. But if I had had one, I'd have voted Lib Dem in 2010 and felt uterly, utterly betrayed.]

allegrageller Sun 03-Jul-11 19:08:24

this is current Tory policy all over. Mess up people's lives so that we can look dead hard on scroungers, whilst we actually waste everyone's money by idiotic short-termism.

I despair.

pointythings Sun 03-Jul-11 19:08:27

Yes, Lachesis, I've wondered about renting in the UK - where I come from, rent control is tight. What are the arguments against introducing them here, other than 'the poor landlords will be so unhappy, sob, sob'?

mumblechum1 Sun 03-Jul-11 19:08:33

When they say benefit is to be cut to £500 per week per family, does that mean ALL bens, or just HB?

£500 per week sounds like a lot of benefits to me - even if it covers all the family's benefits, that's the equivalent of £30k gross income. Surely those figures aren't right?

allegrageller Sun 03-Jul-11 19:10:09

lachesis, if this government is on the side of anyone it's the BTL landlords. Property ownership!! Investment and wealth creation!! blah de blah. But trying to shunt people into their properties who cannot actually pay the silly-money rents they demand is yet another piece of stupid from this disconnected bunch of idiots.

Riveninside Sun 03-Jul-11 19:10:25

It will end up costing more as those families end up in expensive emergency accomodation. The Govt were TOLD this would happen. But the policy of 'capping' was enthusiastically applauded. On here too.

edam Sun 03-Jul-11 19:14:20

Booboo, feel so sorry for the family you know in a B&B. That's terrible. The whole point of council housing was to clear the slums and ensure everyone had a decent place to live!

Yes, everyone saw this coming, including Boris Johnson. He's been shouting about this for months, despite being a Tory (given his electorate of course he has to). All the government has done in response is say 'oh, councils might give people a few pennies on a discretionary basis'. Which is hardly likely to deal with the problem.

Why don't they just tear up the plans and start again? Maybe just stick in a checking stage, where if the rents charged seem excessive, housing officers can check if the accommodation is appropriate?

lachesis Sun 03-Jul-11 19:14:24

Tomorrow, Despatches will be about rogue landlords.

Rosebud05 Sun 03-Jul-11 19:15:03

The effects of this - like the cutting of EMA - will be truly apparent in a few years.

The economic, social and personal cost of insecure housing are huge and very long-lasting.

edam Sun 03-Jul-11 19:16:05

Of course they claim it's about tackling spiralling rents. If that's the case, they should be addressing the landlords, not boot people out of their houses. What's wrong with rent controls, if you are genuinely motivated by wanting to bring down the housing benefit bill?

pointythings Sun 03-Jul-11 19:18:04

And all the time IDS bleats about British jobs for British people and another lost generation, like the one Maggie T created... Well, the lost generation is well and truly on its way. How well are the children in these families going to do at school, living in cramped emergency accommodation with no long-term security in terms of a roof over their head? And of course they won't be getting into any of the Idiot Gove's nice free schools and academies either, because they won't be living in the right catchment.

I despair too.

Riveninside Sun 03-Jul-11 19:22:49

Landlords will a, charge what they can get and b, need to cover the mostgage on the house they are renting out.

This was aways goi g to happen as cheap affordable housing was sold off.
I dont know the answer to ne honest. But then no one is paying me loads of money like IDS is to sort this out.

janey68 Sun 03-Jul-11 19:23:26

As mumblechum says, its the equivalent of 30k gross. No wonder the country is bankrupt! Bloody ridiculous that we've reached a point where people are complaining about a 30k gross cap on benefits!

TheFalcon Sun 03-Jul-11 19:26:39

Something had to be done to cut costs. The amount of money being paid out in housing benefit for people to live in shoddy accomodation is ridiculous. Landlords will either have to a) reduce their rents, or b) refurbish their properties if they want rent paying tenants to move in.

There is something wrong with a system where people have to rely on government assistance in order to pay rent. Rent levels should be set by what people can afford to pay, not artifically propped up by the government. And no, people do not have the "right" to live in Mayfair or Belgravia at massive cost to the state.

pointythings Sun 03-Jul-11 19:28:13

But Janey, if landlords weren't allowed to charge whatever they pleased up to and including ridiculous levels, we wouldn't have to give people these levels of housing benefit! This government are placing the blame squarely on the people who have least power to do anything about it, instead of going to the root of the problem - insufficient affordable housing both in the owned and rented sections, which (according to those fine market principles) drives prices up. And no government of any colour has done s*d-all about it, because

1) The NIMBYs don't want affordable houses built near them, and
2) High house prices mean a higher tax take for the exchequer.

It's all completely upside down and corrupt.

Riveninside Sun 03-Jul-11 19:28:55

Rents are high in many places. Here its 900 a month for a 2 bed terrace in a rough area. Thats £10k a year on rent before anything else.
We need our council houses back then poor worki g people wont be at the mercy of these landlords. And many of those to be made homeless are working. Doing the vital jobs London and other cities need lile cleani and waste removal.

edam Sun 03-Jul-11 19:29:51

Well yes, Falcon, but the answer surely isn't chucking families out of their homes and dumping them in B&Bs? Forcing children out of their schools, forcing families away from their GPs or other health services? People in B&Bs get ill, and depression and anxiety are not good for adults or children.

MrsPlesWearsAFez Sun 03-Jul-11 19:32:13

The changes to lha/housing benefit are not just a cap at £500/week.

All rates have been reduced, where I live there it wasdropped by £50/wk across the board, despite the fct that the lha rates did not reflect market values in the first place.

TheFalcon Sun 03-Jul-11 19:32:58

The ultimate problem is that there are too many people in this country.

TheHumanCatapult Sun 03-Jul-11 19:34:41

Here the rent for my 4 bed bungalow is 1200 a month at the moment i pay 100 a month out that myself .with the caps i will have to pay 200 a month myself .

Yet trying to find a 4 bed for 1000 amonth is almost impossible , let alone a 4 bed thats suitable for one f/t wheelchair user and a dc with moblity issue who is not safe on stairs .And there is no concessions in the caps for when circumstances are beyond the normal scope of things

Were on council list as bathroom a problem here as can not acces from my wheelchair .Yet I can only bid on adapted property and must be a 4 bed property and they have no 4 bed adapted propertys .Spot the problem .If I bid on a normal 4 bed and was to be put forward for consideration theres a wait of about 2 years for adaptions .Oh and they admitted a normal 4 bed i will probbaly not be put forward for even with highest points .

Moving not a option as ds3 is at sn school , ds2 is in gcse years and moving wont solve the access issue anyway .Can not find a 4 bed adapted property anywhere let alone one thats within caps and will take Hb

TheHumanCatapult Sun 03-Jul-11 19:35:46

Falcon it will cost them more in long term as b&B rates are a lot more than a rent on a property thats without taking in temrs the damage it can cause to health and stress levels

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: