Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

The Homelessness Holocaust That Has Barely Even Begun

115 replies

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:10

Am IBU for thinking this is a reasonable assessment of the situation. Your views.

Despite the pleadings of Grant Shapps, the obnoxious little spiv in charge of housing, an unprecedented homelessness crisis is now inevitable in the UK.

The Local Housing Allowance (LHA ? formerly Housing Benefit) caps have not even started to bite yet. The introduction of the cap is being staggered, depending on the date on which LHA was first claimed or last assessed. The cap came into force for prospective tenants on the 1st April 2011. For existing tenants the cap comes in 9 months after the date on which the claim for LHA was first made. This means those who have a claim which began last April will have faced the implementation of the cap in January this year. Only around a third of private sector tenants are likely to have seen their benefit capped so far.

Even those who have been subject to the cap are unlikely to have been evicted yet. Eviction can be a lengthy process and one in which families in particular must go through in order to qualify for any help from the council. If a household is not formally evicted then they may be deemed ?intentionally homeless?. Whilst councils have a legal duty to protect children they have no such duty towards adults who have been judged to have given up a home voluntarily. In practice this means Local Authorities may offer to take children into care, whilst leaving the parents to fend for themselves.
There are huge numbers of eviction cases currently passing through the courts in London. Canny tenants may still be paying their rent minus the amount which has been deducted from their LHA. This means it will take much longer for arrears to build up and the eviction process will be much slower.

Newham Council, one of London?s poorest boroughs, claim they have 32,000 people currently in urgent need of housing and are attempting to relocate residents across the UK. Only some of these people will be facing homelessness as a result of eviction due to the benefit cap. The toxic combination of the cap for new tenants, placing most houses in the Borough out of reach, and the ongoing recession, is the most likely reason Newham Council have so many homeless people on their books. These factors will create a torrent of homeless people in their own right, which will only increase as more people see houses repossessed, rents become unaffordable, and debt and money problems mount up for struggling families.

Grant Shapps revealed he is ignorant of his own policies when he claimed there are 1000 properties available on Housing Benefit within five miles of Newham. Despite the fact that 1000 homes to house 32,000 people is hardly a rosy situation, he seemed unaware that Local Housing Allowance is a regional benefit now set at the bottom 30% of local rental costs. The maximum available LHA for a four bedroom property in Newham is £300 a week.

The Guardian was only able to find 68 properties within that range within five miles of the borough. Even then some of those properties will carry the ubiquitous condition of No DSS, meaning they are unavailable to people on benefits. The housing crisis in Newham is far, far greater than Shapps has tried to pretend.
The graph above (from Shelter) disputes Shapps? claim that rents are falling. Quite the opposite is happening. A combination of soaring rents and a plunging economy would be enough to create mass homelessness on their own, without any changes to housing benefits. The 13% rise in homelessness (and 23% rise in street homelessness) reported by Shelter last year was little to do with Welfare Reform and far more to do with a flat-lined economy and rising unemployment. We haven?t seen anything yet.

The LHA caps will push homelessness even higher over the next year as more people become subject to them and are evicted as a result. The impact of the caps on LHA have barely begun to be felt.

Sadly it doesn?t end there. The aforementioned change to set LHA rates at the bottom 30% of the rental market has still not yet been implemented for all tenants.

According to the Chartered Institute of Housing this move will place 800,000 properties out of reach for those who are unemployed, disabled, or on a low income. Glasgow, Birmingham and Liverpool are all singled out as cities which may yet come to have a homelessness problem to rival that of London. Some of those young people may come to London in the search for jobs and housing, and end up on the streets as so many did in the 1980s and early 1990s. This time however they will be replaced by low income families socially cleansed from London and other areas.

Even this time-bomb isn?t enough for the toff Government, most of whom were brought up in mansions. Previously, under LHA rules, people under 25 were only eligible for a room in a shared house. This has been increased to 35. No assessment has been done to see whether there are enough rooms in shared houses for that many people. And houses full of 20 year old students are hardly likely to opt to share with people just about old enough to be their parents. This is yet another change that has yet to be felt and in particular is likely to impact on street homelessness. Those with no children, who are not deemed ?vulnerable? (meaning they are not assessed as sick and disabled or claiming a pension), are not eligible for any assistance from Local Authorities. This leaves many younger people with no option but the street.
Homeless charities are reporting desperate funding problems. This will mean less hostel and night-shelter accommodation. Despite the lies of UKIP, many recent arrivals to London from Eastern Europe are currently on the streets, unable to secure work, housing or even afford a ticket home.

More young people leave home every day, sometimes for economic reasons, sometimes to escape abuse. The toughened benefit sanctions regime and the assessments for health related benefits are seeing benefits stripped away on an unprecedented scale. Hundreds of thousands of people are being left with not enough to feed themselves or their families. New rules mean that LHA can no longer be paid direct to landlords. In desperation people will dip into LHA payments to feed themselves or keep the heating on. More people are likely to slip into drug or alcohol dependency as poverty bites and begin the downward spiral which can lead to life on the streets. Previous ?cardboard cities?, not seen in London for 20 years, will pale into insignificance compared to what?s to come.

Plans to increase Social Housing rents to the same level as the private sector will mean even Council Tenants in some areas will no longer have their housing costs met by benefits. The Tories are currently forcing through laws which will ban squatting, whilst more evictions of traveller sites are likely. The Government could not have created a more perfect storm.

The real bombshell is not set to hit until next year. The £500 a week benefit cap will mean the end of life in Greater London for larger families on low incomes. Tens of thousands of people will be made homeless at a stroke, most of them children. The social chaos this will cause is unimaginable. The personal tragedy for those concerned almost unthinkable.

There has long been a housing crisis in the UK and the last Labour administration did nothing to address it. But the changes made by this Government will be devastating. Homelessness wrecks lives, often leaving permanent scars. Mass homelessness, on a scale never seen before in the UK, may come to be seen as one of Cameron?s most tragic legacies.

OP posts:
Codandchops · 25/05/2012 18:37

My pension will be less that 7k a year MrsGuy - hardly luxury (nurse - NOT in central London).

MiniTheMinx · 25/05/2012 18:24

Actually I think there are some institutional investors which benefit from the present situation, some of which will be charities but on the whole high house prices are causing homelessness.

MiniTheMinx · 25/05/2012 18:22

Good, I knew TillyMinto we'd finally agree on something Smile Hows business for you? I'm rushed off my feet which is why I am making so many typos Grin

WasabiTillyMinto · 25/05/2012 18:12

mini - they might not have the skills to find the business you describe above.

(I agree with you general prinicple though)

MiniTheMinx · 25/05/2012 18:08

If people have huge amounts of capital to invest they would be ethically right minded if they invested in growing businesses that offer employment, rather than squeezing tax payers, people on benefits, private renters, local authorities, housing charities and the government until they squeak.

WasabiTillyMinto · 25/05/2012 17:15

And why should tax payers and people on very low incomes alike, have to subsidise private LL property porfolios

because we need them to invest their money.

amicissimma · 25/05/2012 16:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MiniTheMinx · 25/05/2012 13:44

Why don't rent caps work ? why should a LL subsidise someone elses living?

And why should tax payers and people on very low incomes alike, have to subsidise private LL property porfolios. I object to having to pay higher taxes to fund HB, when I know my money is being used not just to pay someone's rent (I would have no problem if it were just rent) but so a private entity or person can feather their own nest.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 25/05/2012 09:15

^Minimum nurse salary (Band 5, no London Weighting or bonus included): £21k
Minimum binman salary (no London Weighting or bonus included) £17k
Minimum teacher salary (Band D, no London Weighting or bonus included) £21.5k

Inner London weighting typically adds £5,000 on. Bonus typically 10% of salary. Plus luxury pension, of course.

Median London private sector salary: £26k^

So the minimum teacher and nurse if they live in london with the weighting are the same as the median private sector, doesn't seem such a bad deal, versue teh priate sector - especially as thre are fringe bendfit in the public sector ( pensions etc) and also the fact that landlords prefer to el tto teachers and nurses anyway as they are seen as responsible tenants.

WasabiTillyMinto · 25/05/2012 08:01

Private sector wages are lower because private businesses... keep a better control on costs.

if public sector wages were correct, then communist states would have flourished!

Why don't rent caps work ? why should a LL subsidise someone elses living?

MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 20:20

accept that rent or have an empty property

MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 20:18

Why don't rent caps work ? If you cap rents then LL have the option to accept that rent of have an empty property. As I said empty properties are of no value to LL unless they cash them in.

MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 20:17

Private sector wages are lower because private businesses make money from the value of your labour, if you don't like that fact Hampster go work for an ethical employer, set up a businesses or join a co-operative.

flatpackhamster · 24/05/2012 20:16

*MiniTheMinx8

^People on average wages can not afford a home in london, fine but average wages are now so low that even if you turfed out people on full HB, the working people couldn't afford to pay those rents.

Rents need capping and if LL find they can't keep their massive portfolios without charging such obscene sums, well fine, when they sell it will push house prices down. Good. House prices are now 6-7 times the average wage and one of the reasons is because of the boom in buy to let.^

Rent caps don't work.

The reason rents are so high is that the government defines the market rate, and the government pays over the odds. It's the same reason that advertising is expensive. Did you know that government spends 50p in every £1 which is spent on advertising in the UK?

flatpackhamster · 24/05/2012 20:14

Im wondering what London will look like once all the teachers, nurses, midwives, shop assistants, bus drivers, cleaners, binmen etc have all left.

Much like Islington does right now.

Minimum nurse salary (Band 5, no London Weighting or bonus included): £21k
Minimum binman salary (no London Weighting or bonus included) £17k
Minimum teacher salary (Band D, no London Weighting or bonus included) £21.5k

Inner London weighting typically adds £5,000 on. Bonus typically 10% of salary. Plus luxury pension, of course.

Median London private sector salary: £26k.

Why should private-sector employees subsidise their higher-earning public-sector counterparts? Is this the new definition of 'fairness'?

MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 20:14

At the moment people on average wages who can't afford to live in London are paying for others to live where they can't. If you want to defend that system, then good luck to you

People on average wages can not afford a home in london, fine but average wages are now so low that even if you turfed out people on full HB, the working people couldn't afford to pay those rents.

Rents need capping and if LL find they can't keep their massive portfolios without charging such obscene sums, well fine, when they sell it will push house prices down. Good. House prices are now 6-7 times the average wage and one of the reasons is because of the boom in buy to let.

Empusa · 24/05/2012 20:07

I love how, once again, people are forgetting that LHA is also awarded to people in work, not just "scroungers".

"Grant Shapps revealed he is ignorant of his own policies when he claimed there are 1000 properties available on Housing Benefit within five miles of Newham. Despite the fact that 1000 homes to house 32,000 people is hardly a rosy situation, he seemed unaware that Local Housing Allowance is a regional benefit now set at the bottom 30% of local rental costs. The maximum available LHA for a four bedroom property in Newham is £300 a week.

The Guardian was only able to find 68 properties within that range within five miles of the borough. Even then some of those properties will carry the ubiquitous condition of No DSS, meaning they are unavailable to people on benefits. The housing crisis in Newham is far, far greater than Shapps has tried to pretend."

IME it's the same all over the country. Barely any places to rent under the LHA bracket, and most of them say No DSS.

As for "move to a cheaper area"? What that fails to take into account is that LHAis a percentage of the average rent, so even the cheaper areas cost more than LHA is.

buggyRunner · 24/05/2012 20:02

Not read all posts but I run a homeless supported accommodation. My referrals have increased massively and many of them are people who have little or no support needs (and are therefore not suitable).

The housing benefit paid direct to residents will be a nightmare and will result in a massive increase in homelessness (through eviction of non payment or rent and also landlords refusing to take dss)

Bloody stupid IMHO

yakbutter · 24/05/2012 19:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bunnybabylon · 24/05/2012 19:53

they're building loads of homes where i live Confused

ButHeNeverDid · 24/05/2012 19:50

What flatpackhamster said.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 24/05/2012 19:45

If you can't afford to live in an area because you have a low or no income then a small saftey net towards housing, is fine, just to get a roof over your head, but having a large property in a desierable area should certainly not be paid for by others.

Well said Rosemary & Thyme

chrome · 24/05/2012 19:23

"Whilst councils have a legal duty to protect children they have no such duty towards adults who have been judged to have given up a home voluntarily. In practice this means Local Authorities may offer to take children into care, whilst leaving the parents to fend for themselves."

Scaremongering does not help anyone OP.

Local Authorities could possibly attempt to remove a child due to a risk of unintentional homelessness but they would be breaching Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and would be stupid to even try it! It also goes against one of the basic principles of the Children Act 1989 which is to keep families together wherever it is safe to do so.

I work in child protection and have supported many unintentionally homeless families (including some in the worst affected London boroughs), I have never taken a child into foster care solely because of risk of homelessness as a) the trauma it would cause to the child (assuming they have a healthy attachment to their parent) and b) because it is stupidly expensive (particularly if its a sibling group) and it is far cheaper (and more humane) to put the family up in a B&B using social services s.17 budget.

Ok so the Section 17 budget should not be used in leiu of benefits/ housing benefit and I totally understand why social services are so protective of this precious resource, but when we use it to pay for accommodation it tends only to be for a few nights whilst social services negotiate with Housing/ the Homeless Person's Unit/ carry out assessment etc.

If anybody is threatened with having their children taken into care against their will where the only issue is that they are homeless through no fault of their own, Shelter advise you seek advice: england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/referral_to_social_services?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print

hecatetrivia · 24/05/2012 11:10

Oh god yes, I understand. I will never in my life forget how awful it was, how I felt, particularly how I felt when I looked at my kids. It's, well, someone who's not been through it just can't imagine, not properly, I don't think.

I got through it. You will get through it, I promise.

[hm] although if someone had said that to me when I was in the middle of it, I think I'd have punched them, so perhaps not very helpful to type Blush

You are not a failing parent, you are just in a shitty situation. But I understand. A million people could have said that to me and it wouldn't have changed how I felt.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango · 24/05/2012 08:38

hecatetrivia I'm not calling you a liar. Maybe I should have put "in my case" on the end of that line then.

I was just saying I really hoped it wasn't a possibility in my case. It was a shocking, scary thing to read when I'm feeling like a failing parent enough. I apologise for not stopping and thinking that you were only expressing it from your case and not as a general proscription for what might happen to all people in this situation. Evidentially I'm not thinking about this in a clear measures way as you'll understand.