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:
Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:21

ChazsBrilliantAttitude

YES in that situation but many landlords are coming to the end of their mortgages and are just simply making huge profits charging made money because they know the council will pay

if people are living in the cheapest housing that meets their needs in the cheapest part of town then fine but many are not

its very commonly know that virtually everyone overcharges the council because they don't use their huge buying power to drive prices

my home for example is a ex council in flats the guttering out side which the council are in charge of needed to be fixed they wanted 14k all together of the residents we decided that was to high after a 20 minutes calling round tradesmen not mentioning the job was for the council we got quotes around 9k big difference

not all landlords are scraping by

Clytaemnestra · 23/05/2012 18:16

What's the point critiquing the article? You've clearly made up your mind.

Gigondas · 23/05/2012 18:15

It's from a blog here

May be op's blog

browneyesblue · 23/05/2012 18:15

YABU for copying and pasting your 'essay' all over the internet for the past month.

Couldn't read it all a second time.

TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 18:14

Local authorities own more than 11,000 acres of brown field sites between them. That's enough space right off to build almost 90,000 houses. Get building quick, quick. Savings in housing benefit paid to private landlords will fund it. Problem sorted.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 23/05/2012 18:12

Holocaust

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 23/05/2012 18:11

Mrbojangles

How can the landlords reduce their rents, if the rents are only just covering their mortgages?

If the mortgage is £900 pm and the rent is £1200 pm out of which the landlord has to pay tax (cannot offset the repayment element of the mortgage). If interest rates go up substantially then landlords may be operating on very thin margins indeed so won't be able to put rents down.

OP - Holocust, very disrespectful.

GrendelsMum · 23/05/2012 18:07

TBH, this reminds me of one of those reading comprehension pieces where you have to disentangle facts from opinions. I think you've probably got some genuine points to make here, but I'm finding them hard to disentangle from some very emotive language. Mainly what I've come away with is the idea that you don't like the present government.

It would be easier to take your views on board if it was quite a lot shorter, the facts were clearer, and it was clearer what conclusions you draw from the known facts.

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:02

RosemaryandThyme very much many of these landlords rely on social tenants and after they have come to their senses and their mortgages go unpaid they will lower their rents

only the mega rich and the council could afford what these landlords were asking for and if the mega rich were interested they would of been renting to them and not Barry on HB

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 17:59

HolocaustBiscuit

the issue is not that people are private renting its that when the lefties changed the payment of hb to direct payments and allowed tenants to live were they pleased with out thinking trough the implications of a person with say 5 children renting a 6 bedroom in Chelsea or allowing people to give up the secure council home for private rent so they can have a extra bedroom that's when things went wrong.

i know several people who moved from a perfectly good council home just because they wanted to live in a smarter part of town now the chickens are coming home to roost

people in private rent who are not with the council have to move to a cheaper area if they get a demotion or need a bigger home.

many people with mortgages many people who are working could only dream to live in were some people are renting courts of the tax payer

the long and short is you can only live in the smartest part of town if you can afford it end of

its as it has always been i would love to live in Audley edge were all the footballers live I CANT AFFORD IT

i have to live in one of the poorest areas of my LA because that's all we can afford why should people private rent receiving HB be exempt from cutting their cloth accordingly

MainlyMaynie · 23/05/2012 17:56

'let's just focus on the content'

I love it when OPs act like they're chairing a meeting full of underperformers.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:55

@Biscuit
Exactly. I can remember families that suffered terribly due to the housing crisis in the 80?s/early 90?s and those effects are still being felt by some. It is far worse this time with the changing of the age rule which is about to come to head as tenancies start to expire..

OP posts:
RosemaryandThyme · 23/05/2012 17:55

The Cap is a very good thing.

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.

A cap will mean either that private landlords reduce rents to meet the cap level or that people will have to move to more appropriate properties.

SCOTCHandWRY · 23/05/2012 17:53

Maybe because is isn't going to be a holocaust or Holocaust by a long stretch of the imagination.

Of course people are going to suffer if they are forced to move to smaller/cheaper properties, but that's the situation that would face any of us buying a house if we lost our job or had to change to a lower paid job - I'd hate to have to sell up and move to somewhere smaller but that's what would happen - there has to be a certain amount of "cut your cloth according to your means" at an individual and a national level - the country is pretty much on it's knees and it's going to be bloody hard for years, for everybody.

However, we have not yet got to the stage of rounding up undesirables and gassing them.

Dprince · 23/05/2012 17:51

Codandchops I think people on the brink of evictions (have been their myself) would be bothered by the use of this word. It belittles the actual holocaust.

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:49

"I'm sorry I bothered reading to the end as your post is so full of hyperbole and scaremongering that I have failed to take any serious point from it."

Agreed.

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:47

OK - setting that aside I still don't understand why this thread is in AIBU!

AKMD · 23/05/2012 17:46

YABU for writing a horrendously long post and describing it as a holocaust. This is a housing issue, not a policy of 'wholescale destruction of life'.

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.

Really? I strongly doubt that any LHA will have the authority or the willingness to take children into care rather than find their family a house. If you're going to make such a ridiculous point please back it up.

Previous ?cardboard cities?, not seen in London for 20 years, will pale into insignificance compared to what?s to come.

This just isn't going to happen. I'm sorry I bothered reading to the end as your post is so full of hyperbole and scaremongering that I have failed to take any serious point from it.

TheresaMayHaveaBiscuit · 23/05/2012 17:45

YANBU .. I remember the high levels of homelessness in the 80s and 90s, and the long term damage it did to the people who were affected. Sadly, Labour did little to sort out the huge problems we have with housing in this country, and the policies of the current government are going to hit huge numbers of people very hard.

Dprince · 23/05/2012 17:45

There is clearly a housing issue to call it a holocaust is disgusting, disrespectful and over the top. If you want a sensible discussion maybe you should choose sensible language.

Codandchops · 23/05/2012 17:44

OFFS - loads of people may lose their homes and the people here are taking offence at the OP's (admittedly stupid use) of the word "holocaust".

Is it unreasonable to be pissed off about the fact that this Govt have basically pissed on those least able to cope? There - rephrased without the holocaust word.

Obviously nobody here is facing eviction or knows anyone else who is by the fact that you have all focused on the H for Holocaust term and not the H for Homelessness which is facing many many families.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:44

OK?.It would appear that a particular word has upset some of you. So let?s just focus on the content and what the ramifications are going to be for family, mental health and a whole host of other issues due to changes in the benefit system, open boarders and the unchallenged powers that LL have?.and I could go on but was rather looking for other peoples genuine views as to where all this may lead to.

OP posts:
Psammead · 23/05/2012 17:43

Jesus fricking Christ. Holocaust? First we have the inappropriate use of 'Nazi' all over the internet, now Holocaust? Do people have no clue whatsoever? Reducing powerful, hateful, fearful terms to mere hyperbole to make their point?

Not many things make me froth, but this is one of them.

Codandchops · 23/05/2012 17:40

YANBU at all and I agree - it has hardly begun. I give thanks for my good fortune in having been housed by a HA and I only got this tenancy because my son is autistic. God only knows how we would cope if we were still in a private let. I can tell you right away that we would have been facing the cap and huge anxiety. There are plenty of people in my position who are having to rent privately though and I cannot begin to imagine what they are gpoing through.

mummymeister · 23/05/2012 17:38

you live in the south east or London, you used to be in the socialist workers party when you were at uni and now you want to take up minutes of my life using an offensive word like the holocaust. you really should get out more. I used to laugh at people who said that political parties posted their ideology on mumsnet. i am not laughing now.

Swipe left for the next trending thread