AIBU to hate the line "why should people on housing benefit live in homes that working people can't afford?"

[standupandbecounted]

"Why should people on housing benefit live in houses that working people could not afford?"

I keep seeing this line being thrown about in the media. Along with stories about families, usually with an average of eight kids, claiming a shocking level of housing benefit.The government is going to cap housing benefit to prevent this. Reasonable, but not the whole story.
A a less publicised proposal is to drop the level of Local Housing Allowance(LHA) from the 50th centile to the 30th centile.Local housing allowance is currently set at the median-middle value- of private rents in your local area. In my area the LHA is nowhere near the proposed cap. The maximum I can claim for a 2 bedroom property (I have 2 kids) is 126.92 per week. For a three bedroom it is £150 per week. Shelter have estimate that the average loss for a for a two bedroom tenant in my area will be £12 per week.( I assume this is based on predicted rent levels)
Loss per area here

I am renting a two bedroom flat for myself and two children, aged 18 months and 5. There is no outdoor space, it is not large and not in an exclusive area. The soundproofing is poor and the tenants upstairs are fond of partying way into the early hours. Hardly luxury housing that working people can't afford. I believe this myth about HB claimants living in the best properties does not represent the reality for the majority of us. I have tried to find somewhere better but most landlords will not take HB or children. I have put my name down on the waiting list for council housing but have been awarded thr lowest priority level. I will never get one with that banding.

The thing that upsets me most is the "working people" bit, a lot of HB claimants ARE working people! Housing benefit is also available to people who don't earn enough to cover their rent. Most low income people cannot access council housing anymore. They are forced to rent on the private market, where rents are to high to be affordable on low incomes. This is the case in most areas, not just London.

So, AIBU to feel angry that people on housing benefit are being misrepresented and subjected to unfair cuts?

Was on HB for 7 years (as a LP). Several horrible landlords, (one of whom didn't pay the mortgage, so the place was repossessed from under us when DD was 3 months) talked about like scum in the press. It was often very, very difficult. And I know it's difficult for paid-working families too. Had a couple of abortive attempts to go back to work, but simply awful below-standard childcare made it impossible. (All family abroad, no local help, DD's bio had long since shot through).

The thing is, this stereotypical and difficult story may suggest to some readers that I 'brought this all on myself'/should have tried harder to be a working parent, etc. That's open to debate. (I didn't 'get myself pregnant', incidentally. Nobody ever does, despite it being a popular expression!)

Haven't seen it mentioned on here yet that anyone with responsibility for children could find themselves at the mercy of the state if their partner leaves or (heaven forbid) dies. I don't think anyone should get too judgemental about it. Though there ARE people who abuse the system (and I loathe them unreservedly for giving all HB recipients a bad name) we do need the system there for a safety net. I'm glad it's all being capped, though, I do believe landlords have been hugely profiting from it.

Oh when I sayccess to childcare I don;t mean for free- people alweays think that

I am happy to pay going rate and be able if needed to claim teh same TC help as any other working family through TCs

ATM there are some choidlare services for kids in the SNU but those in the base units- satelloites support schools based on mainstream campuses, where my 2 will attend- or who are in mainstream with help (very many) don't get to access thoe units, whcih sucks frankly.

And soemwhere that'd take over 12's: nowhere here does, and as a carer you don;t get to end childcare at 12.

I'm not enasmoured by the changes to tax credits either- cutting the 16 hour limit vand making it 24 then demanding a minimum wage profit from early on reduces opportunities to self start a business; it's entrepreneurs we need but it takes time, and tbh someone making a few quid in 16 hours is doing a damn site better job and is far more likely to be on short term benefits than someone whose business was closed down by the Gvernment and them placed on JSA with compulsory attendance at work schemes, as is suggested. Work is good for the soul and for your children to witness: sanction against poeple tryinmg to milk the system would be better addressed with stricter record keeping wrt to hours worked and the possibility of sudden HMRC checks than penalising the tryers.

without wanting to sound nazi about it, why are we, as a nation, allowing and encouraging people without any resources to have more children than those who have some. It seems odd that the fastest reproducing class is the underclass.

it's impossible to come out with any rules about who should be allowed to breed without sounding like 'the underclass'. TWAT

i meant to say 'without sounding like a nazi-'the underclass' you TWAT...

Agree there Publichair, without wanting to get drawn into a slanging match, and that is why I didn't like the theme of abortion being brought into a HB thread.

Thankfully the local authorities still have an obligation to make sure families are housed so hopefully the doom and gloom over these cuts shouldn't come to frutiton. With a bit of shifting policy LL's will have to lower rents or lose tenants, after all they need their mortgages paid and a break in rent should make them realise they are better off with accepting less.

'fruition'

" whilst some people will have to find a cheaper rent then I cannot see why that it's totally unreasonable"

And for those where there are no places to live??? This is what is being missed, if there are limited places to live, limiting it further does not make sense! How can it make sense?

As for move somewhere cheaper, I think we can safely assume that if you are struggling on benefits then you can't afford to move.

Bearing in mind these cuts will affect not just the "feckless scroungers", but the disabled and working poor.

These cuts will not just apply to those who choose not to work, they will also apply to everyone else. With the added advantage that those who choose not to work, can then choose to, and the ones who can't will be left in the shit.

Right I will admit that I've never been on HB so can you explain what the 30% actually means. So and average rent is £1500 per month and HB will pay up to £450 of that in that particular area. If someone is working and they get some HB then is the £450 still available regardless of the actual rent. If so them presumably it will only affect people who are not working at all and claim full HB, they will need to get HA accommodation or get their LL to reduce the rent. Whereas atm the HB will pay around £750, so that amounts to a lot more that £12 average per week. (Lots of 16 yr olds have just had £30 whipped of them too).

So it will mean that they will need to be in some of the lower cost housing in the area.

Is that the case?

Christmaseve from shelter

a table of expected drop per area

Don't forget some who are getting hb cuts are also losing EMA, so a double whammy.

The thing is some landlords can't take HB tenants .I think its in the mortgage or insurance terms. And theres not a surplus of homes anywhere.Where are all the empty homes for them?

england.shelter.org.uk/what_you_can_do/campaign_with_us/housing_benefit_campaign

"Shelter agrees that the housing benefit system badly needs reform, but the Government?s proposed changes could force thousands of people into a spiral of debt, eviction and possible homelessness.

Independent experts from the University of Cambridge have found that around the country:

* at least 54,000 children will be pushed into poverty
* up to 84,000 households will be forced to live on less than £100 a week for food, clothing, heating and other household costs
* up to 21,000 pensioners will have to leave their homes.

Shelter campaigners won a victory in December 2010 when the Government announced they would delay the changes by nine months to give people more time to prepare for the impact.

The Government also agreed that people should be able to choose to have their benefit paid directly to their landlord, which may help to convince some landlords to lower their rents to the new levels.

These important concessions will help some people. However, our campaigning can?t stop here. Thousands of people on low incomes will still be affected by these changes and many will have to leave their homes. "

They cannot let people be evicted because of this, that will be illegal and something will be done.

By the time bills go up, Council Tax, Petrol to get to work, VAT, Utilities etc we will all suffer disproportionatly (SP) for lower incomes. It sucks and I worry for the future.

I own my home (mortgaged) and live in a nice part of the country but am thinking of selling and downgrading to get rid of some bills. Will mean moving to another town which is a bit cheaper and nearer work but not as nice. Needs must as I worry how long I can carry on managing.

why is it illegal to evict someone who doesn't pay their rent...
that's what happens now. where might these people go...who can't make the extra out of their benefits or salary or pension.
it's really quite scary really.

Thats shit Chritmaseve. Don't get me started on the utility companies...

Not illegal, currently a landlord can give you two months notice for whatever reason they like.

They canno leave families out on the streets and will need to rehouse them. Also the ll's will have to find new tenants.

rehouse them where-any ll prepared to accept homeless families will charge MASSIVE WONGA, the HB\councils will have to pay it...it's probably going to lead to more instability in schools\communities, the ghetto returning and possibly even an increase in rates charged by ll for offering short term emergency lets.

It's another ill thought out bashing from them.

you are not wrong kid.
people think it wont affect them,unless they are independently wealthy or have a home that is paid off then pretty much anyone with a house they don't own outright,who is not independently wealthy is only 'bad luck' away from being in the shit.
yet they still trot out the same drivel.

The Independent is meant to be impartial, and the little i newspaper is an off-shoot of that. I like both.

Some excellent points made by PH.

WRT to rehousing the Government has prebooked many many B&Bs in places like hastings and Margate. I seriously doubt the infrastructure of those places will cope; cn you imagine being there and needing a school palce / social services help / a GP place and having IIRC up to 40000 people moving in to the area with nothing?

We almost ended up homeless becuase we are on an annual lwase and the LL couldnt; decide whether to renew (never missed a penny rent in our lives). We were all set to go to B&B- with the 2 asd boys going into foster care ans they could not cope with B&B. MAde me wonder what on earth I have done so awful in a previous life and took me straight back to those workhouses we elarned about as a akid where they separated the famillies as a form of deterrant.

You have got to ask yourself a deterrant to what? It was going on well before the welfare state. A certain proportion of people even though they were poor would still drink their families into destitution. All this talk of people being idle and feckless because of benefits,there were people like that before the welfare state.