to think the south east has started to expel the poor

[ubik]

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/13/london-council-relocation-benefits-cap

Basically Camden Council cannot cover the housing benefit for these families due to government cap on benefits. These families would have to find an extra £90/week to make up the shortfall. As I understand it, there is nowhere in the south east cheap enough for these people to live.

So they are considering moving them to a cheaper region up north, hundreds of miles away from their families, schools, jobs, friends, neighbours.

I find this incredibly depressing as someone who grew up in a normal family in London.
Is the south east expelling the poor?

Someone asked about rent stabilisation in New York.
Now, NY does not have anything like a perfect housing system, and is very market led, and expensive, BUT if a building is over a certain size , the flats in it are automatically rent stabilised, meaning that the rent cannot rise above a low percentage each year. It is also harder to be evicted.This may have changed, I dont know.
NY used to have rent control also, whereby long standing tenants paid much lower rents (I can't remember the ins and outs) but that's all but gone.

Copenhagen has quite a good system. People there live in co-ops-they rent but have much more stability and control over their homes.

You can't have a totally market led housing system without any protection for people without the "vast majority" of low income (and tax paying) and their children suffering.
Same as you can't have a totally market led healthcare system, or education.
Some things need to be regulated, because they have such massive impact on real peoples lives.

Olgaga - Landlords still don't invest in private property. That is a myth peddle by those who are terrified of rent controls being reintroduced. I am a renter and I have lived in 5 different properties in the past few years and all of them have had multiple problems that the landlords refused to address because they don't have to. Nothing has changed!

The whole point is that at the moment laws are set to favour the banks, landlords, the rich so that they don't make a loss. The only reason that banks can be so strict with mortgages now is because they were bailed out and continue to be bailed out through QE. The banks are currently being saved from having to take losses (for example by not repossessing, since they would make a loss). The whole rental market is artificial and based on making sure that all the laws and rules are in favour of the landlord and the banks who have the most to lose. In a genuine capitalist society, banks would have been allowed to fail and the market would not be propped up artificially by low interest rates, QE, tax breaks for landlords etc. Heads I win, tails you lose.

I thought it was because the council couldn't afford to house them, I didn't realise their employment status came into it.

These are people who aren't in social housing - they're in private rented accommodation. (You do realise there are tens of thousands on social housing waiting lists?) This is a direct result of the benefit cap:

Housing officers in the four pilot Boroughs are examining the "income, employment status, personal circumstances and household composition" of those who - because of the benefit cap - now find themselves in unaffordable accommodation.

The benefit cap means they can no longer afford to live in the homes they're in, there's nowhere else affordable in the Borough, which has a statutory duty to house them - but no duty to house them in the Borough. So they are having to move them to cheaper areas.

There are 240,000 residents in Camden - so this will affect just over 1% of the Borough's population. It'll be a similar proportion in most Inner London Boroughs.

I think the "bedroom tax" and the council tax benefit cut will affect many more people than this aspect of the benefits cap.

OP - you keep saying Camden council can't find them a place in the whole SE, but you aren't accepting that doesn't mean there aren't lots of rental properties that are well below the cap - this family would have £2100 a month coming in, spending £1k a month on rent in large amounts of the south east privately would get you a 4 bed place easily. Leaving £1,100 a month to pay bills and buy food - a lot of people survive on a lot less. I found several 3 and 4 bed places in Kent in places where lots of people commute into London daily for work currently for £900 a month. It is perfectly possible to live in rented accomodation in the South East with a total family income of £2100 for the bulk of people. It is the equivilant of pre-tax income of £35k.

the woman mentioned in the article has 4 DCs, why can't 4 DCs be accomodated in a 3 or 4 bed house in Kent? I would suggest that Camden might be saying they can't find social housing in the SE for them, not that there is no way you can survive with a family of 4 DCs on £2.1k a month when privately renting. But if there's not enough social housing to go round, then some people in reciept of housing benefits will have to be housed in private rented accomodation.

It's very very hard to get public sympathy for people who can't cope on the pretax income of £35k a year that they are being given by tax payers.

The whole rental market is artificial and based on making sure that all the laws and rules are in favour of the landlord and the banks who have the most to lose.

Yes - that was my point!

There's no doubting that whatever you might think, and whatever your personal anecdotal experience is, rental properties are generally of a much higher quality than they were 20 years ago because a better quality property attracts a greater rate of return.

It's fairly simple economics. Why let your investment go to ruin when for the sake of a few grand you can put laminate flooring in and a new kitchen and bathroom, and rent it for £300pm more? It depends on the area of course - you won't get a lot for even the swankiest flat if it's in a grotty area with no transport.

So flats in grotty areas will be cheaper - but they will never go below the floor for that particular area because that's the market minimum. Not exactly rocket science is it?

To get a return of above 5% you have to have serious money to invest in the best properties, in the best areas, in order to charge premium rent.

Somewhere like Camden, where even the grottiest areas are on the doorstep of the City and the West End in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

They are not free to juggle their money that way though. They are not handed £2k per month. Do people really have so little knowledge?

The single parent may get E.g. Incapacity benefit plus child benefit. Then housing benefit is paid to the landlord direct. Council tax benefit goes direct to the council.

The other figures will not change whether the rent is £100, £200, £300 per week.

The moey the average claimant has to spend (on food & day-to-day living costs) will not come anywhere near to £1000 per month, whatever their rent.

That £35k figure is a convenient extreme example.

Yes, the housing benefit is currently paid to the landlord. When it's capped, the tenant will have to find the difference. If they can't they will be evicted. They will go to the council, who will house them elsewhere - somewhere they can afford.

Under UC, I understood there will be a single monthly payment to the claimant. Which is bound to cause extreme difficulties for many people who will need to budget properly for the first time, and no doubt many more evictions.

Council tax will need to be found and paid to the council by people who have never had to do that before.

Believe me, this is just the beginning of the nightmare for those who apparently have no idea what's going to hit them. Time and time again on these threads I have seen people express views like "Oh it won't affect us, it's the career claimants who will be affected and it's about time they were dealt with".

And you know why this is all happening? To achieve ideological change, a "culture shift". So that "the poor" understand they will have to think twice about having children they can't afford. This is a matter very close to the Tory heart. Doesn't anyone remember Peter Lilley, with his "little list"?

It's not the adults I have sympathy for - they have choices, and in most cases can use their judgement. It's the kids I feel sorry for.

From Lilley's "little list":

There's young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue / And dads who won't support the kids / of ladies they have ... kissed

Olgaga - there are still plenty of rubbish landlords & properties.

Not every decision people make is based on economics and some people do not understand economics that well anyway.

How patronising to suggest poor people can't budget or pay their bills.
How very nu Labour.

The moey the average claimant has to spend (on food & day-to-day living costs) will not come anywhere near to £1000 per month, whatever their rent.

Yes, isn't that the whole point? If you live on benefits, you have to live somewhere really cheap otherwise you'll have to use some of the benefits you need for living costs out of your maximum £500pw. And that's not going to be possible.

I think TSC has just summed it up in a nutshell.

I think many people WILL budget and manage. The issue is going to be for those who cannot do so for whatever reason.
I will be okay....if I need UC as I am used to being in work and being paid monthly. For those with mental health or other issues there may well be more difficulties.

I am a volunteer with a charity which offers family support...we are used to helping people with budgets for rent etc.....we are expecting many more referrals when things change as those who can't cope for one reason or another start to struggle.

.....and YES to what TSC just said

Well I think you'll find that most BTL landlords understand economics rather well, as SecondComing has noticed.

AuntMaud It's actually Shelter which has expressed concern about the direct payment of LHA to claimants. There's nothing patronising or "NuLabour" about it. Many people who receive HB are the most vulnerable in society. Shelter points out:

Payment methods:
The Government must allow claimants to
decide how their LHA is paid, either directly
to them or to their landlord.
This would help to prevent rent arrears, unplanned
moves, and ultimately homelessness, but would
still allow people to keep control of their finances
if they so prefer. It would also increase the supply
of landlords willing to let to benefit claimants.

CarersUK are also concerned about it.

Except that BTL landlords are offering a service, taking a massive financial risk, and actually working for their money. Whether a ll pays a mortgage with their rent or not is irrelevant.

Yes there are shite landlords, but then there are shite tenants. One is not morally superior to the other.

But olgaga there isn't anywhere 'really cheap' is there?

If I were in charge I'd make the train more affordable so it was more financially viable to commute to London- my dh has a 1.45hr commute each way (we're in Kent) it costs £450 per month in addition to running the car and parking at station
We can't afford to live in London and for years it would wasn't really financially viable to commute but through promotion he now earns a salary that counteracts it- my career on the other hand didn't have the same prospects !

Oh, come on! BTL landlords are not offering a service, I have never read such tripe.

THE ONLY PEOPLE GETTING A FREE HOUSE ARE BUY TONLET LANDLORDS. They are having their mortgages paid on an asset that they will eventually own having done fuck all (bar cobble together a deposit/tart it up a bit) That is what's sickening. And who do the wankers indignant 'wash wah wah we can't live in Chelsea either' mumsnetters get angry at? The poor hapless fuckers with no options...

This is so offensive. By to let landlords are not doing anything morally repugnant. They are running a business. Making money is not legally, morally or ethically wrong.

Yes the fact that there are a significant number of people who can't earn enough to keep themselves is a shocking and uncomfortable fact.

Blaming it on landlords, who are making money is ludicrous.

I don't agree with subsidising out of control rental prices with public money. It is making the problem worse and worse. I totally approve of this new housing benefit cap. Lots of people on quite good salaries have had to move out of London over the years because of high costs.

How hilarious to say that poor people "will have to budget for the first time"!

How the Hell do you think we stay alive?? I have fucking spreadsheets worked out to the penny.
So do most people on low income.
AND these poor people who apparently have to budget for the first time in their lives-what makes you think they have always been poor? Are these the "generations of feckless unemployed" we hear so much about?

And what TSC said, with bells on.