To think you shouldn't be homeless if you have a job.

[coolncalm]

Well actually no one should be homeless but i watched a programme last night and people were sleeping on the streets in London and didn't have a roof over their heads. Isnt it a sorry state of affairs when you go out to work but you can't earn enough for a single room never mind a flat.

Juggling two or more zero hours contract jobs is very difficult as in practice turning down a shift because you are working elsewhere means that you are not offered further shifts as you are deemed unreliable. The entire point of zero hours contracts is to allow employers to opt out of the reciprocal nature of a paid employment contract, not to provide flexibility for workers.

But hey your dd finds it great so what's the issue.

When l lived in York 6 years ago, l was working 32 hours a week and coming out with about £800 a month. l was getting £12 a month (yes, you read that right, £12) in housing benefit. My rent was £695 a month. Needless to say l didn't stay in that flat long....

Not necessarily Haddaway with DD she adds her name to which days she wants, which job she wants, where she wants to work. If she doesn't want to work or is doing something else them she doesn't

Yes please don't assume that us in the north are rolling in jobs and cheap flats. My town (and surrounding) nice reasonable flats, but piss poor job opportunities. My son lives in big nw city, he's not on zero hours, he's on 4 hours guaranteed. Generally works more, but then the cheap accommodation is out of the city, so travel is expensive. And, theoretically he could work elsewhere, but like said up thread, if you say you can't work for one employer you are seen as unreliable. Over a barrel.

Good for your dd oliversmum. I rather think we shouldn't base public policy on her though.

Haddaway i agree with all your posts.

If the lower paid workers moved out, and the government stopped in work benefits, employers in London would need to pay more for these staff, shops and restaurants would charge more etc.
This would encourage/force large employers to move out of London to enable them to pay their staff and make a profit.
Less people in London, less pressure on housing, reduce North/South divide.

Cheers Helena. Now we just need to overthrow the government and we'll be reet.

carol decker they wont though They didnt when the wages councils were abolished in the 90s. i remember seeing jobs advertised in the JC for £50 a week and £1.50 an hour afterwards.

Helena Just stop in work benefits - it doesn't help that 24% of londoners live in social housing, with around 40% in Zone 1 www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/housing_in_london_2015.pdf

yes I have met workers in cheap tourist hostels - it's nothing new.

That doesnt answer what i said. A lot of employers started paying ridiculously low wages when the wages councils were abolished. Do i really have to link the 1992 article again

Why have you linked an out of date pdf that is dated two years before the Grenfell fire?

We need more social housing not less.

I answered very early on in the thread and then came across this
Of course rent will be more than a mortgage - or how else does a landlord pay the mortgage on the place? I rent a house out, I need the rent to cover the mortgage, gas safety certificates, insurance, the tax I pay on it plus any repairs. I can't possible rent it out for less than what the mortgage is

Just to point out, that five years ago I was paying way over £100 more in rent than a mortgage for a bigger place in the same area cost me. Its changed now and not for the better.

As for the rest of the thread. I would move up north in a heartbeat, but my partner won't because he has his eldest son here. So do I move not allowing him to see his youngest son, or insist he moves so he can't see his eldest. Neither of whom are to blame for our circumstances. Its never black and white

Just to point out, that five years ago I was paying way over £100 more in rent than a mortgage for a bigger place in the same area cost me. Its changed now and not for the better.

Less, should say less

youknowwherethecityis, of course I realise landlords have to cover their mortgages. Interest rates though are so low that unless you own a mansion I don't see how your mortgage can be that high.

I rented a house. Last year I was paying £1,000 a month for it and my landlord wanted to put it up to £1,250. I knew how much his mortgage payments were because his post from his building society came to the house and I accidently opened a letter. His mortgage was £400 a month.

So yes greedy landlords are part of the problem. Friends of mine (married couple both work full time, 2 young children) rent a house. Again they are paying £1,000 a month. They are desperate to buy a house and know mortgage payments would be less but just cannot get a mortgage as "they don't earn enough".

Rent used to be less than a mortgage before buy to let existed.

Wages for lower paid workers have risen way above inflation. The issue is house prices.

@Ariela where in London are you getting a room for £120 p/w? All my friends in flatshares pay £600-950 for a room in a 5 person share house ....

rent used to be less than a mortgage when interest rates were much higher. the buy to let boom is partly caused by low interest rates.

the guardian is for wiping your arse, not believing.

mydogisthebest my BTL interest rate is double what my residential mortgage rate is though, despite the BTL requiring a much higher deposit.

I do agree that a lot of LLs are ridiculously greedy though. A £250 increase in one go takes the piss.

Can someone explain Zero Hours Contracts please? I've seen them referred to since they came about but don't understand the point of them.

Why wouldn't an employer just employ the number of people needed to do the work and give them set hours/shifts each week? Why do they employ many and just give them a few hours each?

Of course rent will be more than a mortgage - or how else does a landlord pay the mortgage on the place? I rent a house out, I need the rent to cover the mortgage, gas safety certificates, insurance, the tax I pay on it plus any repairs. I can't possible rent it out for less than what the mortgage is

Well until the recent rise in buy-to-let mortgages, landlords typically owned their properties outright. So no mortgage. You could let it for less than the mortgage, since you are building equity in it! You'd still be quids in in the long run.

(I'm not saying you should do this, obviously - you should let it for whatever market rent is. But the idea you couldn't profit if the rent was less than the mortgage is just ridiculous - I initially assumed your post was a joke!)

There are currently 679 rooms within zones 1-2 on spareroom.com for £500 or less a month. The problem isn't that people with jobs can't afford to live. The problems is that people fall through the cracks when something goes wrong (e.g. have to move and dont have the £££ for a deposit) because there isn't enough of a safety net. That's the issue we need to fix.

People love trotting out the idea that London will collapse if all the low-paid workers leave. It won't, that's a ridiculous proposition. The employers for those roles will just have to pay more to attract people back.
Even that is unlikely though. The reason london is so expensive is because so many people want to live there. More council housing etc won't fix that problem. It'll just mean that a group of very poor people get to stay, instead the people who fall just above whatever threshold is set for eligibility. It's not solving the underlying problem, which is fundamentally that London is a much more attractive place to live for a lot of people than anywhere else.

allertse A months rent and a month in advance means a £1000. Not everyone has that. I lived with my bf in London in a rented room. He left me, I had to leave room because I couldn't afford it on my own. Deposit had been paid by him so her got it back. I had to get hold of the equivalent of my monthly wage for a months rent and deposit about 35 years ago. Only way I could do it was an authorised overdraft. If you only have a basic bank account, which lots of poorer people do, then that is not an option.
It does not take much for many poorer people to become homeless even if they are working.