Preparation for mass exodus of poor from London

[SkippyjonJones]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/24/exodus-poor-families-from-london

How many people here with strong opinions of why this is a good policy have actually ever had to look for a flat in London?

We rent a 1 bed in London. It took us 6 months to find a flat under £900/month (just under the £250/wk cap) which wasn't a hovel, and which was big enough for 2 adults to inhabit. I was taken around literally hundreds of mouldy basements with badly subdivided rooms in Hackney, Brixton etc. Absolutely jaw-dropping what landlords think they can charge - and most of them won't take HB. Many agents were sniffy letting to us because we're self-employed, even though we have good credit ratings, no debt, could pay a 6 week deposit and have no pets or children.

I hate to think what it would be like to try to find a flat with children in tow for under that benefit cap, in most London areas. Nigh on impossible I would imagine.

In the end we ended up in a very 'nice' area of London only because our philanthropic landlord decided out of the goodness of her heart to charge us a reasonable rent, rather than the maximum she could get away with, which would probably be nearly double. I'm sure there are many other landlords who could make the same sacrifice if private rents were capped. But the decision has been made to put the pressure on to the poorest tenants, and not the landlords (many of whom have made a large amount of money out of the inflated property market), which in my mind is totally wrong headed.

Quodlubet

It's not only in London though that's affected were outside London amd like those inside it is a struggle to find anywhere

Think people have blindspot if they think it's just those in London that are going to be affected by this

The 30% is going to affect up and down the country so there's not going to be a area they can move into and commute from or a area where's there's not already high employment

No, I agree with you sorry peasant, just talking about London because that's my experience of finding it nigh on impossible when we don't even have the problems you describe.

It's ok Quod

yes I would hate trying to find anywhere half decent in London to

was just drawing attention to the fact people are blindsighted about 2 k a week hb when infact that's the minority

And yes I'm in Herts which is maybe somewhere there talking about people moving out to want to yell hello your not going to find anywhere here either that id under the new LA 30 % cap

how far is a reasonable commute here IRS about 30 mins by train into London so not something you can bike

and that people that can't afford yo rent or buy in London even though there working already and on a resonable wage live here so how much further out do people go

so hang on..
some people think it's normal to kick londoners out of london; people whose LOndon roots probably go back hundreds of years, who have communities and families there because...because the wealthy are so greedy that the inequalities in this country mean that land costs are so high in certain areas that some people cannot afford to live there, and the country's maniacal obsession with land and house prices means that people who are not wealthy are being ghettoized...?
Have I got that right?

And lets be reeeeaaally honest. This affects women more than anyone else, doesn't it. Because women have child-care responsibilities that many men do not have.

Sakuka I don't think it's right at all was just pointing out they talk about people having to move out and commute In was saying that erm people do that already and it's driven house prices and rents up in areas already

So quearying how far out do they expect people to move because here you watch and most the towns are quite in day because people already commute

And was drawing attention that's it not just goi g to affect those in London because think a lot of people think it's not going to affect them as they don't live in London they need to wake up it's going to affect everywhere

hi peasant,
I wasn't aiming my post at you. I just skimmed the first page of this thread and I haven't even read your post. I was just shocked surprised, really, that it wasn't obvious that this is a generally inhumane way for a government to treat its people, the poorest in particular. WOMen and poor people need protection because of their vulnerabilities, and the way society is structured (with the class system, no meritocracy and feminization of poverty) But it looks like all that is being brushed under the carpet and it's every man for himself.

That's quiet opps

There is nowhere in Herts where find private rented under 900 for a 4 bed because people pay more than that to rent private and commute in because of alondon prices and these are people on a good wage

You go further out and the cost to commute becomes to much % of what you earn

Will end up people losing jobs moving say up north as rent cheaper so then there becomes demand fir accomidation there so LL put up rent knowing if people are desperate there find the top up money and these areas already have problems with unemploment as it is. And would get worse let alone the social problems will be made worse

so what are they going to do to the social housing in London? quite a lot of it isn't exactly luxury to rent to richer people, is it all going to be knocked down for fancy new builds?
is it like the long stay hospitals in the 80's lots of prime real estate?

No it's ok sakura I do understand what you mean just want to draw attention to those that say well there have to move out and commute in that this is already done by people with dam good jobs

and fact that it's not just going to affect Londoners will affect those who by Lonfon standards In some areas have more resonable rents

I'm betting the % on hb of anything near 2 k a week is very small even in London yet people fix on this when hb is ever mentioned

As rents go up for new tenants slowly the poorer and yes the working poor will be driven out and there get sold of to devlopers

Mind if Lha going to be at 80% of the Market rate which Market rate they looking at

The bottom 30% that there going to use for the new caps or they going to be looking at the 50% middle of line Market rate so pottentially lha could end up more than the amount of hb you can claim

"How many people here with strong opinions of why this is a good policy have actually ever had to look for a flat in London?"

Me. Went to Uni in London. Realised it was a crap place to live unless you are mega-rich so I moved to somewhere more sensible: better quality of life, better schools, cheaper, access to the countryside, nicer people, proper communities etc etc.

OK - I am a landlady with a one bed flat in London. It's a nice flat, on a private road, only six flats to a block, mixed up with some three and four bedroom houses, no garden but access to nice grounds, got it's own parking space and everything. Fully furnished (with decent furniture). It's 5 minutes walk from the tube station (on the border of zone 1/2) and you can be in central london in 20 minutes in rush hour.

I charge 850 pcm for it. The flat across the way from mine is also up for rent at the moment for 850, and they're struggling to fill it. That's 150 pcm under the cap. When I lived in the area, the majority of my friends were paying around or below the cap, and it's really not a bad area.

I think the bigger problem is NOT the availability of lower rents. It's the fact that the vast majority of landlords only want to rent to professional singles/couples and aren't interested in anyone on HB, because either their mortgage won't allow it, or they have heard horror stories about bad tenants. I have no idea if this applies to working people who top up with HB. So, even if the available housing stock is there, it might not be accessible if you are on HB.

Personally I DO think there should be a limit though.

Lucky would you take hb though ?

Purits I don't live in London either would not want to either but I'm still going to be hit hard by the 30% cap

I have had to look for a flat in London, in fact I had to leave London becase I could not longer afford to live there. I just accepted there are some things in life I cannot afford.

And yes it often included people on part Hb when you yo to look at private rented property know as I asked so that rules out a large percentage of the working poor

Vespian see my posts I do not live in London but the hb cuts will not just affect londoners

Peasant - actually I do, I rent to a lovely guy who is unemployed and claiming full housing benefit.

I thought I might get asked that :)

However, this is a guy I knew beforehand and I trust him implicitly. If I didn't rent to someone I know, I'd use an agency as I don't currently live in London and it would be too difficult to manage any problems. The agency would almost definitely put in no HB in the contracts (everyone I looked at initially recommeded that)and I would take their steer on that. So a more honest anser would probably be yes but no.

The ignorance and lack of imagination on this thread is depressing.

Many of you seem unable to see that this is - in part at least - about what happens to working people when they loose their jobs through recession.

It's irrelevant whether you like London or not. The reality is that lots of people live there, for many reasons, but two good ones being because they were brought up there, and/or because that's where the jobs are.

It is ridiculous to suggest that everyone who is at risk of loosing their job in a recession (and that would be the majority of us - who can say their job is definitely safe?) should move to an area with cheaper rents. For me, when I lived in London I already travelled an hour to work. Should I have moved further out, and let my family's quality of life suffer through me being away more, just in case?

And if everyone did move out of London then ther rents would be driven up elsewhere, it's non-argument!

This is about what we do when people like you and me loose their jobs, through no fault of their own. Is it a good idea to move us out to poorer areas with crap housing, crap schools and fewer work opportunities? Or is it in fact fair to pay people back some of the taxes and National Insurance they've paid in over the years, to help get them back on thier feet?

I know which makes sense to me.

No this won't only affect Londoners, but London is a good example of a place where you don't need to be living in a mansion to fall foul of the cap. In fact, some flats in distinctly dodgy areas fall foul of the cap.

Focusing on London shows how ill thought out this policy is - if implemented as advertised it will drive thoussands of people out of London. Thisnk about what this means, this is not a good thing!

Those of you who don't like London, do you actually want the rest of the country being filled up with people displaced from London - thus driving up the rental prices and putting more pressure on services in your areas. Have you really thought about this?

Typos, grrr.