Anyone else shocked by Mark Easton's report on BBC1 news about the plight of working families forced through no fault of their own to live in hostels/b & b's in Redbridge?

[Sandycarrots]

I was utterly shocked and horrified by this report. Families of four with at least one partner working, with small dc, forced to live in one-bedroom rooms in miserable council hostels or b&b's in Redbridge, with shared bathroom and kitchen facilitates. Fellow residents are often convicted felons and drug dealers.

These families are working but in the majority of cases have been forced to move out of private rented accommodation because landlords wanted to sell or re-develop. They then cannot afford or find equivalent accommodation close to their jobs and schools (presumably because of the housing shortage/rent rises).

One family of four (including a baby) was sharing one bed. One (understandably depressed) mother talked about the lengthy commute her daughter faced going to school every morning sinced they'd been forced to move.

How can this be happening in the UK in 2017? Why is more not being done?

I know many people were happy for the opportunity to purchase their council houses back in the 80s/90s but surely, combined with a rise in population, this was a crisis waiting to happen when that housing was not replaced by anything else?

Off to browse Shelter website

Anyone got a link to this?

Not shocked.

The welfare state is being whittled away, bit by bit.

Second home owners aren't BTL - the moral problem comes with leaving somewhere empty for months at a time which could otherwise be a family home. Huge problem in deprived areas in eg Cornwall, where the thriving holiday home market has priced most locals out of the market altogether. Then empty towns die.

Yes but the second homes are rented out and there are thriving holiday businesses in Cornwall who employ lots of people and charge the second home owners double for the little jobs they need doing. Even worse for bigger jobs!

There are several issues which have added to our housing crisis. Divorced parents who maintain two homes big enough for families. In effect a second home but no-one ever thinks this causes a housing shortage. Any separation is a disaster in housing terms.

We refuse to build houses. Planning authorities are unbelievably slow to grant permission because of nimbys. We have no money allocated to local authorities for building houses so when we sold most of them off we hardly replaced any. People have gained financially and they don't care about anyone else. There are lots of single people living in 3 bed council
Houses who refuse to move out. A council house should not be for life. It should be passed on to someone who needs it more.

If it wasn't for the private rented sector, the housing crisis would be even more severe. Low interest rates have made many people buy houses to let. Also distrust of pension saving.

Stephen Nolan interviewed Steph on Friday night who was working with 2 children, expecting another baby and no man around. They lived in a one bedroom flat found as an emergency by Southwark Counci. Why did she have another baby one wondered? She was evicted from her previous flat because she owed rent. She didn't know how much she owed. She ignored the warnings from the Landlord. It's sad, but this is happening everywhere.

Re the airport worker. Most people get a job elsewhere and then move. Not the other way round. There are cheaper areas than London and there are jobs.

We need a change in how we view accommodation and our "right" to have it. When there are shortages there needs to be a clear understanding of who gets what. The cost of land in London is so huge it's difficult to see where more homes can be built in great numbers.

Why would all BTLers put their properties on the market in one fell swoop? If you know of a strategy that could cause such a dramatic cultural sea change you must share - imagine the effect on the obesity crisis!
Increased understanding of the damage done to society, as achieved by drink driving, smoking and safe sex campaigns, coupled with measures to reduce profits would probably take a generation or more to take effect as I suspect you know.
Being wilfully obtuse does not advance the discussion.
Governments have big turning circles even when there's a will to make changes, it's rare that individuals have much power to make a difference in circumstances like this. I would like to see more people reflecting on their own part in the crisis.

Full disclosure: DH once suggested we sell some stocks and invest in a BTL, to diversify our investments. Note my use of 'once'

That wasn't a strategy, that was an attempt to make the 'all landlords are immoral' bleaters produce a coherent argument.

Arguing with stupid is indeed a waste of time.

Too many people, right to buy , taxes too low. Suck it up.

Right to buy and lower taxes are part of the problem too, it's not an either/or argument.
It's just that I can't do anything personally about those two things other than vote and hope.
It is within my ability to refrain from contributing to the problem for personal gain.
As for 'too many people,' what does that mean?

So are all your stocks totally ethical then? I doubt it. You also have them for personal gain. This is what saving is all about. It is what pensions are all about. Renting a home out to someone is perfectly ethical. You can let it go below market rent if you want to help someone. You don't have to be grabbing! I do this. It's perfectly ethical - where else could the family go?

Our population has grown significantly since right to buy. We have built too few homes. Too many people need housing for the resources we allocate. That spells lack of housing. It has little to do with but to let because at least the prior renting from private landlords are housed.

To the best of our ability our stocks are ethical.
I'm not slating any individual landlords. It's not personal.
It's just that a shift in culture from demanding governments sort it out to looking at how we individually contribute the problem could be useful.
With more starter type homes coming on to the market, (instead of being snapped up at above market price by investors) prices would become more reasonable, giving first time buyers and local authorities a much better chance of accessing housing stock.
That's without the investment properties that are currently standing empty anyway.
It's not a magic wand, but surely no one could argue that it wouldn't release some of the pressure?
And, at the risk of repeating myself, we don't have to wait for government. We can do it ourselves.

Has little to do with buy to let because at least the people renting .....

Threads like these make me so appreciative of the housing situation in Scotland. Sounds so dire down south

Empty investment property is almost all London - Russians parking their money somewhere safe.

Could be outlawed.

Do those so easily suggesting poor people just get a job somewhere else and more he understand how expensive moving house is?
You have to have a few grand available to spend upfront.
If you are already desperately hanging on to your job, paying for a tiny hostel room, spending more on travel and food than you would be at home, maybe paying for a storage for your belongings, how easy is it going to be to rustle up all that money?
That's before we even get into moving away from family support - lots of low waged families would find it hard to work without informal childcare support from friends and family.

This could be addressed by the government, but the hands of individual LL are tied.

Yes and the supply of affordable buy to let mortgages would dry up.

Very informative responses from everyone.

This thread has certainly educated me about the issues. It seems like more government intervention is required on a number of levels.

I didn't see this report but I saw a similar programme recently. There was a family in Dagenham who had been made homeless because their landlord was selling, so they were evicted and had to live in a hostel-type place.

She couldn't afford another rental place because she didn't have the deposit and months' rent in advance needed.

What I don't understand is that surely in situations like this (not situations where people are evicted for just not bothering to pay rent), why don't the council give (or loan
interest free with peppercorn repayments) the money for a deposit and rent upfront. Surely that's cheaper for them than stumping up for a hostel place and accruing the future costs of children who don't get a proper education due to being displaced, stressed, a long way from school etc?

Yes, that would seem like common sense to me Hairy - I think they do occasionally give out "emergency funds" but I don't think it would be enough to cover two month's rent for example.

One of the worst things to happen to our county was the selling of council houses.the money people have made is scandalous,even more so when you see babies and toddlers denied their right to a safe home

And thousands/millions of people loved the policy! Loved it. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. What no-one realised was the lack of future investment in housing would be so woefully small. However we want green fields. We want the green belt. We don't want new houses near us. We object to everything. We have councils who don't allow houses to be built, they take years to zone land for housing. They can't even clean up brownfield sites! We have two homes for split and divorced families. Single people are in 3 bed council homes. Who is going to make them move? The bedroom tax didn't work because they had nowhere to move to and didn't want to go anyway. There is no easy way to solve this. If it was easy, it would have been done by now. Some interest groups are going to have to give way but they won't.

In London the Mayor needs to get a grip. Taking houses away from their legitimate owners is a communist policy and is unlikely to be enacted. Big Russian house today, British owned house tomorrow. Our international standing would be shattered. We have only commandeered property in times of war. It is not acceptable at other times in a civilised society.

We could build more homes to rent within developments. There needs to be more high rise to make better use of land. Families won't like that idea though. If the university sector was reduced, there are student flats available for families. That's a big "if" though.

Near me, it has taken 25 years to agree an ugly derelict barn should be demolished and replaced by a house. It is a big site and could have been replaced by at least 5 homes. Not allowed of course, but it could have been. Everyone wants to see big houses but not lots of smaller ones to house people that need a home. They don't want to help and they don't want traffic.

What I don't understand is that surely in situations like this (not situations where people are evicted for just not bothering to pay rent), why don't the council give (or loan
interest free with peppercorn repayments) the money for a deposit and rent upfront. Surely that's cheaper for them than stumping up for a hostel place and accruing the future costs of children who don't get a proper education due to being displaced, stressed, a long way from school etc?

Some do. Our local council offer landlords a "virtual" deposit. No money actually changes hands. Deposits have to be kept in a registered deposit scheme anyway so really it shouldn't make any difference to the landlord. Then when the tennants leave if the landlord feels (and it's justified) that they deserve some of that virtual deposit money due to damage, etc then the council will pay money to the landlord.

I'm unsure if they then chase the tennants for it, I assume so. Not sure if they offer it to anyone who gets housing benefit or just special criteria but as a former landlord the council asked me if I'd accept this so they could rehouse someone in need who had no deposit, etc.

Homelessness to triple with SOCIAL HOUSING rent increases.

speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/homelessness-to-triple-with-social-housing-rent-increases/

I left an abusive relationship nearly three years ago with no savings, nothing. I worked full time but it was a struggle to find somewhere affordable for me to rent while also living day to day. I had to pay an £800 deposit (a months rent plus extra for having a a dog and a cat) plus £600 as a months rent in advance. If that wasn't bad enough, the estate agents fees were approximately £150 and then the cost of actually moving in - removal can, purchasing furniture including white goods etc. And then most contracts are on a 6 month trial period, so at the end of that six months you could well be back in the same position!

My point is, the answer is rarely as simple as 'just' moving. I was lucky, I was single with no children at the time and managed to find someone who was willing to let me stay short term rent free while I scraped the money together for all of the above... and I don't even live in London, I live in rural Wales.

The landlord/tenant issue wasn't as it seems. Basically; landlords loved housing benefit as it was secure amd came direct. Marvellous.

Then the council's realised that, if it went wrong, they had no recourse. So they changed the rules so that they cous reclaim directly paid benefits from The recipient (I'm this case landlord) if they were claimed fraudulently - even if the landlord had no idea. Therefore a landlord could be told "sorry mate, 18 months of rent was fraudulent so you need to pay it back" and then still had to evict the tenant who suffered little or not at all beyond having to find a new, benefits Happy, landlord (at a time when there were plenty)

This is when mortgages changed and landlords changed. Once again the system devolved to the lowest common denominator and, as an indirect but predictable result, we have the situation above. No one trust's anyone, no one will help anyone and we earn too little to live. It's fight to the bottom syndrome.

Isn't the problem not so much the sale of council houses as the ban on councils using the proceeds from those sales to build new council houses?

I also don't that foreigners should be allowed to buy houses in a country unless they are living there.

Do Londoners no longer need the jobs that the poor do?