How can the government get away with doing this to renters?

[winterwonder1]

So housing benefit if being frozen next year - yet rents are rocketing (because of the increased pressures on BTL taxation and mortgages, among other issues). Surely vulnerable people will become homeless because of this?

Housing benefit payments to be frozen again in 2025 | Kidderminster Shuttle

Folk need to make money, not charities,houses take lots of upkeep as you get know, not much profit

Maybe you don’t, I do ,house well managed, much needed money

Providing housing like providing food, it’s a business. And unless there is profit businesses do not survive.

No, bringing people down to a poor level isnt the way to provide good services

What should happen is just like in the old days when my parents got their first mortgage in the 60s, the local council should be involved it would be a great money opportunity, lending at 5% for people that struggle to get a mortgage else where, perhaps pay a bit more in interest to offset the higher risk, lower or no deposits needed, a cap on the price of the property perhaps, increases opprotunity to buy, increases income for the council

Yes someone is going to poo poo this idea saying it would cost too much in admin, risks too high etc etc. Except that councils are spending millions in trying to manage the cost of homelessness in terms of poor outcomes, anti social behaviour, high cost of temporary accommodation, struggling to retain staff who cant afford to live nearby or commute in etc etc.

A big government backed social housing programme is the only solution.

Right to buy should never have been countenanced.

The thinking is flawed because it assumes landlords don’t have their own bills to pay.

Mortgages have gone up and service charges for flats have gone through the roof. Renters just cannot afford to cover the costs of the flats they live in now.

We needed to put the rent up on flats last year to cover the higher mortgage and service charge costs and make enough profit to pay the tax on the income (mortgages are no longer tax deductible so there needs to be enough profit to cover the 50% tax we pay on rental income). Our tenants negotiated and we didn’t want to see them homeless (one is a single mum) but we can’t continue subsidising them. It costs us to have them living in our property! I feel bad but it’s not my responsibility to pay for somebody else’s home.

Our rentals will likely be going on the market this year. They’re just not good assets anymore. We can make more money investing in a bigger property for ourselves or putting the money into other vehicles.

A lot of landlords will just sell up and exacerbate the shortage of available accommodation.

No

1. you may as well paint “poor people” on the door.
2. uprooting children isn’t fair on them and throwing them to the wolves of the private market.
3. we need more community feeling, we need people to feel settled and part of community not like they are in temporary housing.

This would sort so much of the housing market out.
start from the root and it will help the rest of it.

Think 1940’s developments build decent maisonettes suitable for down sizers and small families. With a small garden. It would be more attractive to those in social housing that could downsize as well as filling those for new tenants. Decent houses people can feel settled and part of a community

In work benefits are the problem. Workers are paid such low ages that they can't afford to live and pay the rent. So workers are topped up by benefits and rent is topped up by HB. Who benefits? Benefits are paid to employers and landlords. No wonder benefit bills have increased. The government is propping up profiteering at the expense of the poor but working.

I can understand why the government want to cut off the head of the Hydra.

But you can't do that through the small amount of people who are economically inactive due to ill health or disability. Even if employers made reasonable adjustments and all disabled people were employed the problem would still exist.

@PocketSand sort of.

Housing Benefit for people in work is disappearing fast and being replaced by Universal Credit. It's usually paid to the claimant and they in turn pay the rent. Nothing goes to the employer.

This. This housing problem is he uses all the social housing has been sold off and not replaced. Right to buy has been a complete disaster for housing supply in this country. We need to stop right to buy and restock our social housing as a priority.

Angela Rayner is the first one to try and sort this since the Thatcher years.

It some areas, you have to pass a financial test to be eligible.

Where I live, you can't get on the register for social housing if you have over £16k in saving anyway. Same as the cut off for benefits. My DP is stuck in that trap. Almost half his income goes on private rent, but he can't claim HB or anything because of his savings. He has no choice but to private rent.

How would it work anyway? If your earnings go over a certain amount, you have to leave your home? That is pretty much what happens with UC.... if you earn too much one month, you get no UC. So, you would want people to be evicted because they did a bit of overtime.... it would also disincentive anyone to try and improve their earnings if they thought they would lose their home.

I dont know why people get so pedantic about this, whether you call it HB or UC, it is the money that people get from the government to pay their rent.

We all know what we're talking about

UC is subbing the employer so no it doesnt get 'paid' to the employer but it does in a roundabout way because they dont have to pay living wages, so swings and roundabouts for them

@Bromptotoo of course benefits are paid to the individual claimant but they are paid because wages are insufficient. That saves the employer money.

If government wants to cut benefits they have to ensure wages are sufficient to live on for those who are working. And benefits are only paid to those who are temporarily or otherwise not able to work.

25 years ago you could have bought a house with no deposit whatsoever. I bought my first house in 2002 with no deposit. In fact I got a mortgage for 110% of the house value.

I dont know why people get so pedantic about this, whether you call it HB or UC, it is the money that people get from the government to pay their rent.

It depends.

A PP was arguing that only half a million households in privately rented properties get housing benefit.

If "housing benefit" is just a loose term for all help with housing, right, that's only half a million.

But if it means the legacy Housing Benefit only, and the numbers getting thr housing element of Universal Credit are in addition, it's a larger number.

In the DWP's Benefits Statistics for August 2024, it says
"At May 2024, there were 2.3 million recipients of Housing Benefit (HB), a decrease of 130,000 on the last year. There were 1.1 million Pension Age and 1.2 million Working Age recipients. The number of Working Age recipients will continue to fall as claimants move to Universal Credit (UC). By comparison, 3.6 million households had a housing element as part of their UC assessment, of which 3.4 million were in payment."

So a total of 2.3 million + 3.4 million = 5.7 million households getting help with housing costs.

The breakdown of social rented and privately rented properties, giving us that figure of half a million, is only available for HB. How many of the 3.4 million getting housing help through UC are in the private rented sector?

Landlords have been forced in recent years to increase rents to cover increase in costs whether that is mortgage costs, referencing that used to be charged to tenants, electrical certificates and upgrades that didn't need to be required even on new build properties and newer properties, and to meet all sorts of regulations. The more regulations the higher their coats. So many are selling up because they simply are making no profit or very kittle profit that the hassle of dealing with often bad tenants just doesn't make it worth it. This means that demand outstrips supply and again means the market rents go up.

<sigh> here we go again.

The Elephant and Castle neighbourhood is being physically, socially and ethnically transformed. This started with the demolition of the Heygate estate, a classic for stigmatised perceptions of council housing and the people who live in it. As the local 35% Campaign has meticulously documented, a succession of promises to Heygate residents were broken to arrive at a situation where 1,214 council homes were demolished, to be replaced with 2,704 new homes, of which only 82 (3%) are for social rent. The HA partner was London and Quadrant. To be eligible for the cheapest one-bedroom home built by them on the Heygate site, people needed a minimum household income of £57,500. The average household income in that part of Southwark is £24,324

I assume you can do maths!!! 1,214 council homes replaced with 82 social rent homes. Nothing to do with social housing "blockers" as you like to call them.

Is it less than what it would cost your landlord for the BTL rate mortgage, the landlords insurance, the agency fees, the additional inspections and safety measures, the repairs and maintenance and voids? They generally need to make at least 6% on top of mortgage payments to break even. That is a bare minimum. They also have to pay tax on any rental income even when there is no profit.

Not disputing that it is usually cheaper to pay a mortgage but doesn’t mean landlords are taking home the difference.

Rental yields have been averaging around 5/6% over the long term. Of course there is a wide difference individually but overall with current BTL mortgages in the same region, it really is no longer profitable for those with a large mortgage. The government is benefiting from the massive tax take which is still due even if no profit is made due to the withdrawal of mortgage interest relief and would have no interest to bring down rents.