Housing changes - housing benefit, no council housing for life etc

[limonejelly]

Have namechanged for this as I dont want to out myself in RL.

I am going to a housing related meeting this week in which these are the discussion points:

These include capping of housing benefits, withdrawal of council houses for life, partial devolution of priority setting for social housing lists to local authorities and devolution of affordable housing target-setting to local areas.

I think I have clarified what I think about it - am terrified that am going to go along and be completely out of my depth yet at the same time want to put my views across.

I just wanted to know if anyone had anymore arguments for or (mostly) against some of these things.

It is slightly confusing as its hard to speculate without knowing the outcome of the housing benefit changes - ie how many people will be moving to the outskirts of cities etc and therefore what provision will be needed in future.

The end to 'council houses for life' issue is relatively easy to argue for, I think. Council houses are allocated strictly on need. If the need changes then the housing should match. Council houses for life implies that requirements never change and, as a result, we end up with big families in B&Bs whilst lone occupants sit in a big house that once housed their own big family. A five-yearly review of housing needs should be enough to let a tenant feel reasonably secure in their accommodation but, at the same time, everyone would know that they may be offered larger/smaller housing after that point or even be asked to move on to private rental if their income had radically improved.

Arrangements for existing tenants should be reviewed on a case by case basis to avoid the PR disaster of 'throwing little old ladies out of their home of 50 years' headlines. But the contracts for new tenants would be finite.

Well, I suppose that it can be argued that re-assessing a tenants need can be a disincentive to work. If you know that once you are working full time/earn over a certain amount, you will lose your home, then you won't work/accept a promotion.

Also, 'need' can be very difficult to quantify. A family could have a whole support system in place that allows them to work. If they are forced to move, school runs/travel to work may become harder.

Having tenants in a house long term is good for the house, street and community. If you know that you have the house for only a few months, there is no incentive to look after it, make friends with the neighbours and generally be part of the community (big community? )

But do any of those points out weigh the housing problem in this county? My DH grandmother is lovely and I don't want to see her upset. But it cannot be fair that she is living practically rent free in a house that is much too big for her, simply because of her memories and because she doesn't want to leave her neighbours.

Not easy decisions to be made.

someone once in explained that in Germany you only get housing benefit to the level to which you are entitled so if you live as a sole occupant in a 5 bed council house you have to pay the difference which encourages tenants to downsize.

I agree that there should be a periodic review of entitlement to social housing, based on number of residents and total household income; and agree there need to be transitional arrangements for those households already in social housing.

And in the name of community cohesion, I think there should be provision for some prioritisation for housing lists. I'm not sure how this would work in practice, but I'm sure a suitable system can be devised.

Thanks all - I think in practice it would be very difficult to force people to move even with years of notice - I agree with the community upheaval - but maybe you would get more points to stay under a new local system if you were active in your community? I dont know.

Also to go along with this you would need more landlords in certain areas to accept tenants on housing benefit - it is all well and good leaving your council house but where are these presumably older people supposed to go - into 1 bed flats on new developments alongside young singles?

To do even that the social housing quotas in new developments need to be enforced or raised.

I suppose I just feel that all these moves although they are addressing the pressing social housing problem will impact those at the bottom of the heap again instead of tackling the actual problem which is the need to build more social housing and address private renting lack of housing security.

The mooted removal of local councils requirement to house people with a local connection would also be a factor. I dont really understand where people are suposed to go in that instance - I live in an outer city borough - there really isnt anywhere to go after us and rents are already high here anyway.

limonejelly, it really is an incredibly huge area [housing] and impacts and is impacted by so many things.
However, I am very worried about the future of housing in the country as it is already so dire for so many.

You are right, that the main problem is the lack of social housing full stop. The way I see it is that the tories sold it all and then the labour governemnt tried to build more, set up plans for key workers etc but it wasn't enough and then the downturn started. if there were more new builds,the cost of housing would go down and so would housing benefit. more new builds also means production, which also means employment, again saving money in the long run.
in response to your points I think the following:
capping of housing benefits: do you mean the 50% being reduced to 30% or the cap in benefit overall? [me being thick]. either way, great swathes of people will be forced out of london and other more expensive places, they will be unable to afford decent housing, there will be more overcrowding in homes, it will increase the homelessness budget, see a lot more rent arrears, a lot more debt and acute poverty ? and then more homelessness.

In the near future housing benefit will be less due to the change in relating to the different indexes, it will also be further 10% reduced if you are on JSA for than a year. So, where and how do people make up the shortfall? Will landlords be more likely or less likely to accept someone on housing benefit? The answer is that it will be much harder to find a private landlord to accept you and i expect they will change contracts, there will undoubtedly be lots of people moving around a lot more and more homelessness.

There is also the issue of house builders. They are incentivised in part to build for 'shared ownership' and they are encouraged by buy to let people too [whose tennants get HB] as well as 'normal buyers'. so the knock on effect of the changes to benefits and housing benefits will have an effect on building too and of course, without careful planning and other measures this will result in less production, less employment and less money for more people [fewer buyers]. It is probably quite a simplistic view, but there is so much to be done to sort it all out and i cannot see how capping it will help anyone-not the landlord, not the rentor, not the deficit, not the HB administrator, not the country! Of course I could be wrong and many may disagree.

About reassessing peoples need to live in their council home or housing assoc house...not sure. it sounds good in the first instance, but what about if for example, you have children with big age gaps. say one leaves home and the other 2 are still at the local school and there is no other housing in the area? they have to leave school, move, loose friends, communities etc to move into a one lesser bedroomed house? what if your husband walks out? same again? it's tricky and again other measures need to be in place as well as availiable housing stock to make it ok i guess-or am i being too idealistic?

lastly, where will the old people go? i dont know. will their children have room for them? if not i have no idea. maybe a 'halls of residence' type place-shared kitchen, breeze block rooms, shared loo with 20 other old people? cammeron said in his manefesto he would reward those in old age who made the right choices and saved. i guess for a lot of elderly in social housing it will be awful and i dread to think how they may have to live in the future. it is scary stuff and i will probably be one of them.

sorry for going on and on, and off the topic a bit, but housing is a bit of an issue with me!

Lego, really? Put old people in breeze block rooms with shared kitchens and shared toilets? Can we spare them some gruel maybe.

"I think in practice it would be very difficult to force people to move even with years of notice - "

In practice, that's what happens in the private rental market all the time. A couple that I know had to move on three times in 8 years because, each time, their landlord had decided to sell the property at the end of the fixed-term lease. Not saying it wasn't disruptive, but that is the reality of tenancy over home-ownership.

Another person I know was quite proactive with her housing needs. When she decided that she wanted to downsize from a 3-bed council house to a 2-bed one, she found a family that wanted to do the reverse in the same area. Presented the council with the proposal and they facilitated the swap.

In the example where one child leaves home I think commonsense would have to come into play. And as for old people. This always gets emotions running high, but many old people living solo get to a stage where they would prefer a smaller property to look after. Whether they own or rent a house whether if it's a voluntary move or done with some prompting, it's a wrench to leave.

Thanks all.

As to the moving I think logically it seems to work but then I think how moving afected my elderly parents - it was a tremendous wrench - my mother in particular missed her friends and her volunteering work. And they chose to do that.

I think its easy for people who do move a lot to project how they feel about it - ie its awful but has to be done - onto people who dont have the social capital to deal with it iyswim - especially if that home is the only security they have - ie they dont have job security or money security or even health security iyswim.

You don't have to move a lot to say 'it's awful but it has to be done'. Anyone who owns a home on a mortgage knows that until the place is fully paid for, a radical reduction in their income (divorce, unemployment, illness) means that they will almost certainly have to move out. And if negative equity applies this is not an easy or a profitable exercise. Private tenants know that they have to go when the lease is up. Why should council or HA tenants be entitled to feel any more secure, in principle? That doesn't sound fair.

Because they are often the neediest members of society chil who have a lot of additional needs apart from housing and can find all of that disrupted if they are constantly having to move - ie for hopsital appts - schooling etc - they may themselves have grown up in care and need that stability for a change. Lots of reasons really.

new estimated figures for londoners having to leave their homes after the cap and other cuts:

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2010/oct/11/national-housing-federation-effect-of-benefit-cuts-london

shocking: 114,000 claimant households in the capital being put at risk of losing their homes.

oh and just a thought, but, if tennants are being pushed out of some cities becasue the rent is too high then they will move to outer parts of the city, right?

if they do, do you think the landlords on the outer parts will keep rents the same, or will this push them up too. then do you think we will end up with private rent everywhere being more and too expensive? It just seems it is going from bad to a hundred times worse.

I dont know lego - this is part of the known unknowns I think - what effect all these changes put together will have - where exactly do these people live and where will they want to move to?

They cant push rents up outside most cities because in some parts they are already over the level of the cap - so (in London for example) you have to look east and southeast, leading to a Paris banlieu situation in effect.

I'm currently having to look into applying for a council house, in terms of moving to a less expensive area you are discouraged from applying anywhere that you either

• do not live in
• do not work in
• do not have family in

Those who live in the area will be given priority, so moving to a less expensive area is guaranteed to be more difficult.

And the cap on housing benefit will mean even longer council housing lists as even less private landlords will be willing to take HB tenants.

Spooky - they are thinking of removing councils requirement to house people with local connections anyway making it even worse...

Oh good :(

well, there is a suprise; removing councils requirement to house people with local connections. now it all fits into place. whatever next...slums?
i guess that securely paves the way for their planned mass exodus-displacement of thousands of poor families from their communities, parents and kids from their friends, schools and wider family.

Keeping the riff raff out of sight much?

"someone once in explained that in Germany you only get housing benefit to the level to which you are entitled so if you live as a sole occupant in a 5 bed council house you have to pay the difference which encourages tenants to downsize."

I thought they already did that here? or is it only with LHA for private rental. I know with LHA in private rental you only get housing benefit to the level to which you are entitled, it's not dependant on house size.

The original point of social housing was to provide security of tenure, in decent-quality housing. Back the the Olden Days, private tenants were at the mercy of the likes of Peter Rachman so the provision of council housing was a massive benefit not only for the poorest, but for any ordinary working family. Of course, so much has now been sold off that it's become more precious, and allocated in a way that that was never originally intended. :(

the whole benefit issue is easily dealt with.
if your unemployed and eligible for benefit then you should get the minimum wage times 37 hours. nothing else no more for your kids wife husband etc. no housing benefit unless you would be eligible, unless that income as a worker applied. no free council tax. you pay tax and ni if applicable but dont get working tax credits. as this would be around the same level of income as if you worked then there is no problem. it is the free housing and council tax i object to and the free prescriptions etc. i have dealt with families who work and struggle whilst neighbours got every thing for not working.

Brilliance in simplicity thereiver

If a working family can live of two minimum wage incomes and pay taxes into benefits pot

then a non-working family in receipt of more than that is just a legalised defrauding of those in work

This from the BBC today here