Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

The Homelessness Holocaust That Has Barely Even Begun

115 replies

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:10

Am IBU for thinking this is a reasonable assessment of the situation. Your views.

Despite the pleadings of Grant Shapps, the obnoxious little spiv in charge of housing, an unprecedented homelessness crisis is now inevitable in the UK.

The Local Housing Allowance (LHA ? formerly Housing Benefit) caps have not even started to bite yet. The introduction of the cap is being staggered, depending on the date on which LHA was first claimed or last assessed. The cap came into force for prospective tenants on the 1st April 2011. For existing tenants the cap comes in 9 months after the date on which the claim for LHA was first made. This means those who have a claim which began last April will have faced the implementation of the cap in January this year. Only around a third of private sector tenants are likely to have seen their benefit capped so far.

Even those who have been subject to the cap are unlikely to have been evicted yet. Eviction can be a lengthy process and one in which families in particular must go through in order to qualify for any help from the council. If a household is not formally evicted then they may be deemed ?intentionally homeless?. Whilst councils have a legal duty to protect children they have no such duty towards adults who have been judged to have given up a home voluntarily. In practice this means Local Authorities may offer to take children into care, whilst leaving the parents to fend for themselves.
There are huge numbers of eviction cases currently passing through the courts in London. Canny tenants may still be paying their rent minus the amount which has been deducted from their LHA. This means it will take much longer for arrears to build up and the eviction process will be much slower.

Newham Council, one of London?s poorest boroughs, claim they have 32,000 people currently in urgent need of housing and are attempting to relocate residents across the UK. Only some of these people will be facing homelessness as a result of eviction due to the benefit cap. The toxic combination of the cap for new tenants, placing most houses in the Borough out of reach, and the ongoing recession, is the most likely reason Newham Council have so many homeless people on their books. These factors will create a torrent of homeless people in their own right, which will only increase as more people see houses repossessed, rents become unaffordable, and debt and money problems mount up for struggling families.

Grant Shapps revealed he is ignorant of his own policies when he claimed there are 1000 properties available on Housing Benefit within five miles of Newham. Despite the fact that 1000 homes to house 32,000 people is hardly a rosy situation, he seemed unaware that Local Housing Allowance is a regional benefit now set at the bottom 30% of local rental costs. The maximum available LHA for a four bedroom property in Newham is £300 a week.

The Guardian was only able to find 68 properties within that range within five miles of the borough. Even then some of those properties will carry the ubiquitous condition of No DSS, meaning they are unavailable to people on benefits. The housing crisis in Newham is far, far greater than Shapps has tried to pretend.
The graph above (from Shelter) disputes Shapps? claim that rents are falling. Quite the opposite is happening. A combination of soaring rents and a plunging economy would be enough to create mass homelessness on their own, without any changes to housing benefits. The 13% rise in homelessness (and 23% rise in street homelessness) reported by Shelter last year was little to do with Welfare Reform and far more to do with a flat-lined economy and rising unemployment. We haven?t seen anything yet.

The LHA caps will push homelessness even higher over the next year as more people become subject to them and are evicted as a result. The impact of the caps on LHA have barely begun to be felt.

Sadly it doesn?t end there. The aforementioned change to set LHA rates at the bottom 30% of the rental market has still not yet been implemented for all tenants.

According to the Chartered Institute of Housing this move will place 800,000 properties out of reach for those who are unemployed, disabled, or on a low income. Glasgow, Birmingham and Liverpool are all singled out as cities which may yet come to have a homelessness problem to rival that of London. Some of those young people may come to London in the search for jobs and housing, and end up on the streets as so many did in the 1980s and early 1990s. This time however they will be replaced by low income families socially cleansed from London and other areas.

Even this time-bomb isn?t enough for the toff Government, most of whom were brought up in mansions. Previously, under LHA rules, people under 25 were only eligible for a room in a shared house. This has been increased to 35. No assessment has been done to see whether there are enough rooms in shared houses for that many people. And houses full of 20 year old students are hardly likely to opt to share with people just about old enough to be their parents. This is yet another change that has yet to be felt and in particular is likely to impact on street homelessness. Those with no children, who are not deemed ?vulnerable? (meaning they are not assessed as sick and disabled or claiming a pension), are not eligible for any assistance from Local Authorities. This leaves many younger people with no option but the street.
Homeless charities are reporting desperate funding problems. This will mean less hostel and night-shelter accommodation. Despite the lies of UKIP, many recent arrivals to London from Eastern Europe are currently on the streets, unable to secure work, housing or even afford a ticket home.

More young people leave home every day, sometimes for economic reasons, sometimes to escape abuse. The toughened benefit sanctions regime and the assessments for health related benefits are seeing benefits stripped away on an unprecedented scale. Hundreds of thousands of people are being left with not enough to feed themselves or their families. New rules mean that LHA can no longer be paid direct to landlords. In desperation people will dip into LHA payments to feed themselves or keep the heating on. More people are likely to slip into drug or alcohol dependency as poverty bites and begin the downward spiral which can lead to life on the streets. Previous ?cardboard cities?, not seen in London for 20 years, will pale into insignificance compared to what?s to come.

Plans to increase Social Housing rents to the same level as the private sector will mean even Council Tenants in some areas will no longer have their housing costs met by benefits. The Tories are currently forcing through laws which will ban squatting, whilst more evictions of traveller sites are likely. The Government could not have created a more perfect storm.

The real bombshell is not set to hit until next year. The £500 a week benefit cap will mean the end of life in Greater London for larger families on low incomes. Tens of thousands of people will be made homeless at a stroke, most of them children. The social chaos this will cause is unimaginable. The personal tragedy for those concerned almost unthinkable.

There has long been a housing crisis in the UK and the last Labour administration did nothing to address it. But the changes made by this Government will be devastating. Homelessness wrecks lives, often leaving permanent scars. Mass homelessness, on a scale never seen before in the UK, may come to be seen as one of Cameron?s most tragic legacies.

OP posts:
HecateTrivia · 23/05/2012 17:15

holocaust?

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:19
Confused

YABU to refer to it as a holocaust. Do you know what holocaust means?

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're asking.

yakbutter · 23/05/2012 17:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CountryMouse27 · 23/05/2012 17:22

Maybe this should be posted under Politics and not AIBU. Know your audience.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:24

Well that reply was far from helpful given the serious of the subject matter.

Holocaust is and can be defined as ?total destruction?.wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life.?

OP posts:
HecateTrivia · 23/05/2012 17:24

If this was posted in politics calling it a holocaust I would be questioning the choice of that word. Where it is posted does not reduce the legitimacy of questioning the use of the word holocaust.

It's a very very powerful word with horrendous connotations. It is not a word that someone would use without knowing that and it does beg the question - why choose it?

OldGreyWiffleTest · 23/05/2012 17:26

If the Government actually did something about greedy landlords, then things might get better. It's not just people in rented homes that are about to be faced with a crisis - interest rates will go up and people will not be able to afford to pay their mortgage.

Twas started by Thatcher selling off council housing, and now this Government are about to compound that problem. Labour could have brought some order to the chaos in their 13 years, but didn't.

We ain't seen nothing yet!!

hackmum · 23/05/2012 17:28

Can I just say I heartily concur with the description of Grant Shapps as "the obnoxious little spiv in charge of housing".

HecateTrivia · 23/05/2012 17:29

Well, it actually means great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life usually by fire.

but that's not the point, is it? It is not the historical meaning of the word, but the current association and I think that is a word that has now come to mean one specific thing and there are other, more appropriate terms for a housing crisis.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:32

There is a thread further down about a woman who is soon to be evicted and it conveys the stress that she is under knowing that she has to move into a B&B with two young children because no LL will take her due to receiving benefits. It prompted the above. And yes it is in the right section as they are my views and I am asking if I am BU.

OP posts:
PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:33

I don't think you are in a position to criticise anyone about taking something seriously given your totally inappropriate use of the word holocaust.

And what Hecate said.

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:34

What do you think you are being unreasonable about?

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:36

@Oldgrey

Thank you for reading the content and not trying to align it with history. Which was never the intention.

OP posts:
TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 17:36

YABU for using the word 'holocaust'. What is happening may be terrible but to connect it to the extermination of millions of people is totally inreasonable and invokes Godwin's law before you've even begun.

SCOTCHandWRY · 23/05/2012 17:38

UABVVU to use the term Holocaust, particularly with a capital "H" in reference to making people move to cheaper housing.

mummymeister · 23/05/2012 17:38

you live in the south east or London, you used to be in the socialist workers party when you were at uni and now you want to take up minutes of my life using an offensive word like the holocaust. you really should get out more. I used to laugh at people who said that political parties posted their ideology on mumsnet. i am not laughing now.

Codandchops · 23/05/2012 17:40

YANBU at all and I agree - it has hardly begun. I give thanks for my good fortune in having been housed by a HA and I only got this tenancy because my son is autistic. God only knows how we would cope if we were still in a private let. I can tell you right away that we would have been facing the cap and huge anxiety. There are plenty of people in my position who are having to rent privately though and I cannot begin to imagine what they are gpoing through.

Psammead · 23/05/2012 17:43

Jesus fricking Christ. Holocaust? First we have the inappropriate use of 'Nazi' all over the internet, now Holocaust? Do people have no clue whatsoever? Reducing powerful, hateful, fearful terms to mere hyperbole to make their point?

Not many things make me froth, but this is one of them.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:44

OK?.It would appear that a particular word has upset some of you. So let?s just focus on the content and what the ramifications are going to be for family, mental health and a whole host of other issues due to changes in the benefit system, open boarders and the unchallenged powers that LL have?.and I could go on but was rather looking for other peoples genuine views as to where all this may lead to.

OP posts:
Codandchops · 23/05/2012 17:44

OFFS - loads of people may lose their homes and the people here are taking offence at the OP's (admittedly stupid use) of the word "holocaust".

Is it unreasonable to be pissed off about the fact that this Govt have basically pissed on those least able to cope? There - rephrased without the holocaust word.

Obviously nobody here is facing eviction or knows anyone else who is by the fact that you have all focused on the H for Holocaust term and not the H for Homelessness which is facing many many families.

Dprince · 23/05/2012 17:45

There is clearly a housing issue to call it a holocaust is disgusting, disrespectful and over the top. If you want a sensible discussion maybe you should choose sensible language.

TheresaMayHaveaBiscuit · 23/05/2012 17:45

YANBU .. I remember the high levels of homelessness in the 80s and 90s, and the long term damage it did to the people who were affected. Sadly, Labour did little to sort out the huge problems we have with housing in this country, and the policies of the current government are going to hit huge numbers of people very hard.

AKMD · 23/05/2012 17:46

YABU for writing a horrendously long post and describing it as a holocaust. This is a housing issue, not a policy of 'wholescale destruction of life'.

Whilst councils have a legal duty to protect children they have no such duty towards adults who have been judged to have given up a home voluntarily. In practice this means Local Authorities may offer to take children into care, whilst leaving the parents to fend for themselves.

Really? I strongly doubt that any LHA will have the authority or the willingness to take children into care rather than find their family a house. If you're going to make such a ridiculous point please back it up.

Previous ?cardboard cities?, not seen in London for 20 years, will pale into insignificance compared to what?s to come.

This just isn't going to happen. I'm sorry I bothered reading to the end as your post is so full of hyperbole and scaremongering that I have failed to take any serious point from it.

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:47

OK - setting that aside I still don't understand why this thread is in AIBU!

PandaWatch · 23/05/2012 17:49

"I'm sorry I bothered reading to the end as your post is so full of hyperbole and scaremongering that I have failed to take any serious point from it."

Agreed.