Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Dprince · 23/05/2012 17:51

Codandchops I think people on the brink of evictions (have been their myself) would be bothered by the use of this word. It belittles the actual holocaust.

SCOTCHandWRY · 23/05/2012 17:53

Maybe because is isn't going to be a holocaust or Holocaust by a long stretch of the imagination.

Of course people are going to suffer if they are forced to move to smaller/cheaper properties, but that's the situation that would face any of us buying a house if we lost our job or had to change to a lower paid job - I'd hate to have to sell up and move to somewhere smaller but that's what would happen - there has to be a certain amount of "cut your cloth according to your means" at an individual and a national level - the country is pretty much on it's knees and it's going to be bloody hard for years, for everybody.

However, we have not yet got to the stage of rounding up undesirables and gassing them.

RosemaryandThyme · 23/05/2012 17:55

The Cap is a very good thing.

If you can't afford to live in an area because you have a low or no income then a small saftey net towards housing, is fine, just to get a roof over your head, but having a large property in a desierable area should certainly not be paid for by others.

A cap will mean either that private landlords reduce rents to meet the cap level or that people will have to move to more appropriate properties.

amanspointofview · 23/05/2012 17:55

@Biscuit
Exactly. I can remember families that suffered terribly due to the housing crisis in the 80?s/early 90?s and those effects are still being felt by some. It is far worse this time with the changing of the age rule which is about to come to head as tenancies start to expire..

OP posts:
MainlyMaynie · 23/05/2012 17:56

'let's just focus on the content'

I love it when OPs act like they're chairing a meeting full of underperformers.

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 17:59

HolocaustBiscuit

the issue is not that people are private renting its that when the lefties changed the payment of hb to direct payments and allowed tenants to live were they pleased with out thinking trough the implications of a person with say 5 children renting a 6 bedroom in Chelsea or allowing people to give up the secure council home for private rent so they can have a extra bedroom that's when things went wrong.

i know several people who moved from a perfectly good council home just because they wanted to live in a smarter part of town now the chickens are coming home to roost

people in private rent who are not with the council have to move to a cheaper area if they get a demotion or need a bigger home.

many people with mortgages many people who are working could only dream to live in were some people are renting courts of the tax payer

the long and short is you can only live in the smartest part of town if you can afford it end of

its as it has always been i would love to live in Audley edge were all the footballers live I CANT AFFORD IT

i have to live in one of the poorest areas of my LA because that's all we can afford why should people private rent receiving HB be exempt from cutting their cloth accordingly

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:02

RosemaryandThyme very much many of these landlords rely on social tenants and after they have come to their senses and their mortgages go unpaid they will lower their rents

only the mega rich and the council could afford what these landlords were asking for and if the mega rich were interested they would of been renting to them and not Barry on HB

GrendelsMum · 23/05/2012 18:07

TBH, this reminds me of one of those reading comprehension pieces where you have to disentangle facts from opinions. I think you've probably got some genuine points to make here, but I'm finding them hard to disentangle from some very emotive language. Mainly what I've come away with is the idea that you don't like the present government.

It would be easier to take your views on board if it was quite a lot shorter, the facts were clearer, and it was clearer what conclusions you draw from the known facts.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 23/05/2012 18:11

Mrbojangles

How can the landlords reduce their rents, if the rents are only just covering their mortgages?

If the mortgage is £900 pm and the rent is £1200 pm out of which the landlord has to pay tax (cannot offset the repayment element of the mortgage). If interest rates go up substantially then landlords may be operating on very thin margins indeed so won't be able to put rents down.

OP - Holocust, very disrespectful.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 23/05/2012 18:12

Holocaust

TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 18:14

Local authorities own more than 11,000 acres of brown field sites between them. That's enough space right off to build almost 90,000 houses. Get building quick, quick. Savings in housing benefit paid to private landlords will fund it. Problem sorted.

browneyesblue · 23/05/2012 18:15

YABU for copying and pasting your 'essay' all over the internet for the past month.

Couldn't read it all a second time.

Gigondas · 23/05/2012 18:15

It's from a blog here

May be op's blog

Clytaemnestra · 23/05/2012 18:16

What's the point critiquing the article? You've clearly made up your mind.

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:21

ChazsBrilliantAttitude

YES in that situation but many landlords are coming to the end of their mortgages and are just simply making huge profits charging made money because they know the council will pay

if people are living in the cheapest housing that meets their needs in the cheapest part of town then fine but many are not

its very commonly know that virtually everyone overcharges the council because they don't use their huge buying power to drive prices

my home for example is a ex council in flats the guttering out side which the council are in charge of needed to be fixed they wanted 14k all together of the residents we decided that was to high after a 20 minutes calling round tradesmen not mentioning the job was for the council we got quotes around 9k big difference

not all landlords are scraping by

GrendelsMum · 23/05/2012 18:23

TheUnMember - but won't people then say that the houses aren't where they want to live? It seems to me that the problem is not a shortage of affordable housing, but a shortage of affordable housing in places where people can easily commute to work, schools, childcare and family.

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:24

TheUnMember also their are 80 thousand empty homes in the uk that could make a fair dent councils have compulsory purchase power

why don't they use them ffs

home near me been empty for 7 years

Mrbojangles1 · 23/05/2012 18:26

GrendelsMum when your being given somewhere to live that you either are not paying for or are getting at 20% at the market rate i don't think

WERE THEY MIGHT WANT TO LIVE COMES INTO IT.

many people would like to live were they want finaces dictate otherwise

AlpinePony · 23/05/2012 18:26

OldGrey More council properties were sold under Blair & Brown than Thatcher & Major.

Perhaps if the left felt so strongly about "selling off the houses" they'd have at some point during their 13 year reign, reversed the proposal.

Mind you, one has to ask - if the houses hadn't been sold, who exactly would be living in them now? Would they magically be empty and available? Nope, the people who bought them would probably still be living in them.

Fwiw, a landlord's mortgage is his own responsibility and nothing to do with the tenant. "The value of your investment may go up or down".

flatpackhamster · 23/05/2012 18:30

This isn't the only lunatic to describe the changes to living allowance in such terms. Polly Toynbee called it a 'Final Solution' in an article last year.

Pretty disgusting, but then the SWP has form in this particular field of whooping hysteria

TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 18:30

There are brownfield sites all over the country. It may not be exactly where they want to live, but it'll be close enough. Very few people are lucky enough to live precisely where they want. They have to compromise. This database on the channel 4 website has a map of all of them.

TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 18:32

TheUnMember also their are 80 thousand empty homes in the uk that could make a fair dent councils have compulsory purchase power

why don't they use them ffs

home near me been empty for 7 years

Indeed. No reason for homelessness in the UK other than bad management.

flatpackhamster · 23/05/2012 18:33

PandaWatch

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

Because he's trying to drum up support for his vulgar little class war.

The whole post comes from this blog.

And the poster doesn't even have the class to admit it isn't his work.

QuickLookBusy · 23/05/2012 18:34

I feel very sorry for anyone who is having to move because their LHA has been capped.

However, I feel something had to be done. Rents are too high, as are house prices. They cannot go on rising for ever.

Hopefully rents will go down, if they don't are LLs going to keep their properties empy? I don't think so.

And maybe it will kick councils up the arse so they build more housing or do something with the empty ones. Councils are wasting millions every year giving houing allowance to private LLs. It will save them money in the long term.

TheUnMember · 23/05/2012 18:35

Mind you, one has to ask - if the houses hadn't been sold, who exactly would be living in them now? Would they magically be empty and available? Nope, the people who bought them would probably still be living in them.

I don't actually object to princple of them being sold. If it's someone's home and their circumstances change so they can afford to buy, then let them buy. But at the going rate and use the money to build further houses.