Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
NarkedPuffin · 23/05/2012 18:38

Topic is fine, post is fine, point is fine, choice of words is unacceptable.

WasabiTillyMinto · 23/05/2012 18:44

surely newham is the least sensible place to look at when reviewing HB reform, what with the OLYMPICS?

in tower hamlets, the council pays up to £400 pw for a 4 bed house. thats £20,800 per year.

GrendelsMum · 23/05/2012 18:45

That's a very interesting website (I remember seeing some of the Channel 4 programmes on the subject), but looking at it in details seems to suggest that the amount of brownfield sites are very variable, and I'm not sure how many of them are genuinely available for conversion.

Our council doesn't have any brownfield sites shown on it. It does say that there's a brownfield site right next to where I used to live in the neighbouring council. Now, I know that site - it's actually prime London commuter territory, and you could sell it for an absolute fortune to wealthy Londoners. Only the council actually uses it for council business, so it would need to be replaced with equivalent space in a less desirable area of town, so selling it might ultimately turn out to be a false economy.

Yummymummyyobe1 · 23/05/2012 18:46

As some other MN's have said earlier in the thread, if an individual chooses to rent privatly and looses their job or their circumstances they would have to move. This should be the case for people on HB or whatever the benifit is now called.

I do disagree with the idea that houses that are privtely owned should be Stolen taken from their rightful owners as it can take sometime to decide what to do with your property after a death or when you spend some time away from the country. I believe this counts as theft pure and simple.

I might be hauled over the coals for the following comment but I would be a little more sympathetic if people worked the minimum 16 hrs a week and h

Yummymummyyobe1 · 23/05/2012 18:47

helped themselves a little more (Baby + computer = posted to early)

HecateTrivia · 23/05/2012 18:58

That's not true at all, cod.

I faced homelessness when I lost my business. The mortgage company were going for repossession. We had to go beg the court for extra time to find somewhere else to live.

I was phoning round trying to find out if my two autistic children would go into foster care or whether there would be a place in a hostel/b&b for us.

Later, we found private rented accommodation, only for them to turf us out a year later because they wanted the house back. We were statutorily homeless with no housing available. We were told that if they had anything, it would likely be the councils temporary accommodation until something came up.

We were lucky enough in the end to get a home. I will never forget those phone calls trying to see whether my children would be fostered while me and my husband slept in the car, or whether there was any roof for us and later to have to wait while the landlord evicted us because the council wouldn't accept us as homeless until the eviction date had passed and we wouldn't know until then if we had anywhere to go or not.

I still object most strongly to Gabby using the word. It matters And not because I don't know what it's like to have homelessness looming over me. I know what it's like to be in that situation. I know what it's like to look at your children and cry because you have no idea where they'll be sleeping next week - if they'll be with you even. I've even cried myself to sleep because the only food I had to offer them was beans on a piece of riveta.

don't assume that because I find the use of that word in this context offensive that I don't know what it's like to face homelessness.

hackmum · 23/05/2012 19:03

The word "holocaust" long predates the use of the word to describe the genocide by the Nazis.

That aside, the consequences of this government's decision will be devastating. A simple cap on private rents would suffice (and in fact did suffice until the Tories abolished it). We have a situation where a large proportion of jobs are in London and there are two few houses available, creating pressure on the housing market, driving up house prices and therefore allowing landlords to charge high rents. None of this is the fault of people who can't afford to pay £800 a month to rent a small flat. They are just doing what needs must. You can't just drive people out of their homes (which is what this policy is doing) because rents are too high. You either have to build more homes in the capital, put a cap on rents, or make sure new jobs are created elsewhere in the country. Or preferably, all three.

OliviaLMumsnet · 23/05/2012 19:50

Hello We have moved this thread to Politics
Thanks
MNHQ

yakbutter · 23/05/2012 20:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango · 23/05/2012 20:59

Firstly, I am the poster mentioned by the OP who is facing homelessness with my 2 children.

I have very mixed views about the LHA cap tbh. On the one hand, it's making me and my children homeless. But on the other hand, my private rent is twice what a council house can be rented for. That's two families housed for what we currently are.

I live in a nice area. Not millionaire neighbour nice. Just nice, city outskirts, large rental area kind of nice. I know where ever we will eventually be placed will probably be very different from here and that's ok. I know we have no right to be fussy - I am having a nightmare time with my LA but I do feel lucky I have the support really.

But the system is wrong. We shouldn't have to wait until we are evicted through the court for them to help. The LL wants his property back. I suspect that's because he knows with the cap he cannot expect to get more money from a LHA tenant. The rent in this building for identical flats are £150 more pm. He knows if he tried to increase the rent we would struggle. And can I just say, we are living in a two bed despite being eligible for a 3 bed rent allowance. I could never afford a 3 bed locally.

And you might say move further out, but the allowance drops in these areas so we would still struggle.

I'm not interested in the class war stuff in the OP but I do think it's a little worrying that the cost of living will segregate people so much. And there are many many reasons why people have a low income and need council housing. Being a carer or disabled doesn't mean you don't 'deaerve' to live in the inner city IMO.

And finally, I hope to god the issues of children being placed in care from families in this situation aren't true. I now have a whole new worry to keep me up at night...

QuickLookBusy · 23/05/2012 21:13

Charlie I'm sure your dc will be kept with you. I really don't think the council would try to take lots of children into care, simply because the costs would be so horrendous for them. It would be far cheaper for the council to find you and you dc a home.

flatpackhamster · 23/05/2012 21:18

hackmum

The word "holocaust" long predates the use of the word to describe the genocide by the Nazis.

In the same way that 'gay' used to mean 'cheerful'. Words change their meaning and 'Holocaust' now has a very specific meaning. One which both the author of the piece, and the person who reposted it here, are aware of and happy with.

MiniTheMinx · 23/05/2012 21:29

As a person of Jewish heritage I am not offended by the term Holocaust being used. Jews call the holocaust "Shoah" which translates to "great catastrophe" This is a great catastrophe and bears all the marks of social cleansing and class antagonism. A class being used in it's correct sense to mean a class of people, people who are in receipt of housing benefit or in need of housing.

flatpackhamster · 24/05/2012 07:22

MiniTheMinx

As a person of Jewish heritage I am not offended by the term Holocaust being used. Jews call the holocaust "Shoah" which translates to "great catastrophe"

Good for you. I find it vile and unpleasant, but not unexpected since it's this kind of ridiculous hyperbole that gives the Looney Left their name.

This is a great catastrophe and bears all the marks of social cleansing and class antagonism. A class being used in it's correct sense to mean a class of people, people who are in receipt of housing benefit or in need of housing.

At the moment people on average wages who can't afford to live in London are paying for others to live where they can't. If you want to defend that system, then good luck to you.

hecatetrivia · 24/05/2012 07:23

"I hope to god the issues of children being placed in care from families in this situation aren't true. "

I hope you're not suggesting I'm a liar.

I realise you're frightened. I was there. it is terrifying and it's all you think about from the moment you wake up to the moment you lie in bed trying to sleep! Cos sleep doesn't come easily!

I was doing nothing more than telling cod my situation. mine. That is no speculation on how anyone else's will turn out, or any sort of formula for how these situations go. It was no comment on any other person's situation past, present or future. it was nothing more than a response to someone suggesting that I and others clearly had no idea what it's like to face homelessness. Well I do. I've been there. and what I described was what happened to me, based on my circumstances, in the area I was living, at the time I was going through this. Nothing more than a description of my personal situation can be taken from my recounting of my personal situation.

I had to look into all options. Nobody said they were going to come and take my children away! I had a situation - going to be homeless. I had 2 children with complex needs. I had to find out every possible outcome, so I phoned round and asked. One of the possible outcomes was that I place them in foster care while I'm homeless. That is NOT the same as having them taken away from me against my will which is not at all what I said. Another possibility was that there would be a place in a hostel for me and the kids, but not for my husband. Another possibility was b&b for us all, etc etc. If there was no b&b, no hostel, no option, then they said fostering was a possibility. That's something we faced and I was doing nothing more than telling my story.

Nobody is going to come and take your children away, that is not what I said happened to me.

But I am not a liar.

fast forward several years and I'm a couple of hundred miles away from where I started. A total relocation. A different life. a HA house and another, fledgling, business.

This is a very very very difficult, frightening and painful thing you've got to get through, but it isn't the rest of your life. You WILL get through this. You WILL have a home and be looking back on this one day as one of the difficult things you had to go through in your life. You've just got to hang on in there and I know it's hard, it feels like you're drowning and having a heart attack at the same time sometimes!

CharlieUniformNovemberTango · 24/05/2012 08:38

hecatetrivia I'm not calling you a liar. Maybe I should have put "in my case" on the end of that line then.

I was just saying I really hoped it wasn't a possibility in my case. It was a shocking, scary thing to read when I'm feeling like a failing parent enough. I apologise for not stopping and thinking that you were only expressing it from your case and not as a general proscription for what might happen to all people in this situation. Evidentially I'm not thinking about this in a clear measures way as you'll understand.

hecatetrivia · 24/05/2012 11:10

Oh god yes, I understand. I will never in my life forget how awful it was, how I felt, particularly how I felt when I looked at my kids. It's, well, someone who's not been through it just can't imagine, not properly, I don't think.

I got through it. You will get through it, I promise.

[hm] although if someone had said that to me when I was in the middle of it, I think I'd have punched them, so perhaps not very helpful to type Blush

You are not a failing parent, you are just in a shitty situation. But I understand. A million people could have said that to me and it wouldn't have changed how I felt.

chrome · 24/05/2012 19:23

"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."

Scaremongering does not help anyone OP.

Local Authorities could possibly attempt to remove a child due to a risk of unintentional homelessness but they would be breaching Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and would be stupid to even try it! It also goes against one of the basic principles of the Children Act 1989 which is to keep families together wherever it is safe to do so.

I work in child protection and have supported many unintentionally homeless families (including some in the worst affected London boroughs), I have never taken a child into foster care solely because of risk of homelessness as a) the trauma it would cause to the child (assuming they have a healthy attachment to their parent) and b) because it is stupidly expensive (particularly if its a sibling group) and it is far cheaper (and more humane) to put the family up in a B&B using social services s.17 budget.

Ok so the Section 17 budget should not be used in leiu of benefits/ housing benefit and I totally understand why social services are so protective of this precious resource, but when we use it to pay for accommodation it tends only to be for a few nights whilst social services negotiate with Housing/ the Homeless Person's Unit/ carry out assessment etc.

If anybody is threatened with having their children taken into care against their will where the only issue is that they are homeless through no fault of their own, Shelter advise you seek advice: england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/homelessness/help_from_the_council/referral_to_social_services?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 24/05/2012 19:45

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.

Well said Rosemary & Thyme

ButHeNeverDid · 24/05/2012 19:50

What flatpackhamster said.

bunnybabylon · 24/05/2012 19:53

they're building loads of homes where i live Confused

yakbutter · 24/05/2012 19:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

buggyRunner · 24/05/2012 20:02

Not read all posts but I run a homeless supported accommodation. My referrals have increased massively and many of them are people who have little or no support needs (and are therefore not suitable).

The housing benefit paid direct to residents will be a nightmare and will result in a massive increase in homelessness (through eviction of non payment or rent and also landlords refusing to take dss)

Bloody stupid IMHO

Empusa · 24/05/2012 20:07

I love how, once again, people are forgetting that LHA is also awarded to people in work, not just "scroungers".

"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."

IME it's the same all over the country. Barely any places to rent under the LHA bracket, and most of them say No DSS.

As for "move to a cheaper area"? What that fails to take into account is that LHAis a percentage of the average rent, so even the cheaper areas cost more than LHA is.

MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 20:14

At the moment people on average wages who can't afford to live in London are paying for others to live where they can't. If you want to defend that system, then good luck to you

People on average wages can not afford a home in london, fine but average wages are now so low that even if you turfed out people on full HB, the working people couldn't afford to pay those rents.

Rents need capping and if LL find they can't keep their massive portfolios without charging such obscene sums, well fine, when they sell it will push house prices down. Good. House prices are now 6-7 times the average wage and one of the reasons is because of the boom in buy to let.

Swipe left for the next trending thread