Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
yakbutter · 26/05/2012 16:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Leithlurker · 26/05/2012 16:40

Orwellian said "Blame Labour"
So thats it then that the job done right there then, they big boy did it and ran away. Which means you get to sit and ask patently stupid questiones becouse someone else screwed up and let you be your petty mean and vindictive self. Since when was making life worse for those in need the answer to any problem, huh?

Where does this sense of outrage you have at all these entitled people on benefits who were probably born in london, have family in london, have jobs in London, pay in to the economy of London, come from. I will tell you where it does not come from any kind of economic understanding of what went on, it most likely springs from hatred of a social welfare system that has been fought for, yes in and paid for in the blod of our past generations. Holocaust you say demeans the thread, in that case why exactly did millions die in 2 world wars if it was not secure freedoms from poverty, lack of housing, and a sense of community that people got in the fifties when rich and poor lived side by side unlike now when you would have the poor removed from inner London.
You and the other loons need to stop reading the DM.

amicissimma · 26/05/2012 21:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

amanspointofview · 27/05/2012 17:10

@ buggyRunner

?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?

I get a strong sense that you are in the wrong profession.

?The Work and Pensions Select Committee carried out an inquiry over 2009-10 on the Local Housing Allowance which was published in March 2010. The report of the inquiry states that direct payments are the most controversial aspect of the LHA and the one on which the Committee received most evidence. The Committee supported the continuance of direct payments to tenants as the default option ??as long as the necessary financial advice and vulnerability safeguards are in place.?

The full report can be seen here. hhgrahamjones.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/paying-housing-benefit-direct-to.html

The report is long and complicated but in a nut shell and further to the Pathfinder experiment it concluded that the ?majority? of HB tenants put paying their rent as the number one priority.

But now I will address it from the LL view. Get the maximum allowance and charge on top for utilities. Ignore disrepair and licensing issues, amenity/space standards. Obtained four years purchase and then convert (with our tax payers money) a single dwelling into 6/7 units with no regard to building regs and start again fleecing the system.

I am a home owner but am assisting a vulnerable female individual who is caught up in this nightmare and her shady LL (who has nine directorships and to date 34 properties) is slowly realising that the gravy train stops and the courts do impose severe financial penalties.

OP posts:
dotnet · 29/05/2012 10:33

It looks as if there will be serious repercussions to this, both for tenants and for private landlords.

If a landlord is letting out a house in a poor and run down area, it is more than likely he or she will struggle to find tenants who are responsible and who pay the rent. Some tenants on benefits who know themselves to be tempted to spend rent money on other things, choose to get their rents paid direct to the landlord, rather than find themselves in a mess with an angry landlord who sees their tenancy as unsustainable. One way of doing this is for them to run up a (small) shortfall of rent, thus proving themselves incapable of managing things for themselves.

Now, some of those tenants in high unemployment areas, who frankly are probably never going to be able to get paid work, are facing possible compulsion to get out of their homes. It'll be a massive headache for their landlords, too, many of whom may not be particularly well heeled themselves and who rely on getting every penny of the rent they charge, and don't want the risk of a new, bad tenant or of losing their 'safe' one.

Telling a middleaged unemployed or incapacity benefit person that their two bedroomed flat or house has suddenly become over the top luxury is surely unfair.

The only way the trimming down of rents could fairly be made would be if local authorities got involved in interviewing prospective sharers for a 'too large' house or flat. Bring the existing tenant, the prospective sharer, the landlord and someone from the local authority together, making no charge for the service and funding the landlord's travelling expenses and time. And then, when the existing tenant has made his/her choice of sharer and the landlord has approved it, the local authority needs to take responsibility if the incoming sharer turns out to be no good. The reason being that the cut in rent money from the existing tenant has effectively forced the tenant to share, and forced the landlord to take on an unknown individual as top-up supplier of rent.

This could work, given that many existing tenants probably know people with whom they'd be willing to share - but their landlords don't feel comfortable about saying 'yes' to having a stranger move in.

The incoming co-sharer's rent could reduce or partially reduce the existing tenant's rent, and the landlord and the existing tenant would know they were safely backed up by the local authority, should the new person prove a bad risk and a bad co-sharer.

Going on to the 'holocaust' thing - what a fuss about semantics, when this really IS a nightmare waiting to happen (as, some years down the road, the English students' nightmarish tuition fees repayments will be.)

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 29/05/2012 10:45

dotnet - completely over the top complicated and unnecessary! When I frst moved to london on a very low wage, i looked for a house share - plenty of places already where shares are adveertised and moved into a room at a rent I could afford. It was grotty, but it was a stepping stone. There is no need to get local auhtorities etc involced - perfectly simple transaction between individuals.

yakbutter · 29/05/2012 11:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dotnet · 30/05/2012 15:02

Point is, MrsGuy, a large proportion of the rented accommodation which the govt now deems more spacious than necessary and which they won't fund for sufficient HB, is in difficult to let areas, where getting good tenants is hard. It's likely that privately rented housing will become scarcer in these areas if OK longterm tenants living alone, move out. Landlords may then be tempted to put their houses up for sale. In tough areas, every change of tenancy is an unwelcome necessity - the risk of incoming bad tenants is always a worry.

Unwanted change is being foisted on to both landlords and tenants in these areas, and if the privately rented sector shrinks as a result, that'll be another shot in the foot by this government.

WasabiTillyMinto · 30/05/2012 16:18

Yak, but isn't that normal to not be able to afford dcs in London? My friends have had to move out and just saw it as what happens.

yakbutter · 30/05/2012 16:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WasabiTillyMinto · 30/05/2012 16:48

Yak, DP and my families both come from rough areas with no jobs. We both had to.leave. Its not right but seems normal.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 30/05/2012 18:09

for hundreds of years, and most of the world, families did and do live in crowded spaces - this is the norm, having a bedroom apiece is very recent.

Putthatbookdown · 15/06/2012 21:23

What about all the empty properties in thiscountry? I am sick of looking at the empty house behind me which could easily house a family

Gigondas · 15/06/2012 21:24

Two behind me

FrothyOM · 22/06/2012 13:37

www.24dash.com/news/housing/2012-06-22-Rents-in-London-reach-record-high

What was that about housing benefit cuts driving down rent?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread