Panorama: Britain's Hidden Homeless Crisis

[expatinscotland]

NOW!

A huge problem is that private renting is so insecure and expensive in this country.

As a result many, many people overstretched themselves financially to buy a home, and many more bought them to let.

When interest rates rise, and they may have to if inflation continues to rise, then the real fallout of the housing bubble will become apparent, compounded by LHA caps, universal credit and private landlords unwilling to take families in receipt of any sort of LHA/HB.

Nananina's response to Kevin surprises me a bit because what he did is precisely what I think I would have done in his circs. A single room in a shared house is surely far more affordable than a one bedroom flat, and less unpleasant than a bedsit where you can share a toilet and kitchen with 20 others. Or am I incredibly naive about the cost of a room in a shared house? It is admittedly 15 years since I've lived in one....

Yes, I've been thinking of this again today and family/friends who have had a change in situation but not been repossessed.

I wondered why none of them took in lodgers. My first thought would be lodgers. A friend who was made redundant, moved out of his house, and let it out. The rent paid the mortgage due to low interest rates. He moved in with parents for short term, but then got a job two hours away, and lodged. He was looking for work all over the UK. Admittedly he did not have children or a girlfriend at the time.

I lodged when working away from home. The owner was a divorcee and he rented out the three spare rooms. He had a massive ensuite bedroom, which had his bed in, along with bunk beds. When his young children stayed at weekends, they had the bunk beds in his room. He did eventually sell the property, but took lodgers in for a couple of years.

Another family I know couldn't sell their 700k house, as they were struggling to pay mortgage, with fall in income. They still own the house, but its rented, with the rent almost covering the mortgage. They were in the fortunate position of having granny live in a big farmhouse on her own, and moved in with her. It's a short term arrangement, but they are now two years into it.

I felt for all the families involved last night.

I was shocked at the cost of the rent for that crummy flat the family of 6 were in though-at taxpapers expense!!!

I think the gov should clamp down on greedy landlords and put a cap on rent they'll pay,check the quality etc.

Surely that would drive prices down.

We have a regular ad in our local paper with "Housing Benefit accepted" at the start. Its advertising rooms and ends with "Deposits available from the local job centre"

As the ads are so regular I can't think the accommodation is up to much

Polka, they are going to do that thoguh aren't they?
And yet people bleat about how mean the govt. are being.
It's madness that the taxpayer has been funding the business ventures of buy to let folk and so many think that is ok.

Well no one seems to be interested in the fact that these were just 4 cases, whereas there are thousands of others in similar plights. Is it only the ones you see on TV that you feel for - or maybe there is a disbelief that there are thousands of people living on the margins of society and is going to get worse.
Polka things my attitude to Kevin is appalling - and you have a perfect right to your opinion of course but I would point out that I did not say he was lying, although I implied that the whole thing was staged, (which I believe) and of course he'd have the same shirt on - it has to look realistic. I have a close friend who is a TV producer and he can't believe how people are taken in by these sorts of programmes, as they are all staged but based on reality. The participants of course have to agree to the filmed in the way that the producer wants, and agree to the "spin" that the producer wants to put on the programme. Why else would it take 12 months to film just for a 1 hour programme.

Mind I do agree with Polka that what needs to happen is that the ceiling should be put on what landlords should be able to charge for often run down properties. This would be a better solution than the ceiling on HB. The govt claim that they thought this would happen - yeah right. And moondog NO "they" are not going to do this, and yes the taxpayer shouldn't be propping up the business ventures of private landlords, but guess who thinks that is fine - why the govt of course. They are in favour of any privatisation, no matter that poorest people are having to live in crap flats, and NO many many people don't think this is ok. These people who think it unfair arenot tory voters!!

Rooble is also surprised at my attitude to Kevin's room in a shared house. The point I am making is that as a single homeless person (cannot be proved whether he is intentionally homeless or not - but that doesn't really matter because he is not in priority need) and therefore the Housing Authority have no duty to house him. Their only duty is to "assist" in finding housing for him, which means at best, giving a list of landlords, which is little use when you don't have a month's rent to put down and the same amount as a deposit and the landlord might want someone to guarantee the rent. In some circumstances the LHA will loan this money to the homeless person in priority need as this is the most "cost effective" way of meeting their duty to the homeless family under the legislation. I am not making any comment about whether Kevin should have been housed, I am simply pointing out what the legislation states. He must have claimed HB too because he only has £14 to his name, so would only be able to claim JSA at £60 per week.

The same would apply to Patricia as she was intentionally homeless and not in priority need, so again the LHA would have no duty other than "assist" which can mean anything. Again I make no comment about whether the LHA should have offered accommodation, I am simply stating what the legislation states. Maybe the LHAs involved in these cases wanted to be seen as being more empathetic than they are allowed tobe under the law.

Ah yes cus he smiled a lot didn't he and talked in a "nice" manner and wasn't at all despondent about having to sleep rough and having no food, even when he turned up for food and the "cupboard was bare" - do you honestly think the camera crew did not give him food and a bed. That would have been in the contract that he signed before the filming started. He was acting a part.

Anyway I think I've had enough of this thread. It has confirmed my suspicions that so many people are totally unaware of the thousands of people in society who are trying to exist, living on the margins of society, and there seem to be quite a few judgemental comments about various of the cases, especially the family of 6, because they swore and didn't send their kids to school, even though someone pointed out it was filmed in August!

The villian of the piece is this govt, and when the cuts really bite in April next year we wil start to see people living in cardboard boxes again on the street.

Wow nana! I'm tempted to ask your opinion on the moon landing!

Sure, its cut down to an hour and just four 'case studies' because stories work better than statistics. It's possible ( for me anyway!) to both see the mistakes made and to feel for the people too. I think they were brave to be featured. I don't look at them and think 'idiots' I look and them and could see a similar worst case scenario unfolding for myself in less favourable circumstances. Yes some more details might not have gone amiss. How did Patricia end up losing the house that theoretically had equity in it? Why didn't the family of four act more quickly, sell the car etc? Possibly because it would have been a drop in the ocean? Only leased? I don't know....

As for Kevin, how do you know that he won't care about homeless people if he gets a job as an investment banker? And why the scepticism that he ever was one? I think this programme touched many people as it demonstrated that security in life is actually quite fragile for most people

I'm all for a bit of healthy critiquing with a dose of cynicism thrown in for good measure but crikey!.

It's a bit of a cliche but I'll mention it anyway. Watch 'cathy come home' to see how it's possible to spiral downwards relatively quickly. It was true then and it's true now.

Sorry but I didn't believe in "Kevin" - I think he was acting a part, and I am of course entitled to my opinion. And do you know any investment banker who is concerned about the most disadvantaged people in our society. I don't, but then I don't know any investment bankers, because I don't mix with people in those kind of high powered jobs. What I do know though is that it was the investment bankers and merchant bankers and their greed for bigger and bigger profits that got this country into the economic mess it is in, and which the tories are making worse by the day for disadvantaged people.

I couldn't care less whether "Kevin" was an investment banker before he fled the USA. What I am struggling to understand is that posters seem to think I have no sympathy for the sorts of people featured in the film and I certainly do, but I am keen to point out that there are thousands of others in this state about which people know nothing, but don't want to engage in any debate about that, as they are too busy wondering why this that and the next thing didn't happen with the people featured.

And no I don't know anything about the moon landing!!

Why are things going to get worse from April. I know the benefits system will change but I don't know exactly how, anyone up to explain?

why did they have 6 kids? were they all from the same relationship?

I don't think it was 6 kids was it not a family of 6 inc 2 adults?

the first family - if they bought their house 10 years ago in London for £500k it has almost certainly increased in value.

however, the reason for having an interest-only mortgage is probably because he was a small businessman and as such could claim some of the mortgage interest as a business expense, reducing his taxable profit. small businessmen often do this - then they pay lump sums in when they get paid for large jobs - to pay down the balance.

i suspect they haven't sold the house because instead of doing that they may have taken out advances against the equity to put into the business - a very bad idea. Not one I would encourage anyone to do. either that or he has also secured business debt against the house.

this would leave them with a 100% mortgage of high monthly repayments and no equity, therefore no reason to sell the house - they won't get anything for it - better to sit tight spinning out the mortgage company in the hope of another building job.

both the Condems and Labour had plans to build masses more housing - this hasn't come to pass (and isn't going to) because planning pushed at a national level is almost always opposed at a local level even by politicians of the same stripe.

for instance, the proposed plan for 70 new houses in my area on the site of a former tree nursery is being blocked by our local labour ex-councillor and a pressure group formed by the people already living in the area. there are no votes in housing development - the people that move in won't know which politicans helped those houses get built, yet the existing resident will vote against that same politician.

'Cathy Come Home' should be required viewing in schools i think. Yes, it's dated but still so relevant. I still cannot bear to watch the scene where the children are taken away as she tries to bed them down for the night on the bench. As far as Kevin is concerned, when i was working at the day centre, we had a very similar man come in - he simply could not believe what had happened to him and was in a very sorry state. We did what we could etc and off he went. About a year later, he came back - he'd managed to get himself sorted out and was doing ok. He ended up being a volunteer - may still be actually, and was brilliant. he said he was one of the people who avoided the homeless on the streets but the experience had taught him. So, maybe kevin and people like this who DO exist, will become the new voice for the homeless in the future?

Ed - bugger forgotten his surname - I've got his autobiography. Very good stuff

Of course people like Kevin exist. Just because you have a well-paid job at one point in your life doesn't mean everyone is savvy with that money (although that's harder to believe when someone is supposedly working in finance - I've worked in investment banks myself and most people I worked with were very financially savvy indeed, as you would hope). But people overstretch themselves, re-mortgage, invest in things they shouldn't that go belly up or lose value overnight (anyone remember the dot-com bubble, or the various Ponzi schemes that have come to light recently - Bernie Madoff, etc). People are naturally optimistic and when times are good it's hard to imagine how wrong they can go.

Autumnglory you ask why things will get worse in April next year. At the moment LHAs pay Housing Benefit to those who fulfil the criteria and are in private rented accommodation, which in most cases, equates to the amount of rent the landlord wants. Some families have to pay a small "top up" out of money they earn or from benefits.

The govt are going to put a ceiling on Housing Benefit rates and I am not exactly sure of the figures but I think the ceiling on a 3 bedroom house will be something like £350.00 per month. No landlord is going to let this type of house for that figure, which means that the family will need to "top up" to the rent (probably around £500 - £600 a month) dependent on where you live. There will be very few families, either those working on low pay and certainly those on benefits who simply will not be able to afford this top up, so landlords will go to court for a Possession Order and then if the arrears are still building up (which they will be) they will go to court to get an Eviction Order, and as we saw on the programme, you have to get out by a certain date and the bailiffs arrive and the locks are changed.

Landlords won't have great difficulty in re-letting their properties for much higher rents because so many people need private rented accommodation because they have no hope of getting a mortgage and buying their own home. Most builing societies are asking for 25% of the purchase price as a deposit. There are not many "ordinary" people who have that sort of money available.

OK back to the family that has been evicted. They will be deemed to be intentionally homeless because of rent arrears but in priority need because they have children, so the LHA has a duty in law to provide them with temporary accommodation and this can be like the sorts of things we saw on the programme, 2 bedrooms in a shared house for large families, sharing bathroom and kitchen with 20 other families. Worse still they could be put into B & B accomodation and this is about as bad as it can get, as they are run down places with no cooking facilities and some B & Bs will not allow families to remain in the property during the day. BUT the LHA has fulfilled their duty, as they have provided a roof over their head - end of matter. Even though they are only meant to provide accdt for a temporary period they will not evict families with children from these types of accommodation.

BUT Cameron and Osborne have another trick up their sleeve. They have changed the Housing Legislation, so that the LHA only has to provide accommodation for 1 year, and if families lose the accdt for whatever reason, then the LHA will have no further duty in law to help them. SO what then? Children will not be able to be taken into care for 2 reasons 1) The Children Act 1989 states that no child should be taken into care because of homelessness - the task should be for the LA SSD to provide funding for a new home, although of course the govt could change that legislation to, so that the onus is upon the LA SSD and 2) The LA won't take the children into care anyway as their budgets have been slashed by this govt and they won't have the funding to provide a new home for the family. BUT the govt will be able to blame LA Social Care for not finding the family a home.

They were also going to stop under 25's receiving any HB but I think Clegg has made them put a stop to that, but I think they will only provide HB for someone under 25 to have 1 room in a shared house.

The thing is these changes are mostly going to effect people in work as 60% of HB claimants are in work, but in very low paid jobs, or can only work part time because they are being denied full time posts because the business (be it shop, factory or whatever) are struggling themselves to keep going. It is an absolute disgrace that people are working but cannot afford to pay their way, because this bloody govt is pulling the rug from under them every which way. A large percentage of people also affected will be those on JSA (around £60 per week) and searching for jobs that are just not there, and there will be no way they can "top up" rent from the meagre allowance they get, so they will be evicted and if it's a family placed in one room maybe, or some grotty B & B. It's absolutely horrendous. Sadly many tenants don't know what is going to hit them when this comes into effect in April next year.

I urge anyone who is concerned to contact SHELTER the national organisation for the homeless and they are brilliant, but of course they can't change the law.

I don't really want to talk about Kevin again, but please be assured that of course I am aware that people like Kevin exists, hundreds of them. My point was that this particular "Kevin" was staged and maybe that's ok because if it drives the point home then so be it. Still posters on here are wondering why the people featured didn't do this that or the next thing, and seem reluctant to believe that hundreds of thousands of people are struggling out there and things will only get worse.