Don't cap my benefits - BBC1

[SoleSource]

Anybody watching?

Southeastdweller - these types of programmes are always edited in a certain way. I quite deliberately closed my eyes and ears to the attempts to make me think badly of the people concerned by means of selected editing. Who can blame them for being pretty negative about their new "homes"? The whole situation would cause anyone to be extremely negative and depressed.

I simply cannot agree that individuals should be paying the price for the greed of other Londoners. Change the policies for future claimants, fine, but don't force people out of their homes to the detriment of them, their children and our society as a whole.

Yes thanks, I do realise that, Gaelic. That's partly why I avoided Benefits Street. Watched this as my mother encouraged me to. And I don't think the attitudes displayed in the programme are typical of what most benefit claimants think.

I have a disabled child and get benefits (carers for myself and high rate DLA for my disabled child) and if my husband wasn't working and we were renting we would be close to (or even over) the benefit cap. However, it wouldn't be capped because we are outside of the capping rule due to the disability.

As for the issue about dictatorship. Moving somebody to a cheaper area because they rely on the state to pay for their house is Very different from enforcing a CPO because the landlord doesn't want to rent to housing benefit tenants at a rate which the govt says is reasonable. The landlord is allowed to rent just to privately paying tenants if he wishes (and as many do) because it is his house and he can set the rules about what he does with his house. The problem with extortionate rental prices has been fuelled by the right to buy scheme which has seen shrinking numbers of social housing properties. Another factor has been people clamouring to live in certain areas. If you look at any capital city in Europe you will see that rental prices are much higher than prices further out. If people are not willing to pay those rent levels then the properties would be empty. Perhaps you should lobby for the councils to build more social housing which will see tenants able to get an affordable home with a secured tenancy and will see the landlords with a shrinking market and therefore reducing their prices accordingly.
Councils can't just force CPO's onto landlords because we have a law which governs CPO's and fair prices and the govt simply can't afford to buy a mass of London based properties at market prices.

Supply and demand applies to most things that we pay for: holidays, housing, cars, clothing. If lots of people want something then the owner / seller can charge more for it.

I had mixed feelings too but the Ethiopian woman made me cross as I know the street that they gave her. Its not in a bad area of Luton and is really close to the shops and the railway/bus stations. When I was single I used to live literally around the corner and it was a really easy and cheap commute to London on the coach.

I didn't understand how the woman who was studying would avoid the cap if she worked 16 hours yet the guy who worked in the greengrocers was still capped.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of London being available for only the rich.

If it is to remain the business/cultural power house it is, we need working class families to be able to live there.

However whilst I fully support helping working class families to live in Lopndon, there has to be some degree of helping yourself and it seemed that quite a few of those in the programme had no intention of even trying to maximise their independence!

How on earth could a family where only one adult works part time think ti a good idea to have seven children?!?!?! Even if there were copious amounts of social housing, how many would have enoguh bedrooms? How on earth did this family ever think they would earn enough to support themselves, given neither adult had any skills?

Just out of interest does anyone know if Luton and Birmingham have a massive surplus of housing and school places/amenities going?

I know where we live there is very little opportunity to get a private Landlord willing to accept HB and council properties are very few and far between.

I'm in the sleepy part of the SW which struggles to accommodate the locals let alone anyone else

Oh, I didn't realise how old your DD was salsmum. Yes, that is a worry for the future, as so much depends on having a younger child with disabilities, yet DS is likely to be dependent on me for years (forever?) once he's over 19. At the moment child tax credits help a lot, but I wouldn't get that once he leaves school.

The guy in the green grocers was part of a couple so between them they needed to work 24 hours. He was earning £150 per week so I'm not sure if he was working enough hours. The woman is a single person so needs to work 16 hours.

mileysorearse I think it was because the woman was a single mum (so only has to work 16 hours) but the man in the greengrocers would have had to work more hours to avoid the cap if not a lone parent (24?). (Though I think another family were working and wrongly capped (as the council didn't believe they were working), so I wouldn't be surprised if the cap is being incorrectly applied in some cases).

Just out of interest does anyone know if Luton and Birmingham have a massive surplus of housing and school places/amenities going?

I don't know about Luton, but Birmingham has a lot of homeless families living in temporary accommodation so they don't have a surplus.
What sometimes happens is this:
Brent council can't afford to house people in London (even in temp accommodation as it is to expensive in London) but they have a duty of care to families with children. So they approach landlords in cheaper areas and reach agreement with them to find tenants. The council agree to fund a deposit and guarantee a minimum level of rent and sometimes they agree to oversee the tenancy and manage the property. It isn't cheap, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper than housing somebody in London (where housing benefit wouldn't cover the rent anyway and the tenant would get evicted).
There isn't anything stopping Birmingham council from undertaking a similar scheme to get people of out temporary accommodation. I don't know why they are not doing it.
It isn't nice to displace people, but the council are not the people to blame. The benefit cap simply doesn't allow for London private rental prices. The council didn't set the benefit cap.

Yes stripedteatowel I do agree that it isn't always correctly applied. I know that sometimes people are affected because they haven't claimed everything that they are entitled to claim (usually working tax credits).

Thanks for the explanations, I wasn't clear on the rules. Luton has got a lot more expensive since I lived there. 15 years ago you could get a house like they showed for around £40k. I guess a lot were bought by private landlords as there are lots of rental properties. It's still a lot cheaper than anywhere else along the same train line though so young commuters like it, or parts of it.

Thanks for explaining impatient, I couldnt understand how it would work.

I'm glad i dont live in either area as i would have thought the long term repercussions will mean that rents there will now shoot up there in time so people will be forced even further out when they fall into the benefits cap trap

The trend for population in Luton is increasing by over 1500 per year but building is not keeping up with that, housing is getting squeezed so prices will be going up quickly here too. It's not going to be a long term option.

Just watched this. As a full time working mum with two jobs, Msc part time student, three kids one of which is disabled I find it unbelievable a woman wasn't prepared to work 16 hours for the minimum wage to keep her home. What's wrong with people? We would all love to be at home BUT that's not reality. I like the fact I've taught my kids a good work ethos.

As for having 5-7 kids and expecting it to be ok to have £800 a week benefits well really? It's not. Can't afford the kids then don't have them, apply family planning like the rest of us.

Moving people away from their homes is wrong and I do sympathise BUT I also pay nearly £1000 deductions a month so that's my contribution. No tax credits for us and when my kids go to uni it will be full fees for us - unless they pop out children before the age of 25 then it's free, but that is another discussion.......

The point that is so often missed is that these children already exist. They can't be undone, however much the Government might wish that was the case. Therefore they need providing for, and the thing that got to me most last night was the fact that these "reforms" are, in some cases, working against the very thing they claim to try to achieve.

I say, once again, it is not these people's fault that they have found themselves in one of the most insane cities in the Western world. Yes it's all very easy to be wise after the event, and to preach to people who have arrived here with nothing from the developing world, but none of us is perfect.

It is not enough simply to stand by and say, oh well it's sad for the families but if they'd done this or hadn't done that (implication, as I did/didn't because I'm so much more sensible) then they wouldn't be in this mess. That's no good, it doesn't solve anything. By all means reform the system, I'm sure it does need reforming (and yes, such reforms should include placing more responsibilities onto private landlords who are currently raking it in), but don't pull the rug out from under people's feet with a few short months notice. It is cruel, and heartless, and not the behaviour of a civilised country that cares about its citizens.

And impatient of course it isn't currently legal to force landlords to take DSS tenants, but the Government makes new laws every day, and extremely punitive ones at that. There are many things that this Government has implemented that any sane person would say go against the very roots of our society, but implement them they do. Once someone owns more than a couple of properties they should cease to be treated as a private individual and their property portfolio should be seen for what it is: a highly profitable business making easy money from vulnerable people and the taxpayer with little or no responsibility in return. Well, in my opinion that needs to change.

Gaelic - I'm just more disgusted at his ungrateful the families were and their sense of entitlement.

Once someone owns more than a couple of properties they should cease to be treated as a private individual and their property portfolio should be seen for what it is: a highly profitable business making easy money from vulnerable people and the taxpayer with little or no responsibility in return. Well, in my opinion that needs to change.

What is to stop landlords who own multiple properties from 'gifting' houses over the excess level to family members and drawing up an agreement with a solicitor to state that the properties are an invested gift and cannot be sold. There will always be a loophole. What you are suggesting is neither practical nor workable.

The lady from Ethiopia annoyed me when she turned up her nose at the house in Luton - what the hell was she expecting?!

She was barking.

She had been living in one room with her daughters in a hostel for 18 months (?), sleeping on a mattress and keeping her plates and food on the floor because otherwise it would get stolen.

And she complains because she hasn't got a 'proper' living room.

She's been given a free house. Fucking take it! Buy some sodding room dividers!!

I think the Ethiopian woman's attitude came across badly but her real issue probably wasn't the house but the fact that her daughter had not come with her and she felt her family was being torn apart.

"I simply cannot agree that individuals should be paying the price for the greed of other Londoners."
Who is "paying the price now"?

The whole problem is government created in the first place. The housing boom has largely been a result of government policy. Then we needed more government policy so that people could afford to live there on low wages. Now we are seeing the end result of that. Get rid of the all the legislation and let things sort themselves out. You can't have a city where the bins are overflowing and toliets not being cleaned because no-one will do the job for the wages on offer. Wages will rise and rents will lower until they are sustainable.

And the whole "they aren't getting the money, the landlord is" argument is ridiculous. Do people who work (without being on benefits) to pay their rent argue that they don't earn x amount of money, but a lower amount, because their rent money goes straight to the landlord?

Now I understand why the Tories won the election, and will keep on winning. :-(

But do Labour understand that? OR are they going to keep on thinking they are right and that people ar wrong for disagreeing with them and voting Tory (or at least not voting Labour). Are Labour prepared to change in order to get elected or would they rather remain true to their principles and be an opposition party of protest? Isn't it better to be in power and doing SOME of the things you want to do than being out of power and doing NONE of them?

So we just move all the poor and average income people out of the south east then, do we? I can't wait to watch all the rich left behind having to do their own dirty work because there are no more people left to step on.

Fayrae - I must say I see very very little difference between the two parties these days. Luckily I have a vote in September and will be voting to be rid of all of them for good. I feel sorry for those who don't have the choice.