Yesterday The Times had a useful commentary on problems that could be created by housing benefit. Unfortunately there is a charging barrier at Timesonline. But here are a few excerpts:
"...the Government’s proposals seem extraordinarily simplistic and hasty. From next April, there will be a national cap on housing benefit. Anyone living in a property that costs more than the upper limit (£250 for a one-bedroom flat rising to £400 a week for a four-bedroom home) will either have to pay the difference or move out. From next October, the rate at which housing benefit is set will be lowered so that it is based on the cheapest third of properties in an area rather than the average rent. Farther down the track, the coalition is also planning to cut 10 per cent from the housing benefit of anyone who has been unemployed for more than a year.
In London, where rents are higher than most other parts of the country, the changes will be devastating for many people. Last week, a group of councils warned that 82,000 families could be forced to move out of the city centre as a result of the reforms. They have already taken block bookings at bed and breakfasts in towns within striking distance of the capital. Like Paris, London could soon become a wealthy enclave, surrounded by impoverished banlieues."
"...The National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, estimates that 1.3 million households will be affected across the country and that many of these families will be at risk of losing their homes. Paul Rees, the assistant director, says: “We fear an explosion of homelessness with more people sleeping on the streets than at any time in the past 30 years.”
"Boris Johnson has condemned the “draconian” housing benefit reforms. In evidence submitted to a committee of MPs, the Citizens Advice Bureau says it is “highly regrettable that the housing implications of these cuts do not appear to have been given any consideration in advance of decisions being made”.
"...The Government accuses critics of the policy of “scare-mongering”. It puts the figure for the number of families who will be affected by the changes closer to 17,000. But officials admit that there is no accurate figure. Nobody knows whether landlords will lower their rents to keep the reliable housing-benefit tenants or keep rents the same and fill their properties with young professionals who cannot afford to buy a home.
There are other unanswered questions. If a family cannot pay the difference between the housing benefit cap and their rent, and get thrown out by their landlord, what happens? Does the local authority have a duty to rehouse them in the area? Or, having defaulted on their rent, will they be seen as responsible for their own homelessness and so beyond the protection of the State?"
The full article for those willing/able to pay the charge is at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/rachelsylvester/article2781534.ece
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Housing • Welfare benefits
Comments (1)
TrackBack (26)
Comments
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/10/have_the_housin.php on line 297
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/10/have_the_housin.php on line 297
OH dear! What a shame! 1,300,000 innocent landlords forced to look after houses and flats which a heartless government has emptied of tenants!
Despite Boris's rare moment of stupidity, it won't happen, will it? If these poor landlords don't want to have their properties lie empty, then the less pigheaded might hit upon the notion of reducing the rents.
Housing Benefit is, and always was, a daft way of spending public money, and the sooner it is abolished, the better. What it does, mainly, is to push up the price of housing at the lower end of the market, putting money directly into the landlords' pockets and making it more difficult for young people to get a foot onto the housing ladder.
The housing problem has been largely brought about by barely-controlled immigration, together with the procreational propensities of some recent immigrants. In the longer term, an increasing population can only put more and more pressure on the housing market. Is the country just going to keep putting up with this unwanted growth in population? Can nothing be done?
In the shorter term, and if the government wants to spend public money on lower-cost housing, then it should act to increase supply rather than to increase demand. Big house-builders own much of the land, so it would seem sensible to explore with them how the state can finance the construction of low-cost housing on it.
Meanwhile, if some low-paid Londoners decide to move out (an echo from fifty years past when the new towns were built), any resulting increases in the cost of hiring workers in the capital might just stimulate more businesses to follow them. And a good thing too, if it curbs the city's population growth and makes it a pleasanter place - because less overcrowded - for those who remain.
Posted by: Philip Talmage at November 2, 2010 05:44 PM