It is calculated that a family renting a three bedroom home in the Greater Glasgow Broad Rental Market Area (BRMA) that now receive £160.38p a week (LHA) will, with the new proposed changes receive £138.46p a week, a shortfall of £21.92p a week.
The above measures will also include from April 2011 a cap on the amount of Local Housing Allowance that will be paid, to a maximum of £400 a week for a four bedroom property and a lower cap for smaller properties.
The Department of Work and Pensions estimates that currently there are approximately 5,170 families in the UK who receive more than £400 a week in Housing Benefit to cover costs of rent paid to private landlords. Howard Farrand, president of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said the changes “will impact on the ability of worse-off families to live in more affluent areas, possibly forcing people to leave communities where they have lived for years”.
It will lead to landlords avoiding letting properties to people in receipt of Housing Benefit because of the risk of Housing Benefit being cut.
These changes will affect many families across the UK, not just people housed in parts of the affluent areas of London. A report in the Yorkshire Evening Post estimates that changes to the Local Housing Allowance will affect many families in Leeds, writing, “The Labour leader of Leeds council today claimed that thousands could be made homeless and warned ghettos of cheap, squalid accommodation could be created in the city”.
According to the UK homeless charity, Shelter, up to nearly half of current claimants are already making up a shortfall in rent (not paid by Housing Benefit) of nearly £100 a month. Campbell Robb, Shelter´s chief executive has said, “If this support is ripped out suddenly from under their feet, it will push many households over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness”.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that some families could find themselves forced into “poor quality, overcrowded housing” in areas where private rents were high, such as London and the south-east.
The demography of cities will change as part of a general shift in population. A report in response to the budget from the Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF) commented, “In the longer term, concerns will centre on the potential for the creation of Parisian-style banlieues, areas on the outskirts of the city with concentrations of deprivation, while the city centre becomes exclusively for the very well off. Further analysis will need to be undertaken to establish what is likely to happen in the UK’s spatio-economic context, but the potential for the total exclusion of the poor from large areas is clearly present in the measures announced in the budget”.
Other measures outlined include the cutting of Housing Benefit payments by 10 percent to those who have been in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) for more than a year. This could affect up to an estimated 700,000 people.
JSA claimants are paid £65 a week; and many already struggle to pay utility bills alone, experiencing fuel poverty.
The Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation have warned that many people on JSA live in social housing and cutting their benefit could lead to escalating arrears and hardship.
These proposals come at a time when the homelessness charities are struggling for funding due to falls in charitable donations and local authorities are making cuts in spending on homelessness via the Supporting People’s Budgets.
The government has claimed that the bill for Housing Benefit is unacceptably high, and if people want to live in accommodation that is in a decent area they should have to work and pay for this themselves. This explanation of a supposedly large Housing Benefit bill does not address the deep-seated problems that lie at the heart of the housing crisis affecting so many. Over the past 30 years, many more people have been forced to live in the private rented sector, where the rents can be considerably higher than those in the social housing sector. This is due to major shortfalls in social house building, coupled with the Right to Buy extended to council (Local Authority) house tenants and Right to Acquire for Housing Association tenants.
This was at a time when there was a block Local Authorities being allowed to build new homes that could have replaced some of the houses sold. This led to a massive shortfall in affordable secure accommodation, with many people having to wait on local authority housing waiting lists for years and even decades, often living in poor temporary accommodation.
This situation will be exacerbated by the wider attacks on services and the austerity measures being imposed on millions, including job losses and wage cuts and freezes.
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
JSA is £51.85
06.07.2010 20:40
for those under 25
some facts
06.07.2010 22:03
losing 10% of your LHA will mean someone over 25 will have to find £23,50 a week out of weekly JSA of £65.45 leaving £41.90 for bills food & travel factor in reductions in LHA levels and we are looking at starvation destitution and "criminality" as the only means to survive
(under 25's cant get LHA on a one bed flat - only on house shares where ~LHA is lower but proportionally will be hit almost as hard )
the head of revenue services for Hackney recently stated that they believe new calculations mean LHA could be cut by 40% - 40% of £235 is £94 per week so even if you hadnt had your LHA cut you would need to find £30 a week more than your benefits just to pay the rent BEFORE food, bills etc
this is an assault on the poorest and most vulnerable at a time when unemployment is rising beyond 3 million
the message is clear: get a job- any job- sweeping chimneys, shovelling toxic waste, join the army even?- work for food, work for shelter, know your place and stay on your knees
starfish
Some Facts (corrected)
06.07.2010 22:38
losing 10% of your LHA will mean someone over 25 will have to find £23,50 a week out of weekly JSA of £65.45; leaving £41.90 for bills food & travel. factor in reductions in LHA levels and we are looking at starvation destitution and "criminality" as the only means to survive.
(under 25's cant get LHA on a one bed flat - only on house shares where ~LHA is lower but proportionally will be hit almost as hard )
the head of revenue services for Hackney recently stated that they believe new calculations mean LHA could be cut by 40% - 40% of £235 is £94 per week so even if you haven't already had your LHA cut by 10% for not being able to find a job when there aren't any to be had and you will need to find £30 a week more than you receive in benefits just to pay the rent BEFORE food, bills etc...
this is an assault on the poorest and most vulnerable at a time when unemployment is rising beyond 3 million
the message is clear: get a job- any job- sweeping chimneys, shovelling toxic waste, join the army even?- work for food, work for shelter, know your place and stay on your knees
starfish
Greedy Landlords
06.07.2010 22:45
These Greedy Pigs are Charging Way over the top as there is No Rent Controll.
Fair Rent Tribunals were abolished by Thatcher around the Early 80's..
Since then it's become a Massive Goldmine for Landlords.
The Best way the Government can cut the Housing Benefit Bill is to Retain the Fair Rent Board..
How come this is never mentioned ??
Cold Stomper
13 years of labour and still no fair rents
06.07.2010 23:00
labour were more concerned to fill the pockets of landlords than make any real change.
Building schools too- really a way of filling the pockets of the building industry
i
Fair rents
In the ghetto.
07.07.2010 18:04
No doubt the Rachman landlords will do good business at the expense of their tenants.
The origins of this housing crisis are with Thatcher, when she allowed, or encouraged, the councils to sell off their housing stock. Decades of failure to renew social housing, letting the private landlords take over, has had this result. Back to the slums and the ghettos.
In the meantime, the rich can buy up the poor housing and make a killing.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Rhiannon
re landolords and property prices
08.07.2010 17:09
rachmann
rent strike
08.07.2010 19:36
anarchist
explanation
09.07.2010 22:19
I can't see how you think people on long term benefits are entitled to live in the same nice areas as people who pay their own way. People who work and pay their own way will always have to live in nicer places than people on benefits. Otherwise there is no point in working.
The only reason i go to work, is for the money. I want the money so i can live somewhere nice and do nice things. If I could get the same on benefits, I would stop working.
If no one works then there are no benefits and we would all probably face starvation.
So, to make an incentive for people to work, they benefits have to be better than the incentives for being on long term benefits. Otherwise we would all not bother getting out of bed because it wouldn't be worth going to work. Thats why people on benefits live in poor areas and the 'rich' (people with jobs) don't.
cadburies
housing benefit
12.07.2010 20:20
redtom
e-mail: redtom43@gmail.com
Question about the changes by my local council
28.10.2010 08:44
I asked them if I would be affected. I receive £65.00 per week as I am a JSA claimant and I pay £300.00 a month for my one bedroomed flat.
This is what they said.
'The new proposal mentioned on the 20/10/10 are to streamline line the benefits system, there are currently over 50 different benefits in pay and the plan is to reduce these down.
The budget talked about a housing credit which would start to be rolled out in 2013, however the government has not stated who would administrate the scheme (DWP or Inland Revenue) or how it will work.
The only changes to come into force in April 2011 is the abolishment of the £15.00 top up for customer in receipt of local housing allowance, as you are in receipt of housing benefit and not local housing allowance this would not effect you.'
This is what the Daily Mail had to say yesterday.
'The coalition has announced plans that would limit housing benefit at around £400 a week for a four-bedroom home, and cut payouts by 10 per cent when people have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than a year.'
Charlie
One sided article
06.12.2010 20:03
Your article neglects to mention that housing benefit is effectively a subsidy for landlords which has inflated market rents for all, and which has also helped to inflate the house price bubble of the last decade (higher rents increase the size of mortgage that a buy to let investor is able to cover).
Where I live (South West Hertfordshire) a two bedroom terraced house cannot be rented for less than £1000 per month, if we assume an average wage in Hertfordshire of circa. £30,000 (approx. £2,000 per month net), which I would say is an over generous assumption, this represents at least 50% of an average worker's income per month in housing costs alone.
I believe housing benefit is set at the median of rents for a given area, for a given type of property i.e. if there are four, two bedrom flats available for rent in area x, at rates of £50, £100, £150, and £200 per week, then housing benefit is set at £125 per week.
This is a problem because those receiving housing benefit represent the entry point or floor of the rental market, and over time rate of market rents has inflated because the initial rate of housing benefit (which to re-iterate is calculated as the median of market rents) has eventually become the new floor of the market, and as such housing benefit has been re-assessed, increased, forming a new floor for market rents, in an ever inflating vicious cycle, affecting anyone who rents a property (lowering housing benefits would set this cycle into reverse).
This lack of understanding by successive governments regarding housing benefit has affected low to average paid workers who are not entitled to many benefits the hardest in recent years, and allowing rents to find true market value (not skewed, inflated and subsidised by the benefit system), would allow many low to average paid workers to keep more of their income, which could only be of benefit to their families.
Cutting housing benefit will allow the market to find a new floor, and I would also assert that many housing benefit claimants will be able to re-negotiate their rents rather than become homeless (if a housing benefit claimant should loose their rental property, surely they can be subsequently re-housed at lower costs as market rents fall?).
Yours Sincerely, Andrew H.
Andrew H
e-mail: wibble23@hotmail.com
HB cap already at 30% of average as far as I knew it.
03.07.2011 18:09
I am totally and utterly desperate to find work, but having been called to my son's school constantly in the last month, its difficult to know how an employer would put up with this.
I am already aware the future for us looks grim, expected changes for DLA assessment mean we will probably lose it within the next 18 months. And what happens then, I do not know. It WILL cost the government/LA more money to put my kids into care if we are made homeless. And cause untold emotional damage.., and affect my efforts to get my older son to be self supporting in the future. But no one seems to take things like this into account.
At some point I am going to have a choice.., go out to work, and leave my son in school when he should be brought out because he is going into melt down or lose my job.., or not work and be made homeless. Its not a future I know how to avoid, or look forward to. I am not exaggerating anything here.
H Smith