One in three 'behind on rent' since housing benefit changes

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • gmb45
    Admin Assistant
    • Nov 2008
    • 7538

    #1

    One in three 'behind on rent' since housing benefit changes

    One in three council tenants affected by a recent cut to housing benefit has fallen behind on rent since the policy took effect, figures suggest.

    The TUC's False Economy campaign made Freedom of Information requests to all of Britain's councils; 114 responded.


    Data revealed 50,000 tenants had fallen into arrears since 1 April 2013 when the spare room subsidy was scrapped - a move critics called the bedroom tax.


    The government said the figures did not represent "long-term" changes.


    The policy was introduced to reduce the housing benefit bill and free up homes for families living in overcrowded conditions.


    It means that housing benefit was cut to tenants in a council or housing association property who are deemed to have bedrooms they do not need.


    The Department of Work and Pensions said the policy is in its early stages and it was "carefully monitoring the policy nationally, ensuring the extra funds to support vulnerable tenants are used well as these changes are introduced".


    False Economy's report is the biggest study of the effects of the benefit change carried out so far.


    None of the 50,000 tenants were in arrears prior to the benefit changes.


    'Only get worse'
    The council with the greatest percentage of tenants who had fallen behind was Barrow in north-west England.

    Of the 289 tenants there affected by the cut, 219 have not been able to pay rent since the policy came into effect.


    False Economy campaign manager Clifford Singer said the figures show that, along with other benefit cuts, the benefit change is "driving tenants and families who were just making ends meet into arrears".


    He predicted that tenants could struggle even more if council payments designed to help the most in need stop.


    ''The worst part is that these figures have been collated while councils' emergency Discretionary Housing Payments are still available; they are being used up at record speed and when they run out, these figures will only get worse," Mr Singer said.


    The National Housing Federation has also carried out a survey looking at the numbers of tenants in arrears.


    It found that a quarter of households affected by the cut have fallen behind in their rent for the first time ever - 11,000 out of 44,000 households were in arrears according to data given by 38 of England's housing associations.


    The National Housing Federation's Chief Executive David Orr, called the figures "damning".


    "What more evidence do politicians need that the bedroom tax is an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families? There is no other option but to repeal," he said.


    'Have to lump it'

    The National Housing Federation estimated in March that although 180,000 households were under-occupying two bedroom social homes, only 85,000 one-bed social homes became available in 2011-2012.

    It is one of the reasons why Tony Wilson, a former civil servant who worked on housing policy, thinks that rent arrears could become the new normal in social housing.


    Now head of policy at Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, he said that research shows most tenants are unlikely to move out of their homes - instead they will deal with the cuts.

    "Essentially people either reduce what they spend, or they find work.

    The problem is that even where people are looking for work, they're not finding it.


    "I think, going forward, this is going to be a permanent problem for social landlords and for Local Authorities, of increasing rent arrears.

    To some extent, they're going to have to put up with that, they're going to have to lump it.''
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BBC News - One in three 'behind on rent' since housing benefit changes
    support mountain resue

    support digital-kaos here


    forum rules

    no keygens or torrents to be posted no autodata discussions

    pish pt walkers


  • chalky 4
    DK Veteran
    • Dec 2008
    • 288

    #2
    Hard working immigrants need better housing for breeding. There has to be hardship for some to attain the golden age ahead foreseen by Anthony Blair.

    Comment

    • super jumbe
      V.I.P. Member
      • Dec 2008
      • 11610

      #3
      Confused, Most unemployed rent free paid direct to the council/landlords spare room now they call preying room, some complaining ghost in the spare room do not open.
      Tools owned: Hammer, Chisel, Crowbar, Punch, Chainsaw, Cutter and Brain!!!

      Did you know People will question all the good things they hear about you but believe all the bad without a second thought.

      Note:
      All information given is to be used for educational purposes only and should not be taken seriously.

      Comment

      • GastonJ
        V.I.P. Member
        • Dec 2009
        • 5505

        #4
        TBH one of the biggest reasons that the overall bill for benefits related to housing are so high is that private renting landlords had it easy. They named their price on the rent and the council/benefits agency just paid up without any real questions. The landlords knew it so kept upping the rent. So they created their own problem when the costs started to be questioned. I have no sympathy for landlords, that charge high rent for properties that a lot of them don't maintain properly, who have tenants who fail to pay.

        I read somewhere that rents are at an all time high, did they expect debts not to also follow along the same lines?
        My master plan is to live forever..... going to plan so far
        Despite the cost of living, it's still very popular.
        No good deed goes unpunished....

        Comment

        • Cod3waX
          Banned
          • Mar 2011
          • 1011

          #5
          it is good to know that the council are prepared to pay someone else's mortgage but not yours not even for a short period of time

          Comment

          • GastonJ
            V.I.P. Member
            • Dec 2009
            • 5505

            #6
            Originally posted by Cod3waX
            it is good to know that the council are prepared to pay someone else's mortgage but not yours not even for a short period of time
            Sounds about right. At the end of the day a lot of private landlords take out buy to let mortgages, in the expectation that the person renting the house covers the mortgage and running costs and at the end teh landlord has a house paid for while having to pay nothing themselves. Had Maggie not forced councils to sell off houses, there wouldn't have been the 'boon' in private lettings, rents may not have increased as much as they had, benefits wouldn't have had to rise as much as they did to pay for private rentals and the benefits bill wouldn't have been so high. Another one traced back to Maggie....
            My master plan is to live forever..... going to plan so far
            Despite the cost of living, it's still very popular.
            No good deed goes unpunished....

            Comment

            • Snowy79
              DK Veteran
              • Jan 2011
              • 1347

              #7
              I'm not quite sure it was Maggies fault for the shortage of housing. The family living in the house bought it anyway so even if they never it would still not be available for anyone else. Simple maths. If you've one million council houses occupied by council tenants and no vacancies then 500,000 of them buy them you've still no vacancies. What you do have though is 500,000 less homes to maintain and the profits of 500,000 sales.

              Where the problem arises is very few Governments, Labour included used this money to build new houses. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good bit of anti Maggie propaganda.

              Comment

              • Snowy79
                DK Veteran
                • Jan 2011
                • 1347

                #8
                They should limit the amount of properties a landlord can rent out. I've seen it in Glasgow where one landlord rents out only to DSS tenants. He charges the highest rents he can and has hundreds of properties. Some of which he's paid buttons for and just given a lick of paint. The junkies and drop outs don't care as they have a roof over their heads and don't pay for it.

                Comment

                • gc1966
                  DK Veteran
                  • Mar 2011
                  • 2434

                  #9
                  anti Maggie propaganda????? which govt decided to sell off social housing,who was the leader of that govt.the family living in it could only buy it due to the introduction of this policy,which govt was it again and who was leader.simple fact.if you have 1 million properties inhabited by social tenents with zero option to ever own the property they reside in,they do 1 of 2 thngs,they accept and stay where they are because social housing at that time was cheaper than buying by a considerable margin or bought from a private house builder.this allowed the govt to keep hold of both an appreciating asset and fulfilling what should be the core policy of any govt.the money raised by the sell off was never intended to be used to replace social housing,quite the opposite in fact.anti Maggie propaganda,i think not,a greedy govt using its tenure to wriggle out of its obligations and make a quick buck.that is all it was,btw if you see sid tell him.

                  Comment

                  • GastonJ
                    V.I.P. Member
                    • Dec 2009
                    • 5505

                    #10
                    Sid is busy looking at buying the post office and lloyds wen the selling starts, so isn't around right now. However if the sales go like other Tory led sales of what's left of the UK the finance sector will make huge profits, the shareholders will be making huge profits and the consumer can go suck on an egg - if the consumer has any money left by the time they've paid for the others to profit.
                    My master plan is to live forever..... going to plan so far
                    Despite the cost of living, it's still very popular.
                    No good deed goes unpunished....

                    Comment

                    • gc1966
                      DK Veteran
                      • Mar 2011
                      • 2434

                      #11
                      yep,and it makes my pish boil to think that another great british institution will be sold to profiteering multi national companies whose one and only concern will be to raise revenue for their shareholders thereby shafting the british consumer.

                      Comment

                      • super jumbe
                        V.I.P. Member
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 11610

                        #12
                        Where did they get this figure from, I am still confused as the heading indicates 1 in 3 behind housing benefit I could believe if they say 1 in 10 because on the street I live none behind rent yet
                        Tools owned: Hammer, Chisel, Crowbar, Punch, Chainsaw, Cutter and Brain!!!

                        Did you know People will question all the good things they hear about you but believe all the bad without a second thought.

                        Note:
                        All information given is to be used for educational purposes only and should not be taken seriously.

                        Comment

                        • gc1966
                          DK Veteran
                          • Mar 2011
                          • 2434

                          #13
                          are you sure sj,just cos they have a 40g car on their front does not mean they are not having sausage casserole for tea

                          Comment

                          • Snowy79
                            DK Veteran
                            • Jan 2011
                            • 1347

                            #14
                            I take it then that only under Maggie Thatchers government people bought their houses and whats the point of having an appreciating asset if it's never going to be sold ? Like I say. All parties are as bad as each other. Policies go through the house of Lords that are made up of all parties before getting the go ahead. Maybe explain why there are more Labour peers on the boards of the major housing associations than any other party.

                            Originally posted by gc1966
                            anti Maggie propaganda????? which govt decided to sell off social housing,who was the leader of that govt.the family living in it could only buy it due to the introduction of this policy,which govt was it again and who was leader.simple fact.if you have 1 million properties inhabited by social tenents with zero option to ever own the property they reside in,they do 1 of 2 thngs,they accept and stay where they are because social housing at that time was cheaper than buying by a considerable margin or bought from a private house builder.this allowed the govt to keep hold of both an appreciating asset and fulfilling what should be the core policy of any govt.the money raised by the sell off was never intended to be used to replace social housing,quite the opposite in fact.anti Maggie propaganda,i think not,a greedy govt using its tenure to wriggle out of its obligations and make a quick buck.that is all it was,btw if you see sid tell him.

                            Comment

                            • gc1966
                              DK Veteran
                              • Mar 2011
                              • 2434

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Snowy79
                              I take it then that only under Maggie Thatchers government people bought their houses and whats the point of having an appreciating asset if it's never going to be sold ? Like I say. All parties are as bad as each other. Policies go through the house of Lords that are made up of all parties before getting the go ahead. Maybe explain why there are more Labour peers on the boards of the major housing associations than any other party.
                              no,it was under Maggie thatchers govt that people were first allowed to purchase this appreciating asset that stuffed it up for every proceeding social housing tenant,policies do go through the house of lords.but as you say when all are pishing in the same pot the outcome will always be what it was.are you referring to labour m.p.s today or back when these policies were implemented.

                              Comment

                              Working...