Social housing tenants 'will be priced out of home areas'

[stu007]

Many families in England could be forced out of their council homes and be unable to afford alternative housing in the same area, new research says.

 

Subsidised rents for households earning more than £30,000, or £40,000 in London, will be scrapped in April 2017.

 

Social housing tenants will be asked to pay rent at or near market rates.

 

Ministers say it "better reflects people's ability to pay" - but Labour and the Local Government Association say it would hit hard-working families.

 

The department for communities and local government argues that is "not fair that hard-working people are subsidising the lifestyles of those on higher than average incomes, to the tune of £3,500 per year".

 

Read More HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35515993

[MaxxPower]

People earning over £30,000 a year can get subsidised rent....?

I can't say I have a problem with that stopping to be honest.

[Conniff]

£40,000 pa, sell your bloody Jaguar and use that money to subsidise your lifestyle. Why the hell should the Government and the people pay greedy landlords council or private.

It's time to stop all theses taken for granted handouts.

[mikeymack2002]

There was a program on TV recently where the Estate Agent said the rent is £500 then asked if they were on benefits. Then they said the rent will be £650.00 because you are on benefits.

 

The show? Slum landlords

[Conniff]

It's because landlords know that they can get the money they will continually put them up. If the answer was no then rents would drop.

[mikeymack2002]

I think you have missed the point here the rent was xx working then the rent went up when on benefits to xx..

 

 

This is taking money out of the public purse to fill those of the agent/LL

 

 

Some quick maths for 1 tenant rent £650 (benefits) £550 (working) extra profit pm is £100 x that by 12, now times that by the 200+ tenants they have on their books that are on benefits. In this case for ONE agency that relates to £1/4m pa out of the public purse now times that lets say there are 10 Agencies in the town that's a staggering amount of money. Going even further if this sum was used across a County then omg. Going silly now take this sum and X its across the Country.

 

 

Now this IS a serious amount of money. Money that could be spent on services like Hospitals/Care for the elderly and so on. Instead we as tax payers are losing out on priority services because these rouge LL's/agencies who are profiteering from the public purse. This angers me so....

[Conniff]

It's because landlords know that they can get the money they will continually put them up. If the answer was no then rents would drop.

 

I'm not missing the point, that is what I said.

[citizenB]

It's because landlords know that they can get the money they will continually put them up. If the answer was no then rents would drop.

 

This was always going to be a problem - whilst the government/tax payer was funding some or all of the rent, then the Landlord would increase the rent as much as they could.

 

This has nothing to do with the person who is renting - they are at the mercy of the landlords.

[citizenB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

 

Brings back memories of Peter Rachman during the 1950's - 1960's

[Steve__M]

I am no expert, but £30K does not sound like a huge wage for 2 people with a couple of kids. It could be two people in full-time work on minimum wage, paying for rent, food, heating, tax, council tax, nursery, travel to work, phones.

 

If a couple with 2 kids have one partner earning £20K, will the other take a £10K part-time job when the kids are old enough to go to nursery if they are risking their home?

 

What if the person on £20K is offered a £10K raise to become a supervisor, or gets a lot of over-time one year? Should they be evicted?

[Sidewinder]

The problem here is largely that it is HOUSEHOLD income. That is potentially 2 x minimum wage earning householders and a minimum wage earning teenage child.

 

In my part of the world, Council rent is currently around £100 a week for a terraced house. So under the 'Pay To Stay' legislation requiring that tenants pay market rate that rent will increase to well over £220 per week. We aren't talking about removal of direct subsidies here as the tenant does not receive HB, but a rent increase of over 100%, with the increase going to the Exchequer, not the local authority

 

Where does this leave the tenants, already working hard to afford costs of living? What about the child, who will now be even further away from ever leaving home, as a bigger proportion of his or her income will have to go into the family pot to pay the increased rent each month?

 

I cannot see how this policy makes sense other than for those with 6 figure salaries still living in social housing. More families are likely to scale down work to meet the income cap, rent arrears and evictions will increase and benefits will have to pick up the tab. Those who can afford to, (providing they are not too old and are creditworthy) will exercise the right to buy which will further reduce social housing stock, which will in turn push the rent on private accommodation even higher.

 

I just can't see the sums adding up

[45002]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

 

Brings back memories of Peter Rachman during the 1950's - 1960's

 

Have a read of Shirley Green book called "Rachman"

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rachman-Landlord-Whose-Became-Byword/dp/0600203786/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455312355&sr=1-2&keywords=Rachman

 

Where going backwards