Discussion
Guam said:
Indeed, I imagine there are a number of bottom feeding legal types, salivating at the prospect of what could ensue.
I doubt it, as I don't imagine there'll be legal aid for this kind of thing and I wouldn't expect insurers to take such a risk for 'no win no fee'. Not to mention, the victory would be in staying in your house, rather than lots of damages. If there's no pot of gold and nobody to pay any money, the bottom feeders will stick to feeding from, er, bottoms.If I remember rightly, there has already been a legal challenge to the policy, which I think failed.
Guam said:
The key thing here will be the costs that those evicted were put to and whether the actions taken will have been reasonable, given there appears to be nowhere to have moved these guys to, it wont be about the policy I reckon, it will be about fairness reasonableness and PH's pet hate "Human rights". You cant just toss folk on the street where they are unable to meet a requirement applied some years after the tenancies were taken up I would suspect.
BV would be useful on this issue as I would imagine this stuff will be right up his street.
If someone is so poor they can't afford another £14 or so a week to rent where they live, how do you think they will generate any significant costs in being evicted?BV would be useful on this issue as I would imagine this stuff will be right up his street.
grantone said:
Are tenants in rent arrears getting evicted, or are the housing associations taking the hit?
generally, we are taking the hit, although our arrears haven't gone up that much. We employed someone to provide financial advice to tenants and work with them to ensure they are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled. In the past 12 months, we've helped around 300 households bring in extra money by, on average, £1k a year.so, that's an increase of £300k on the welfare bill which just goes to show that as I've said previously - the 'bedroom tax' is not saving the tax payer any money.
on the flip side - we've helped about 30 tenants find work.
rover 623gsi said:
generally, we are taking the hit, although our arrears haven't gone up that much. We employed someone to provide financial advice to tenants and work with them to ensure they are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled. In the past 12 months, we've helped around 300 households bring in extra money by, on average, £1k a year.
so, that's an increase of £300k on the welfare bill which just goes to show that as I've said previously - the 'bedroom tax' is not saving the tax payer any money.
on the flip side - we've helped about 30 tenants find work.
I note nobody seems to mention the Discretionary Housing Payments, which local authorities can and do use to top up the shortfall where a claimant is genuinely in need. Parliament topped up this fund and gave guidance specifically to ensure people where not put to unnecessary hardship by the decrease in Housing Benefit where a property was under-occupied.so, that's an increase of £300k on the welfare bill which just goes to show that as I've said previously - the 'bedroom tax' is not saving the tax payer any money.
on the flip side - we've helped about 30 tenants find work.
Eric Mc said:
That does exists but each Council can use the fund as they see fit - so criteria for its use varies wildly throughout the country.
I agree there is a wide discretion given to the LA over whether to make an award, however it's not quite "using the fund as they see fit". The fund is specifically for people on either council tax or housing benefit (or both) and must be to help people meet housing costs. It is not so wide a remit as to make it an arbitrary jolly fund!There is also a set of guidelines, which can be found here;
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
rover 623gsi said:
generally, we are taking the hit, although our arrears haven't gone up that much. We employed someone to provide financial advice to tenants and work with them to ensure they are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled. In the past 12 months, we've helped around 300 households bring in extra money by, on average, £1k a year.
so, that's an increase of £300k on the welfare bill which just goes to show that as I've said previously - the 'bedroom tax' is not saving the tax payer any money.
on the flip side - we've helped about 30 tenants find work.
Thanks for the detailed reply, and Eric Mc your reply as well. It raises more questions for me...so, that's an increase of £300k on the welfare bill which just goes to show that as I've said previously - the 'bedroom tax' is not saving the tax payer any money.
on the flip side - we've helped about 30 tenants find work.
Is there a point at which housing associations would evict tenants in arrears, or would they cope with the lower revenue streams for the foreseeable future and leave them in place?
Do the housing associations take the legal risk on making an eviction that is not reasonable?
If housing associations have consistently lower revenues or a big legal bill, does the Government pick up the tab through maybe the Homes & Communities Agency or the local council?
Its new territory for the Housing Associations.
Housing Associations do have the power to evict and they sometimes do this - usually for tenants involved in Anti-Social Behaviour or persistent arrears.
The problem is that these new rules are creating problems for lots of people who's rents have gone up but who won't or can't move - and who previously were able to keep up with their rents.
So, the incidence of arrears are starting to climb and suddenly what was once a fairly isolated event is now becoming much more commonplace. The recent Parliamentary report into the first six months of the scheme seems to bear this out
As I said earlier, will we get so far that mass evictions will start taking place or will the scheme be scrapped - or severely curtailed - before we get to this point?
With an election coming in less than a year it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
Housing Associations do have the power to evict and they sometimes do this - usually for tenants involved in Anti-Social Behaviour or persistent arrears.
The problem is that these new rules are creating problems for lots of people who's rents have gone up but who won't or can't move - and who previously were able to keep up with their rents.
So, the incidence of arrears are starting to climb and suddenly what was once a fairly isolated event is now becoming much more commonplace. The recent Parliamentary report into the first six months of the scheme seems to bear this out
As I said earlier, will we get so far that mass evictions will start taking place or will the scheme be scrapped - or severely curtailed - before we get to this point?
With an election coming in less than a year it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
Guam said:
Matt Sketch said:
Did you actually read what I said before replying or did you just pick on this point and use it out of context on purpose? 
I completely agree with the need for society to help citizens out and in the case of housing, the fair way to do that for the whole of society is minimum required and no more. If people want more than that then it should be down to them to provide it not the state.
I truly fail to see how that is a radical concept.
It isn't a radical concept, but you are missing two key issues, first Stock of available properties, you cant penalise folk for not moving unless you have somewhere to put them.I completely agree with the need for society to help citizens out and in the case of housing, the fair way to do that for the whole of society is minimum required and no more. If people want more than that then it should be down to them to provide it not the state.
I truly fail to see how that is a radical concept.
Second those who NEED extra room due to health reasons (disabilities etc).
Its those two points that cause the bulk of concerns for many, where the policy is concerned. Also they have been the same concerns since the policy was announced and the political elites are only now waking up to these issues.
there are arrangements for those who have a clinicla need for additional room , however people actually have to apply for this help and provide evidence, shock horror, this means RSL tenants taking responsibility for their own actions - you only need look at some of the so called 'support' groups to see the mindset of those who seem to revel in how hard done to they are and how nasty the government and the resat of society are by requiring them to submit evidence of their needs and be subject to assessments by clinicians and housing professionals.
Guam said:
mph1977 said:
there are properties available, the difference between the truth and the truth as per the housing pressure groups and the leftie ridden ALMOs is that tehy haven;t got these properies in their grip, becasue old-style council tenancies are in fact more secure than owning your own house there is a reluctance by those who have these gold plated tenancies to give them up - so they claim they can only move if it is with the same RSL
there are arrangements for those who have a clinicla need for additional room , however people actually have to apply for this help and provide evidence, shock horror, this means RSL tenants taking responsibility for their own actions - you only need look at some of the so called 'support' groups to see the mindset of those who seem to revel in how hard done to they are and how nasty the government and the resat of society are by requiring them to submit evidence of their needs and be subject to assessments by clinicians and housing professionals.
Sources for that would be good, certainly the figures I found in various outlets over the last 12 months indicated a definite major shortfall of available properties, indeed some were corroborated in hansard which I also linked to, from where I sit on the numbers available it doesn't seem to be a left wing conspiracy (although doubtless political capital will and is being made of the numbers)there are arrangements for those who have a clinicla need for additional room , however people actually have to apply for this help and provide evidence, shock horror, this means RSL tenants taking responsibility for their own actions - you only need look at some of the so called 'support' groups to see the mindset of those who seem to revel in how hard done to they are and how nasty the government and the resat of society are by requiring them to submit evidence of their needs and be subject to assessments by clinicians and housing professionals.
Have you spotted why a certain sector of society might not be able to rent these properties - especially in the South?
And there is my contention about forcing people out of homes they have lived in for decades. There are all sorts reasons why leaving such a property can be traumatic - often due to mental health issues.
Or do these concerns not matter?
And there is my contention about forcing people out of homes they have lived in for decades. There are all sorts reasons why leaving such a property can be traumatic - often due to mental health issues.
Or do these concerns not matter?
yes, there are plenty of 1 and 2-bed properties in the private sector relative to the social sector.
The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
back in the day I grew up in a social housing property - mum thought we were posh because everyone else lived in a council house...
anyway, my dad was a telephone engineer. Neighbour one side was a postie. Neighbour the other side was a bus driver. The council estate near us was full of people like that. I didn't know anyone who's dad was unemployed. There were even teachers and policemen that lived there.
But nowadays, because we build less, the bus drivers, the posties and the telephone engineers like my dad would struggle to get social housing and would end up renting privately. It's a real shame. imho of course.
anyway, my dad was a telephone engineer. Neighbour one side was a postie. Neighbour the other side was a bus driver. The council estate near us was full of people like that. I didn't know anyone who's dad was unemployed. There were even teachers and policemen that lived there.
But nowadays, because we build less, the bus drivers, the posties and the telephone engineers like my dad would struggle to get social housing and would end up renting privately. It's a real shame. imho of course.
Eric Mc said:
Its new territory for the Housing Associations.
Housing Associations do have the power to evict and they sometimes do this - usually for tenants involved in Anti-Social Behaviour or persistent arrears.
The problem is that these new rules are creating problems for lots of people who's rents have gone up but who won't or can't move - and who previously were able to keep up with their rents.
So, the incidence of arrears are starting to climb and suddenly what was once a fairly isolated event is now becoming much more commonplace. The recent Parliamentary report into the first six months of the scheme seems to bear this out
As I said earlier, will we get so far that mass evictions will start taking place or will the scheme be scrapped - or severely curtailed - before we get to this point?
With an election coming in less than a year it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
You should also bear in mind the incidences of arrears has gone up massively due to the introduction of the universal benefits. Many people who are in social housing and are long term unemployed have never really had to pay their own rents and can't seem to manage their own finances.Housing Associations do have the power to evict and they sometimes do this - usually for tenants involved in Anti-Social Behaviour or persistent arrears.
The problem is that these new rules are creating problems for lots of people who's rents have gone up but who won't or can't move - and who previously were able to keep up with their rents.
So, the incidence of arrears are starting to climb and suddenly what was once a fairly isolated event is now becoming much more commonplace. The recent Parliamentary report into the first six months of the scheme seems to bear this out
As I said earlier, will we get so far that mass evictions will start taking place or will the scheme be scrapped - or severely curtailed - before we get to this point?
With an election coming in less than a year it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
Eric Mc said:
The problem is that these new rules are creating problems for lots of people who's rents have gone up but who won't or can't move - and who previously were able to keep up with their rents.
God forbid they have to consider cancelling their Sky subscription, giving up smoking, cutting back on the booze, getting rid of the dog... I bet they could find the money if they had to, but they won't have to because they know the chances of getting evicted are slim to none.rover 623gsi said:
yes, there are plenty of 1 and 2-bed properties in the private sector relative to the social sector.
The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
the most cost effective way of reducing the housing benefit bill will be to correct the housing market so people who earn the average wage can buy a reasonable property, disincentivising BTL would help with that as well - as although that would reduce the number of rental properties it would also take a big chunk of the 'top' off the market out of renting. The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
I'd suggest that the rentals you quote show a disconnect between rental prices between sectors where you are
are those R|SL rents the 'social' rate or the 'affordable' rate ? thety obviously aren;t Low market rates
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff