TJ – I get your point but the headline is that a lot of counsil houses were sold off, i.e. past tense, it’s been done and it’s not reversible so we probably should move on from that point.

a lot of people , including me dont even get paid 400 a week let alone have it to spend on housing ;-(

Nice bit of social cleansing going here if some of you had your way.

lol i served 3 times in bosnia , now they had a …

actually no they didnt lol

it’s clever of the tories to allow the debate on benefit cuts to be focused on this narrow sideline of the maximum cap on local housing allowance at the minute. it’s only ever going to affect people in london.

the vast majority of the benefit cuts will affect people throughout the uk and will hit the working poor as much as the indolent workshy scroungers everyone demonises. i mean cuts to tax credits, the lower cpi figure to calculate benefit increases, plus others

but to get back to the original point, people who work in crappy jobs in central london surely need to live somewhere close. these are people who get help from housing benefit to pay rent and who will have their housing benefit cut as well. how are they meant to get by? their wages won’t go up, this is likely to force them to move and to give up their jobs

who’s gonna wash the toilets? work in the shops? clean the offices? work as security guards?

El-bent – Member
Nice bit of social cleansing going here if some of you had your way.

Godwin?

All this talk of people having to move out of wealthy areas is bollocks. Move into cheaper accommodation or move somewhere you can afford to live.

Oh for the love of Christ…

Like I said above; come down to my manor, and i will show you the reality of the effects a vastly over-inflated property market has on an area of severe social deprivation. It’s not about people living in mansions in Kensington and Chelsea, as the Daily Fail would have you believe. The reality here is that rents are grossly distorted to the point where even quite shabby housing is stupidly expensive. A one-bed flat in a grotty estate can cost you over a grand a month. Simply because of this area’s locational desirability. Some families are living in shitty housing that greedy landlords (as well as over-mortgaged over-reachers) charge silly money for.

Come, and I’ll show you. If you want to actually learn something, rather than believe right-wing propaganda.

#
El-bent – Member

Nice bit of social cleansing going here if some of you had your way.
Posted 7 seconds ago # Report-Post

WTF?

I (and I’m guessing you) along with 95% of those that will read this have already been ‘socially cleansed’ from swish London boroughs. Similarly,
we’ve been ‘socially cleansed’ from Maserati dealerships, 7 star Dubai hotels and Patek Philippe showrooms. Personally, i don’t lose any sleep over that, but £1,600 is more than many working people (remember them?) take home in a month. Indeed, it’s more than many gross in a month.

Don’t you think it’s time we all got real?

Godwin?

Well, is this argument getting a little out of your depth then?

lets look at some reality….

I had to give up work 3 years ago to look after my wife (cronically ill and disabled) after her conditions got worse. I get housing benifit for my rented house (3 beds – 2 kids) in a nice area in Hampshire. £700 pcm is the rent – the max payable under the ‘old’ rules is £680 pcm….

I have real issues with people living in million pound houses and claiming tens of thousands in housing benifit when I cant afford to live in a house with a downstairs loo…. Is that fair??

PS. I used to be a higher rate tax payer….. so maybe I should get a ‘liitle extra’ help????

If you live in a million pound house and can’t afford it – MOVE.

There are statutory requirements for the amount of space people must have when housed by the state.

You are wrong there tj. If the government followed its own rules, people would be housed in accommodation a lot smaller than they currently are. Did you know that a kitchen is classed as living space and can be included as a room people can sleep in under the governments rules? Therefore a family of four could legally be housed adequately in a 1 bed flat.

The whole reduction of housing benefit is a hamfisted way of reducing the amount of State benefits the government have to pay. What they should have done is regulate how much private landlords can charge. As well as creating a set of rules and regulations for private landlords, that will give the 10 million+ private renters in this country some security, and some rights.

No, not really.

we’ve been ‘socially cleansed’ from Maserati dealerships, 7 star Dubai hotels and Patek Philippe showrooms.

Why are you using examples of extreme wealth to make your point? Can’t you do it with more realistic and relevant facts?

The reality of the cost of accommodation in London means that many people who work (remember them?) have to claim HB, as their meagre wages are insufficient to enable them to pay their rent. This is a growing problem.

Don’t you think it’s time we all got real?

Can’t you do it with more realistic and relevant facts?

I bought some Waitrose Essentials coffee the other day. 😳

It’s quite nice, actually.

So no unemployed families re going to be allowed to live in any of our cities any more – where are they going to live? Where are the houses at under £400 a week that will take a family?

There are other changes as well. Once you have been unemployed over a year you will only get 90% of your rent paid. How are you going to pay the other10% of your rent? Out of yor £65 a week?

If you are under 35 you are going to be forced to share a house. No flat no mater how modest. You will only be allowed the rent of a single room.

As for the workhouse comment – CFH – its not that far from the truth. there are many m,any families working and unemployment that will be made homeless by this ill thought out policy.

Itr could be you you know – you and yor nice middleclass life. get made redundant with your nice little family. You won’t be able to stay where yo are – yo will have to move to a ghetto of unemployed only in some sink estate with no chance of emnployment again.

Jeezo – some folks grasp of reality is non existent.

answeer me this – where are these people to go?

Flashy; you can behave. Or I’ll tell yer parents to kick you out. 😉

have to claim HB, as their meagre wages are insufficient to enable them to pay their rent. This is a growing problem.

I agree that this is a problem, but propping up an inflated housing market with huge housing benefit payments is not the way to solve it.

Audi dealerships, 4 star London hotels and Omega showrooms?

The point stands.

Steve – are you sure you have that right? has the law changed?

Fred, you have no idea how hard it is to even find a Waitrose here in Wigan, let alone scrape together the pennies for the coffee…..

😉

TJ – you ask where the houses are that will take a family and cost less than £400/wk.

http://www.s1rental.com/renting/search/forrent_search_results.cgi?verylocals=&minprice=0&maxprice=1600&type=&bedrooms=4&location=5&all=&availability=Any&furnished=&keywords=&whenpropadded=&iuo=iuo&submit=search

There are other changes as well. Once you have been unemployed over a year you will only get 90% of your rent paid. How are you going to pay the other10% of your rent? Out of yor £65 a week?

well if they were allowed less to start with then finding the other 10% wouldnt be such a hit 😉

seriously the its the rental prices that need looking at. i was watching some show the other day (homes under the hammer i think) and they did up a house in london and made it into 3 1 bed flats even the owner seemed shellshocked they said he could make £3500 a month in rent combined for the 3 little flats

So how is our wonderful government going to solve the inflated housing market then?

Speaking of which; the Credit Crunch meant that my landlord, on a fixed-rate mortagage, couldn’t take advantage of any lowering of interest rates, which has helped to actually slightly lower rents locally, especially for ex-council housing stock like this. He’s had to take a pay-cut as well. So, he’s reliant on me staying put, as me moving out would probbly mean he’d have to lower the rent (it’s not gone up since I moved in 3 years ago), meaning he’d then be in a no-profit situation. I’ve seen his mortgage statements. What makes it worse, is that the value of this property has fallen below what he paid for it. So, he’s pretty fecked. But I’m ok, which is all that’s important really. 😉

Steve-Austin – Member
The whole reduction of housing benefit is a hamfisted way of reducing the amount of State benefits the government have to pay. What they should have done is regulate how much private landlords can charge. As well as creating a set of rules and regulations for private landlords, that will give the 10 million+ private renters in this country some security, and some rights.

Is of course the right answer

Itr could be you you know – you and yor nice middleclass life. get made redundant with your nice little family. You won’t be able to stay where yo are – yo will have to move to a ghetto of unemployed only in some sink estate with no chance of emnployment again.

Um, no.

Because while working I can’t afford £400pw of rent in the first place, so I wouldn’t be there!

answeer me this – where are these people to go?

See my previous post. They can move to a nice 5-bedroom flat in a much sought-after suburb of Edinburgh’s New Town, and save the government £300 a month while they’re at it.

There are tens of thousands of family-sized houses & flats across the UK that cost less than £400 a month, so I’m not sure I’m getting your point.

Hmm – those edinbugh prices were lower than I thought. Ta.

If you are under 35 you are going to be forced to share a house. No flat no mater how modest. You will only be allowed the rent of a single room.

When I moved to London most of my peers, even on fairly good salaries had to house-share. Thats what working people do, why shouldn’t the our of work?

I agree that this is a problem, but propping up an inflated housing market with huge housing benefit payments is not the way to solve it.

Nothing to do with over inflated house prices generally? I’m sure a few on this forum who own houses/flats with the sole purpose to rent them out aren’t going to worry about housing benefit being cut when there are plenty of people who can’t afford to buy property but are willing to rent even at over inflated prices.

The problem here is property prices. HB has had to be priced in accordance with this(rightly or wrongly). So we either build more affordable housing for rent or we somehow deflate the property market.

But lets not let that get in the way of attacking “benefit scroungers”.

When I moved to London most of my peers, even on fairly good salaries had to house-share. Thats what working people do, why shouldn’t the our of work?

That’s because you were too scared to live in the areas where rents were lower…

What they should have done is regulate how much private landlords can charge

How would you do this? I’m not saying the theory is wrong but I’m unsure as to how you could impose rental levels on the market without skewing it, particularly in terms of house prices.

#
djglover – Member

If you are under 35 you are going to be forced to share a house. No flat no mater how modest. You will only be allowed the rent of a single room.

When I moved to London most of my peers, even on fairly good salaries had to house-share. Thats what working people do, why shouldn’t the our of work?
Posted 47 seconds ago # Report-Post

Hear hear!

All of my London friends (aged between 28-33) are in house shares/flat shares. They include several solicitors, a barrister, two teachers, three social workers, a police officer, an architect, an accountant, an IT consultant and various civil servant types. All of them are on fairly decent incomes, some very good…but they all live in house shares/flat shares.

So how is our wonderful government going to solve the inflated housing market then?

That’s not hard to do. You just build more houses and flats.

Actually they did that already and most inner city flats now are worth considerably less than a few years ago, giving rise to forced landlords.

I have a very nice 2 bed flat, huge in size that I am forced to rent out for £590 a month.

Yes a month.

It would happily and very comfortably acommodate a family of four.

All of them are on fairly decent incomes, some very good…but they all live in house shares/flat shares.

I know people who do this. It’s not because they can’t afford to rent, it’s because they want to save for a deposit to buy a place. Sensible, if you ask me. Don’t tell me none of them can afford to rent a flat!

(If they can’t, tell them to ease off on the nosebayg…)

There are tens of thousands of family-sized houses & flats across the UK that cost less than £400 a month, so I’m not sure I’m getting your point.

So if someone on HB is looking for work and is suddenly forced to move somewhere cheaper but with less opportunity for work(South east is expensive because of the types of jobs available) in an effort to reduce the HB bill…are you are assuming that everyone on HB is a lazy work dodger?

TandemJeremy – Member

So no unemployed families re going to be allowed to live in any of our cities any more

Arguably it’s only the very wealthy families who can live anywhere very central (and/or desirable) in cities like London or Edinburgh without housing benefit.

If you are under 35 you are going to be forced to share a house. No flat no mater how modest. You will only be allowed the rent of a single room.

…and? That’s what my gf and I (both early 30s) do – we effectively rent a room each in the same shared house. Neither of us have had our “own place” since leaving our parents to go to uni. Getting a place of our own with sufficient space to start a family would mean moving further out. The idea of actually buying a place of our own would mean going further out still. Why have a society where working is rewarded with a lower standard of living than not working?

All of my London friends (aged between 28-33) are in house shares/flat shares. They include several solicitors, a barrister, two teachers, three social workers, a police officer, an architect, an accountant, an IT consultant and various civil servant types. All of them are on fairly decent incomes, some very good…but they all live in house shares/flat shares.

Aside from saving for a deposit issue Elfin mentioned, doesn’t this actually show the madness of property prices in London? This doesn’t make it a very promising place to locate your business if your workforce can’t afford to live here along with high public transport costs etc.

Why have a society where working is rewarded with a lower standard of living than not working?

sweeping statement. Again.

20bn on housing benefit

Watching the news now, maybe if James cut down on Stone Island clothes he would be able to afford his rent.

It’s a brilliant idea. About bloody time too.

I’m sorry, it’s just bollocks that someone like a barrister ‘can’t afford’ to rent their own flat in London, in spite of high rents. I can get you a 1-bed flat 1 mile from Canary Wharf, 3 miles from the City, close to shops and local amenities, 200m from a DLR station (less than 10 mins to CW; 20mins to Bank) for £800 a month. A lot, but don’t tell me a barrister can’t **** ‘afford’ that!

Woman opposite me is a secondary school teacher. She pays £1200 a month rent for her house. Garden and everything. Goes out a fair bit, wears nice clothes, likes nice things. Not poor.

Explain please.