Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
I think all figs can be manipulated one way or another
but we can be certain LHA will not rise in 4 years
The benefits cap is real and is happening Now
This has got to have effect and we will have more homelessness
with s24 its a nightmare for landlords in the LHA Market
Learn Change and Adapt ?????
All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.
Do take them with a pinch of salt because most government figures around homelessness are not considered robust enough to be classed as National Statistics by the government's own agency.
Housing is devolved so England's homeless are England's problem. Still not sure why you think the richest part of England needs to divert it's obligations to already hard pressed northern Local Authorities.
See today's Guardian article - London Councils are shipping out 50 families a week to places as far away as Glasgow
If anyone on this page has tenants affected by the benefit cap, let me know or ask Vanessa for my direct email, as I've got a couple of TV programmes contacting me, wanting to talk to those families/singles affected.I only had 15 houses affected, & only one wanted to give an interview.More we can get out there to say their bit, the better.I was saying the same Bill (Ha ha great minds think alike), now the Councils & Housing Associations are getting big arrears, I think eventually, the Govt will be forced to do something, which should hopefully feed into us private Landlords.
This benefit cap. If they lowered the tenants benefit Cap direct from them and not the Landlords Housing Benefit.
At least then the tenant wouldn't be homeless, because they wouldn't have to physically hand over the money for rent, as the rent part would have already gone to the Landlord.
And they'd have to learn they're getting less money direct to theirselves.
Council Tax, TV licence, Water bills etc. get paid direct. Why not the important house rent?
These arrears that the tenant hasn't handed over that they have been paid by DWP. That's all Taxpayers money that the tenant has had FREE & not spent it on the rent. Why isn't someone taking this up with the Govt?
I reckon most of your tenants affected didn't want to be interviewed because a forensic analysis of their expenditure would make it obvious that they can easily afford the rent.
But they would not be able to continue with their lifestyle spending choices.
The fags, booze, sky TV, drugs, the pit bull dog etc, etc
They would not wish their financial choices to be exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny.
As you suggest it is outrageous that the HB element of UC is considered last within the OBC calculation.
What should happen is that IMMEDIATELY the UC hits the tenant's bank account the FULL contractual rent should be paid to the LL
Whatever is remaining is for the tenant to spend on whatever they like.
Of course a big problem for a LL is that heating won't be used even though a breach of tenancy conditions and this will cause all manner of problems that I'm sure with your vast experience you are only too aware of..
UC tenants by their very nature are mostly dysfunctional.
It surely has to be expected that they WILL spend their HB when it is all paid to them
Why Govt refuses to accept this basic premise I really don't know
They are effectively setting up these dysfunctional tenants to fail with all the attendant problems and huge costs it will cause.
It is not these tenants' fault; it is in their nature to spend anything they can get their hands on!
If it is the rent then so be it, they simply don't care as they know not much will happen to them .
They hope they might even be rehoused in a nice council house!.
UC is not fit for purpose
The only way it will work is to allow the FULL CONTRACTUAL RENT, NOT just the HB element, to be paid directly to the LL with no risk of 'clawback' from the DWP, providing the LL hasn't been complicit in any fraudulent claim!
Govt will NOT do this as it strives to adhere to its ridiculous dogma that paying UC as an effective wage will encourage the claimants to get used to managing their affairs as most workers do based on a monthly income.
All very applaudable and all that, but just NOT realistic in tgecreal world!.
This is the political elite coming up with bonkers ideas which they would find are bonkers just by communicating with LL like you!!
They need to get out of their ivory towers sometimes and get down the 'hood!!
The theory behind their good intentions is all well and good, it just won't work!.
Didn't somebody say that those that ignore history are doomed to make the same mistakes!?
This applied to All forms of HB!
It is simply unrealistic to expect the feckless to become responsible overnight
LL simply don't have the finances to suffer the feckless to learn how to be responsible!
Surely it would assist the feckless to not have to concern themselves with probably the biggest component of their UC, namely their HB.
It must make sound business sense for ALL to facilitate direct payment to LL of the full contractual rent.
It removes the temptation for the tenant to spend it on other items and maintains the tenant in decent accommodation.
Why can't Govt just accept they have got this UC HB element situation wrong.
It is and seems already has caused devastation with arrears.
To allow a situation to remain and probably become worse is surely simply NOT tenable!?
When will the Tories wake up and realise the disaster that is the HB element of UC!?
@SPeyeJoe has come out fighting in response to 'deluded & ignorant housing people' that didn't clearly get his message first time round
"From today all social landlords will have no option but to refuse to allocate new tenancies to the benefit household. That means housing association and council landlords and I stress that they will have no option but to refuse meaning it is not their fault … yet the deluded and ignorant in housing believe I said otherwise and have reared their ugly heads as per usual without putting their brain into gear!
Plus ca change!
Get over it deluded housing people this is not about YOU!!
Here I say why and how a HA Chief Executive is ignorant of the policy, why and how a policy analyst for a HA is also deluded and ignorant; and how and why another consultant is also ignorant and deluded despite promoting himself and his company as an expert in these matters."
He calls for evidence from the policy analyst for Family Mosaic (a large HA) to provide evidence of that HA issuing new 3 bed tenancies to benefit tenants in Basildon who only receive £50.68 per week in HB against its average social rent for a 3 bed there of £139.93 per week.
Bill Irvine's response (posted above in this thread) is also specifically dealt with.
well I think that makes things quite clear
I hope Mr Irvine reads it too
If you run with the data set out by Joe, then, potentially, 533 tenancies will have been refused by Social Landlords today.
i.e. 385k new social LL tenancies per year, 36% of housing stock is 3 or more bedrooms and, therefore, unaffordable.
If he is right (and the facts he presents are sourced from recognised data sets), then how many days can that continue before more people are shouting about it?
This is the same road that S24 has taken
when announced it was said S24 would only effect Higher Rate tax Payers we know the out come will be very different from that pledge
This is the same most folk will not understand it either until it hits
This guy has shown me the truth of the Benefits Cap
and if you are a Landlord you should read up on how this will effect your business
Thank god I am in the North where this draconian system will have less effect
Well done PIPLLMAN
The effect on the PRS is an interesting one to consider
Potentially you will have fairly chunky numbers of Social Landlords (with reasonably maintained housing stock) looking for tenants at (until today) social tenant rents - Joe refers to £93pw for a 3 bed.
Any PRS LL competing at that level in the market might be finding the market more competitive as a result of these changes