Camerons plans to reform social housing.

[DJKillaQueen]

And more importantly how man of those jobs will go to the LTU?

I also don't see how a high speed link between London and the North is going to make much difference either. A train gets from London to Liverpool in just 2.5 hours as it is. We need new businesses being incentivised to locate in areas with high unemployment and they need to be a range of businesses too...not just low skilled/ low paid call centre jobs and the like. No government in the last 20 years has done anything near enough to facilitate this and I find the ConDem policies and views on the LTU particularly insulting in light of those people who were left out to dry in the 80's.....Employers will NOT employ a 50 something LTU...whilst we have an economy were there is a plentiful supply of newly unemployed. And the ignorance of politicians in relation to the problems of the LTU is disgraceful.

I'm glad that James would be horrified by a London council increasing rents by 80% and can fully see the logic of his point where the measure might help more rural authorities where local private sector rent is compartively low, but he forgets the words of the spending review....

The 80% raise is supposed to help make up the shortfall in governemnt funding for socials housing (they removed half of it in the review)....In London where there is dire need for new social housing I think we can expect the rises. I also would say that it IS a tory view that there should be no lower or subsidised rents. It has always been a Tory view and they really don't care if such a move kills any hope of social mobility for the poorest or traps them in greater poverty.

Why else would they think a 10% reduction in HB after a year is a good idea? Cameron and Clegg have absolutely no experience of the world that their polices are about to ravage. They have no comprehension of what it might be like to live on just ?55 a week for a long time...and worse still they've done no research to find out.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

I thought the housing problem in London was a lack of affordable housing.

This is driven by the flow of people leaving and entering into London, planning policies, home prices, 5% of homes being empty and unoccupied, etc.

While London and the UK are still planned to increase in population the pricing of homes will rise ahead of inflation making homes ever less affordable.

[DJKillaQueen]

????? And that answers the two previous posts how?

I think we can all agree that house prices and rents are too high. But what are the coalition doing about that (apart from reducing the cap on HB). There is already evidence that landlords are removing themselves from LA schemes meaning that we are going to see a return to the use of expensive bed and breakfast accomodation to house families waiting for social housing...something that was as much a scandal under the last Tory government as it will be if we see a return to it (and defeats the object of saving money don't you think?).

Still would like an answer too James on how many of those 15,000 jobs will go to the LTU.

[DJKillaQueen]

Attended a very interesting presentation yesterday on how changes to the way social and local authority housing is financed will work in practise.

Previously government creamed off a percentage from Housing Revenue Accounts (into a central Housing Subsidy Fund) and gave some of it back as housing subsidy - which is the point I've made all along that the running costs of social housing are NOT subsidised by the tax payer, but would be covered by rents if the government didn't take a percentage to then return in part as subsidy.

Under the new system....the government will still take a percentage of rent into a central fund but there will be no housing subsidy. Instead government will write off part of current debts (incurred from capital programmes mainly) and then tell local authorities how much they can borrow each year and take the revenue out as interest on the debt.

The reassuring thing is that for existing tenants there will be no massive rent hike. Those rents and their annual increases are protected. It will be for Local Authorities to decide if they want to go down the road of higher rents for new tenants (and there might be pressure on them to do so if the calculations made by central government on what they can borrow compared to housing revenue don't add up) but even in that scenario, beyond 2015 those rents can only rise a maximum of 1% above inflation year on year. In reality this means that the bulk of social housing rents should remain as they are, with their annual levels of increase also protected to 1% above inflation.

The real problem under the new financing strategy is that 'decent homes' funding is woefully low and the scope for new builds is gloomy too. The government want 150,000 new homes built but expect the bulk of the finance to do that to come from LA's themselves, from the housing revenue accounts (which cover running/ maintenance costs), and from borrowing (although they will tell LA's how much they can borrow and they won't be able to borrow any more). In the words of the accountant giving the presentation last night.....they want more homes built while leaving less money in the system to do so.

[BB100]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Previously government creamed off a percentage

> from Housing Revenue Accounts (into a central

> Housing Subsidy Fund) and gave some of it back as

> housing subsidy - which is the point I've made all

> along that the running costs of social housing are

> NOT subsidised by the tax payer,

Maybe for those rents that are paid by the tenant, but what percentage of rents are paid for by the tax payer through Housing Benefit?

[BB100]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was talking with a poverty action group this

> morning as well and there may be scope for a legal

> challenge on the 10% levy, because the base rate

> of benefit for a single unemployed person is set

> by law as the MINIMUM amount needed for that

> person to live on.

I used to work calculating Income Support many years ago and I vaguely remember that there is an amount included in the base rate of the benefit for rent, so I'm not sure that will work but I could be wrong.

Whilst I'm all for the capping of Housing Benefit - something that should have been done 20 years ago when single unemployed men began renting penthouses overlooking the Thames - the 10% levy will most certainly cripple people on benefit. I have seen many things introduced in my time as a civil servant but this has really shocked me. Macro policies need to consider their impact on children and it seems that those without a right to vote will suffer the most.

[DJKillaQueen]

what percentage of rents are paid for by the tax payer through Housing Benefit?

Be thankful they have low rents because in the private setor the HB bill would be far higher (part of the lunacy of wanting to hike some social housing rents to being on a par with private sector rents).

I agree with you in that there are areas of HB that needed reforming a long time ago. The governments thinking on this is that by further capping, some landlords will be foreced to reduce rents. This may work in a place like Blackpool, where 70% of private rented sector rents are subsidised by HB (high unemployment and most jobs being low paid being the pfactors there), but in somewhere like London it's hard to see why landlord's would reduce rent.

Also in the buy to let market, lanlords can't afford to reduce rents significantly because of their mortgage repayments, so we may see the resale of unprofitable properties, leading to a stabilisation of the Housing Market through over supply. In theory it could help the over inflation of the housing and rental market....but I'm sceptical. We'll have to wait and see what the impacts are, for better or worse.

The 10% levy on the LTU has NO positive consequnce though. It's simply a measure that will put already poor people into further poverty, which in turn compounds things like mental health and further reduces their chances of ever finding employment. I'd also parallel that with the move to put those with any non terminal or severe physical disibility onto ESA for a year after which they are moved onto JSA irregardless of their health. Many vulnerable people are going to find themselves within a system that not only can not cater for their needs but in which they will find it difficult to cope.

[Huguenot]

"Also in the buy to let market, lanlords can't afford to reduce rents significantly because of their mortgage repayments"

Same bloody bullshit DJKQ, you're a broken record. Absolutely infuriating. How many times have we covered this?????

If landlords can't pay the mortgage, they sell the property and that drives the market down. What you want, yeah? Do you not get this?

Why do you keep on parading the same bullshit over and over again?

You have an incredibly myopic view of the market that's based on 'one' transaction. Markets are based on multiple transactions over greater period.

I'm not going away, every time you say it I'll remind you how stupid it is. Every time you say it you'll go down in my estimation.

[DJKillaQueen]

If landlords can't pay the mortgage, they sell the property and that drives the market down.

Yes which is a point I made in my post if you bothered to read it properly. You repeatedly selectively jump on single points without considering the context of them within the entire post.

Every time you say it you'll go down in my estimation.

You really think I care what you think? It has no impact on my life.

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm not going away, every time you say it I'll remind you how stupid it is

Why bother Huguenot ,why not agree to disagree ?

[Huguenot]

No need to isolate me itatm, if I keep responding, it's because DJKQ keeps assserting it.

It's a logical contradiction, if landlords can't afford to discount rents, they can't afford to go without any rental either.

It's only the UK that the government takes vast sums of tax payers money and throw it down the throats of grasping BTL landlords under the guise of protecting the poor.

As DJKQ has pointed out many times, the % of total income in taxes is a larger percentage of income for the poor than it is for the rich, so this BTL frenzy is a tax on the poor that creates massive market distortion that disproportionately affects on those on poor income.

I think that a 'socialist' solution that entails sustaining this distortion, bankrolling the wealthy at the expense of the needy lacks imagination and achieves eactly the opposite of the goals that campaigners seek.

The irony is that throwing taxpayer cash at the poor is a one-size-fits-all solution that fails the nation, and has its roots more in a utopian dream of asocialist state than it does in common sense and logic.

[Brendan]

Either way a bunch of cunts are going to make money and normal people still aren't going to be able to have home to raise their families in.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/letting-agents-to-out%11bastard-estate-agents-201011253289/

Which is all very funny except if you're one of the victims.

[James Barber]

In Southwark we have over 5,000 empty homes. Most for more than one year.

Southwark has 15,000 people on its housing lists. Many of these families etc.

Even if policy carrots and sticks halved the numbers of empty homes huge dent in the housing lists would take place.

Potentiall sticks - double or treble council tax on empty properties.

Charge council tax and business rates on uninhabitable properties.

[Simonet]

Having been brought up in Council accommosation like most of my peers I feel I know something about this.

Firstly I'm thinking back to the halcyon days of 25/30 years ago when my next door neighbour was a Dustman for Southwark Council and would, begrudgingly, leave for work around 5.30AM, by 9.15-9.30am he was back home after a "hard" shift and the thought of him leaving his secure accommodation would have sent Fred and his poor wife Ivy into a early grave. Most neighbours had the same mindset, they were "lifers" and no mistake.

Fast forward to 2010 and I have just returned from my friends Council flat near The Old Vic and Waterloo Station.

She has been busy musing how few hours she must work to retain all her benefits. She has settled on "around 15/16 per week" . She has no intention of leaving. Ever .

Another friend tried "working" for 2 months once and decided she didn't like it. Too inconvenient!

The second friend is a 30-year-old Mother of 2 children with no Father around she currently gets her ?750 p.m. paid by Lewisham Council and the idea of re-entering the workplace would horrify her. She is on the verge of a Transfer to better accomodation and she feels she deserves it and who am I to argue.

She has worked for a total of 2 months in her life but I re-assured her that most of us are delighted to subsidise her and pay her rent every month by getting up at 6.00/7.00AM and doing a full weeks work. Seems to spend most of the week getting her nails or hair done. A girl has got to look good !

We must never forget "troopers" like them!

[DJKillaQueen]

And then there are people like my neighbours who have been looking for work for two years and are struggling because they are now considered LTU by employers.

We can always drag up examples of the 'workshy' but often it is with the sole aim of tarring the bulk out council tenants with the same brush. Many council tenants do in fact work in London, but they are often doing minimum wage jobs like cleaning and shock horror, they have to get up at 4am - yes the poorest paid do often work some of the longest and most unsociable hours.

And in spite of the fact they work full time, some 700,000 workers across the country still need housing benefits because their minimum wage doesn't pay them enough for them to pay their rent.

I too have grown up on a council estate and as an adult, deal with people every day on a council estate but curiously am witness to a more balanced cross section of tenants than the daily mail readership seem to observe!!!!

[Dickensman]

All of the benefits system is based on someone making something competitively and selling it abroad at a profit.

This creates the wealth required by any government of any colour or creed to redistribute that profit, (coverted into taxes) however it chooses.

The answer surely lies in becoming a race of people who can make more things competitively and increase the selling of these products abroad.

Pontificating about quantity of housing and availability is an issue to be discussed after the formula of surplus profit has been achieved.

[????]

Don't be silly Dickensman - we can have anything we want for free as there's a money tree in the garden for spending on anything we want. Kill the rich and weallth creators, everything will be fairer and we'll have the money tree to pay for public sector pensions, new schools, the Film Council, etc

[Dickensman]

Oh yeah, of course, thanks for that quids, I don't know whats come over me forgetting the all important money tree.

[binary_star]

"[As a secure tenant] You have the right to live in your home indefinitely, as long as the council doesn't start legal proceedings to evict you....The most common reasons for eviction include: not paying the rent; causing nuisance to neighbours; using the property for illegal activities such as drug dealing; moving out of your home or renting it to someone else...Most council tenants who live in self-contained accommodation are secure tenants. "

From: http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/council_tenancies/secure_council_tenancies

Is this true, i.e. if I'm a council tenant and I win the lottery, I can carry on living in my property?

[James Barber]

Hi binary_star,

Yes it's true. Once you rent a council property no follow up mean testing.

During the last Lib dem Southwark led administration we amended the tenancy agreement to remove grandchildren rights.

Effectively you hand down the tenancy agreement to your kids if they are living there. In the past they could then hand it down a further generation as well.

[DJKillaQueen]

The law allows for one succession. But although you reduced the succession rights to be in line with the law you never enforced the right to force tenants to downsize on succession (this has to be done within a year) so now we have many single tenants living in three and four bedroom properties (with no legal way to move them) whilst families living in one and two bedroom flats are at the mercy of a bidding system and can't get moved into a bigger property. Yeah really well done James!

I think binary, you'd find that most tenants on winning the lottery would move. Council properties are on the whole very small and many are not up to decent homes standard. A far more effective way of maintaining social housing stock would be to remove the right to buy. That is why there is now a shortage of family sized social housing and we are seeing a return to unaccepatable levels of overcrowding in Southwark.

[binary_star]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think binary, you'd find that most tenants on

> winning the lottery would move.

You would hope so wouldn't you! But, not everyone it seems. The system is being exploited there, shame their house can't go to someone less fortunate.

[DJKillaQueen]

They might feel that at their age they are too settled but I'll put money on them moving within two years or more likely, exercising their 'right to buy' their council home.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

Well reducing succession seemed pretty radical at the time and telling people they haveto move when paretns have just died seems a little harsh.

It will be interesting to see if the Labour led Southwark Council changes this.

[binary_star]

So where are we up to with this then? The latest info I can seem to find says:

"The reform of council housing finance is a Coalition Agreement commitment which, subject to parliamentary approval, we will implement in April 2012."

But I can't seem to see when the parliamentary approval might take place...? I also can't see how it's going to make that much difference if it wont affect current council tenants (and then their children??) Surely, it could be up to two generations before any of this kicks in...?

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They might feel that at their age they are too settled

Aww yeh the poor dears lol.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll put money on them moving within two years

Just out of interest - how much? ;-)