It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News0 min ago
Social Cleansing ! Is this the tip of the ice berg ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018
Newham Council is looking to ''export'' its benefit claiming social housing tenants to Stoke on Trent ! as the council can not afford the cost of putting them in private rented accomadation.
Newham Council is looking to ''export'' its benefit claiming social housing tenants to Stoke on Trent ! as the council can not afford the cost of putting them in private rented accomadation.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EDDIE51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.guardian.c...council-tenants-derby
the tory boroughs of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea were also considering doing exactly the same thing
the tory boroughs of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea were also considering doing exactly the same thing
having read through the article, well almost, it does say for some who have moved to the boroughs within the last year, with large families, i am not saying that is right, are they recently arrived migrants? I have read comments on AB about how people should not be in properties they cannot afford, getting large council house subsidies, so perhaps the councils are beginning to realise that it's not affordable in the longer term, with the housing benefit bill being astronomical.
Although she was found guilty of “gerrymandering”, Gromit, Lady Porter did not “ship a load of poor people out of her borough” as is being attempted by Newham council. What she did was to allow council properties to remain empty (and ultimately be sold for commercial development) rather than re-let them. This, of course had the effect of reducing the number of likely Labour voters in the marginal wards involved, but nobody was “shipped out”.
The issue of Housing Benefit must be addressed. I saw a snippet on the BBC News tonight and some tenants in Westminster were interviewed. They said that they would no longer be able to live in the area (because the maximum amount of HB had been lowered) and they would have to move elsewhere. Well here’s some news for them. I, like many others, cannot afford to live in Westminster. My wife and I have worked in reasonably well paid professions all our lives, but, unsurprisingly, we could not afford to live in what must be among the most expensive areas of Europe. And nor do we expect to be able to do so.
The HB caps are currently £1,083 per month for a one bedroom property, £1,257 for two beds, £1,473 for three beds and £1,733 for four beds. This is between £13,000 and £20,700 per annum. Assuming somebody in a four bedroom property needs at least another £10k to live on, to take home £31k a person has to earn around £43k and would actually be a higher rate taxpayer. People earning less than this would have no chance of living in such an area so why should somebody earning nothing and living entirely on benefits be afforded the privilege of living in a place like Westminster?
Rents in Newham are on the increase because of the Olympic effect. Some of its HB inhabitants were also interviewed today and said they might have to consider moving from the area and shifting their children to poorer schools. Welcome, from those of us in the real world, to them. They will perhaps grow to understand what life is like for people not cushioned by various benefits and who have to cut their cloth according to their means.
The issue of Housing Benefit must be addressed. I saw a snippet on the BBC News tonight and some tenants in Westminster were interviewed. They said that they would no longer be able to live in the area (because the maximum amount of HB had been lowered) and they would have to move elsewhere. Well here’s some news for them. I, like many others, cannot afford to live in Westminster. My wife and I have worked in reasonably well paid professions all our lives, but, unsurprisingly, we could not afford to live in what must be among the most expensive areas of Europe. And nor do we expect to be able to do so.
The HB caps are currently £1,083 per month for a one bedroom property, £1,257 for two beds, £1,473 for three beds and £1,733 for four beds. This is between £13,000 and £20,700 per annum. Assuming somebody in a four bedroom property needs at least another £10k to live on, to take home £31k a person has to earn around £43k and would actually be a higher rate taxpayer. People earning less than this would have no chance of living in such an area so why should somebody earning nothing and living entirely on benefits be afforded the privilege of living in a place like Westminster?
Rents in Newham are on the increase because of the Olympic effect. Some of its HB inhabitants were also interviewed today and said they might have to consider moving from the area and shifting their children to poorer schools. Welcome, from those of us in the real world, to them. They will perhaps grow to understand what life is like for people not cushioned by various benefits and who have to cut their cloth according to their means.
Of course, em. Me too.
But the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund high rents for people who clearly would otherwise be unable to live in such expensive areas, especially when people who work and who do not rely benefits cannot afford to do so. If the rent of somebody working became unaffordable they would have to move. They could not go to their employer and say "My rent's just gone up. I need a 10% rise". They would have to move to a more affordable area. Why should HB claimants be any different?
The authorities doling out benefits have a responsibility to mitigate taxpayers' committments, and if people have to move to more affordable areas so be it.
But the taxpayer cannot be expected to fund high rents for people who clearly would otherwise be unable to live in such expensive areas, especially when people who work and who do not rely benefits cannot afford to do so. If the rent of somebody working became unaffordable they would have to move. They could not go to their employer and say "My rent's just gone up. I need a 10% rise". They would have to move to a more affordable area. Why should HB claimants be any different?
The authorities doling out benefits have a responsibility to mitigate taxpayers' committments, and if people have to move to more affordable areas so be it.
Here is a table of average rents for 1 to 4 bed accomadation in London post codes WC1 and W1 are both over £2000 a week and these are AVERAGES so 50% will be higher .
http://www.londonprop...ge_rental_prices.html
you can see now where the HB cap of £400 a week will let a claimant live.
A member of my family now in her 90s was born and has lived all her life in Kensington in a council house if she owned it she would be a mulitmillionaire but she gets 100% housing and council tax benefit.
http://www.londonprop...ge_rental_prices.html
you can see now where the HB cap of £400 a week will let a claimant live.
A member of my family now in her 90s was born and has lived all her life in Kensington in a council house if she owned it she would be a mulitmillionaire but she gets 100% housing and council tax benefit.
National average take home payis now £400 per week according to the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail....years-bank-crash.html
So there are not many places in London a 'normal' family with one parent working and 2 kids could live without relying on housing benefit ,you can see why London has been called a 'City of two extremes' to live there you either have to be very rich or out of work !
http://www.dailymail....years-bank-crash.html
So there are not many places in London a 'normal' family with one parent working and 2 kids could live without relying on housing benefit ,you can see why London has been called a 'City of two extremes' to live there you either have to be very rich or out of work !
Yes, Eddie. And that’s what some people find so iniquitous.
It seems if you work hard but don’t earn enough to live in an expensive area you just have to lump it. But if you don’t work you will be feted with up to £20k a year tax free to pay your rent, thus enabling you to live in a very agreeable area (even if it does not quite run to Bloomsbury or Mayfair).
It seems if you work hard but don’t earn enough to live in an expensive area you just have to lump it. But if you don’t work you will be feted with up to £20k a year tax free to pay your rent, thus enabling you to live in a very agreeable area (even if it does not quite run to Bloomsbury or Mayfair).
i live in a central area, and keep an eye open at various local estate agents at the rents, and cost of property, and can say that i have never seen rents at those prices, ever. The cost of buying is prohibitive i grant you, as i already stated average price for 1 bed flat is £350,000, some may be less at other agents, but i go on the two i know. One property was 3.5 million, a 4 bed house, but those don't come on the market that often.
em10, I think that only the less desirable and therefore cheaper properties need to be advertised in estate agents windows , most rental property gets let before it is even advertised there is such a demand at the moment. Letting agents have waiting lists and details of clients waiting for specific types of property they do not need to advertise they just match up what they can get with the potential clients.
That table by the way is the actual prices obtained and it updates every day.
That table by the way is the actual prices obtained and it updates every day.
the problem being is why should some live in palatial surroundings whilst not paying a penny towards it, there have been any number of cases where families have been housed by the council, because it has a duty to do so by law, and those properties could be worth millions on today's market. I am a firm believer of being fair, you pay into the system, you get something back, not just arrive in the country having contributed zilch and because you are an asylum seeker with a large brood you get housed. That means many who have had to wait, don't get first dibs. Also that social housing is a contentious issue, many of the properties are now substandard because lack of care over years by the local authorities, even when they have had the money to keep them in reasonable nick. Many of these empty properties could be let to people at a nominal rent for say six months on the proviso they do them up, and a small grant to cover materials. I can't remember the figures but across the capital there are hundreds of thousands of properties that could be rented out, and get these people off the long wait housing lists and into a home.
Latest Posts
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works2 mins ago
It's Really Annoying When You Drop A...
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.