Lib Dems attack housing allowance cut
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has joined the attack on the government’s plans to cut excess housing benefit payments.
From April next year, changes to the local housing allowance will mean tenants in the private rented sector will no longer be able to shop around for cheaper rents and hang on to £15 extra they are paid a week.
Mr Clegg challenged Gordon Brown at prime minister’s questions last week, saying this would see some of the poorest people up to £780 a year worse off.
‘How is it possible that in the middle of a recession, with unemployment now at two and a half million and rising, this government, a Labour government, wants to change the local housing allowance rules to take £15 a week from some of the poorest families in Britain?’ he said.
Charity Crisis started a campaign earlier this month to stop the cuts to LHA saying they could lead to increased debt, rent arrears and homelessness.
Chief executive of the charity Leslie Morphy suggested landlords may raise rents to meet the maximum LHA level.
The government has estimated the £15 excess would cost it £160 million this year.
Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson Sarah Teather tabled an early day motion on the subject last month which currently has 57 signatures.
In it she states: ‘The withdrawal of excess payments would not result in savings for the government because tenants would have no incentive to choose cheaper properties and landlords would simply raise their rent to the maximum amount of the allowance, thus transferring £15 a week from poorer families to private landlords.’
Her EDM continues: ‘These changes undermine the original objectives of local housing allowance which were to bring choice and fairness to the benefits system while combating poverty; and [this motion] therefore calls on the government to abandon its plan to scrap excess payments to local housing allowance claimants.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (4)
Melvin Bone | 18/11/2009 10:17 am
Scrap it.
It is amongst the most useless ideas that this Government has produced.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Stokes | 18/11/2009 12:08 pm
Imagine what would have happened if this had been expanded into social housing? It doesn't bear thinking about!
It doesn't work, never has, never will.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 18/11/2009 12:23 pm
I agree for once with Melvin, it is a reprehensible incentibve that says find a lower standard of accommodation and we will give you a backhander.
It is also useless. The yearly HB bill is about 19bn in figures given last week (4.49m claiming an average of £81.41 pw) and so £160m represents less than a one per cent saving most if not all of whose admin costs will negate. It will have reduced the average LHA rate by a similar amount, less than one per cent.
So all that can be said for it is that vulnerable tenants shopping around have saved the government £160m per year - still a significant amount of money, yet in doing so by vulnerable people taking likely inferior accommodation, is that these people actually now suffer from that lesser accommodation and get nothing in return. So while this should never have been introduced in the first place those that took the up to £15 per week are now penalised and that is simply outrageous.
Dont hit a man while hes down, kick him its easier (and while youre there mug him too!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DavidJ | 18/11/2009 3:26 pm
Joe - Nail, head, hammer hit. It is ridiculous that you can be rewarded by finding yourself lower standard accommodation, and pocket £60 per month into the bargain. Either that or it should be made avaialble across all tenures and landlords - so, my mortgage company should give me £60 per month when I find a cheaper product, RSL tenants should be given £60 per month when they switch landlords or move to a property with a lower rent, and private tenants should also benefit by the same amount when they change landlords.
Economic crisis? What crisis - doesn't seem to affect public spending!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment