Councils seek control of benefit payments
Six London councils have demanded greater power over the local housing allowance to curb soaring housing benefit bills.
In a letter sent this week to work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper, the six councils – Westminster, Enfield, Croydon, Hounslow, Wandsworth and Hammersmith and Fulham – have called for the system to undergo a complete review.
The group of Tory councils wants the government to give local authorities the power to decide where LHA recipients live, and to overhaul the broad market rental area system which calculates how much benefit is payable.
The letter says: ‘With our local knowledge, we believe that local authorities are best placed to influence where residents should be placed…and what benefit levels are appropriate. These principles should be embedded in the housing benefit system if it is to deliver value for money to the taxpayer.’
Currently, London’s 33 boroughs are divided into 13 different BMRAs. The councils argue this system forces them to pay out too much in housing benefit to a minority of residents, regardless of whether it represents a sensible use of public funds.
Westminster Council, which led the letter, says it currently pays over £1,600 a week in rent for 26 families. Philippa Roe, cabinet member for housing, said: ‘Common sense dictates that the current system is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed. This isn’t simply a Westminster issue as it impacts on councils across London and the UK.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (2)
Eian Mantle | 24/02/2010 1:22 pm
While we continue to pander to the rapacious greed of private and institutional landlords the bill for housing benefits will increase exponentially. LHA is set by the Rent Officer Service looking at local rents and taking an average, all the private landlord has to do to raise rents in an area is to continue to ask for more and eventually there will be a raise in the average rent. The solution is straightforward; re-introduce the powers of the rent officer to limit rents. Change the tenancies into Assured Long Hold, do away with Section 21 and give tenants security over their home. I appreciate that this is politically unacceptable but that is only because we have political followship rather than leadership. Yes some landlords will suffer but as those of us who watch our pension pots diminish they must be aware that the value of their investments can go down as well as up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex | 24/02/2010 3:24 pm
Eian Mantle, problem is landlords will not accept this. Whether its private or RSL. Also the banks will not give mortgages based on Assured Long Hold. We will have more people on the street. You have to admit most people are selfish (including me) , that is why we have only the capitalist government for a long time. If what you say happens not only your pension pot will be worthless (lots of it has been given out as mortgage), your house as well.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment