Boris fears housing benefit reforms
The mayor of London has said he is concerned about the impact of plans to cut housing benefit, and requested special treatment for the capital.
In a joint letter with Hackney mayor and chair of London Councils Jules Pipe, Boris Johnson says he is concerned about the ‘unintended consequences’ which may arise from plans to cap local housing allowance, which is paid to private renters.
The letter warns of increased rent arrears and evictions, more families being placed in temporary accommodation, overcrowding and a reduction in the overall size of the private rented market.
It also warns that those in low income households will move to less expensive areas on the fringes of the city.
The letter says: ‘For many households the potential consequences of this are losing jobs to which they will not be able to commute, having to change their children’s schools and being cut off from their local social networks that are essential to successful communities.
‘The end result could be further polarisation between high and low income households in inner London and growing pressure on housing in outer London.’
Under the government’s plans, LHA will be limited to between £250 and £400 a week depending on property size. LHA rates will be set using the bottom 30 per cent of rates instead of the median and they will be linked to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, leading to smaller increases.
Mr Johnson said the new cap is lower than existing LHA rates in all 33 London boroughs for five bedroom homes, in 25 boroughs for four bedroom homes and in 18 boroughs for two and three bedroom properties.
He has calculated by October 2011, all Londoners in the private rented sector claiming LHA will be affected by the changes.
The letter calls for special transitional arrangements for the capital as it would be disproportionately affected, pending a review of the benefit system.
Richard Blakeway, Mr Johnson’s housing advisor, said measures could include higher caps for more expensive boroughs or for households with children.
Inside Housing’s is running a campaign to find a fairer way to cut the housing benefit bill.
The campaign is supported by high profile backers including former mayor Ken Livingstone, Green party leader Caroline Lucas and MP Glenda Jackson.
Mr Blakeway said the campaign is similar to what the mayor is seeking to do in London, but stopped short of saying the mayor is backing What’s the Benefit?
Visit our What’s the Benefit? page for more information or sign our petition to support the campaign
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (16)
Melvin Bone | 19/07/2010 4:16 pm
Everyone on LHA will be effected by the 30th percentile rule change anyway, not just the 'Londoners'.
Its not all about the cap. Nor is it all about London although every LHA article seems to mention London.
There is life outside of London.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 19/07/2010 5:00 pm
Transitonal arrangements please guvnor, bleats poor ol' Boris.
Couldn't you be a little firmer with your pals in government? In fact couldn't you be firmer with you pals the landlords?
Bite the bullet Boris. Transitional arrangement be damned, will only delay the enivitable harm your government proposes. The empty private homes in London need to be brought back into social use. All new build needs to be prioritised for social waiting list families. New build target slashing must be reversed. Private Landlords' oppportunity to charge excessive rents needs to be controlled as once it was. Reversal of fare increases and widening of transport initiative to enable those living further afield to access the city (allowing the Shires to take some more of the pressure, so long as Shapps does not sit on it all) Recognising that lack of Social Housing is now the biggest impeddiment to economic growth in London, even bigger than George Osborne or Eric Pickle's ego.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 19/07/2010 8:15 pm
Ah-ha, yes, funny that, but my Party isn't listening to me so I'll on-my-bike it over to a pseaudo caring chump and look good flanneling around sounding as if something is being fought for and done when in-fact nothing much is happening other than the old wigedyroo thingy slight of hand-jobby bit.
Works every time - I get paid - you get shafted - so everything ticketyboo, yeah.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/07/2010 7:43 am
So London is actually driving the problem with the greedy landlords and he wants it to be a special case? You should be the last person we help. Get out there and tell your wealthy friends that the gravy train has stopped and been shunted very firmly into a siding. The rates apply to everyone!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 20/07/2010 8:59 am
PSR "the empty private homes in the capital need to be brought back into social use"?? Nice soundbite, how do you propose this should happen?. I agree with some of your comments, but in practice capping rents and presumably forcing sales of properties against the wills of the owners sounds anything but "progressive" it sounds like excessive state intervention and I can't see it working.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 20/07/2010 10:14 am
Under existing initiatives, that should be formalised into law, where homes are left empty and run-down they can already be 'forced' back into use, or taken by the local authority and brought back into use through repair and letting.
In this time of shortage it is criminal for homes to be empty and running to ruin. Let them or losse them seems reasonable in this context.
Why is state intervention to cap rents seen as excessive but state reduction of benefits not? The former achieves the latter but without penalising the poor. Sounds the better alternative to me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 20/07/2010 11:20 am
'Progressive Solutions Required | 20/07/2010 10:14 am
Under existing initiatives, that should be formalised into law, where homes are left empty and run-down they can already be 'forced' back into use'
Legislation already exists to do this, I thought you'd be aware already... called Empty Dwelling Management Orders (EDMOs)
They became law as part of the The Housing Act 2004.
You just have to get this legislation used. I know many councils that do already.
Next problem you want solved PSR?
Oh and rent caps won't work. I suppose you'll want fixed prices for all goods next? Even Cake.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20/07/2010 11:51 am
Let's define social use as those with jobs.
Social use isn't for people who don't work and depend on benefits and have absolutely nothing to contribute apart fulfilling the victim role for posters here and voting every now and then to support the Labour party.
Fact: 70% of the tenants in the south of Islington are HB claimants. The penetration of social housing as a percentage of all housing in that constitutency is 50%. In some wards of the constituency it it is 75%. The constituency has the worst secondary education provision in the country.
(All facts taken from the Fairness Commission - another duff initiative of the local Labour party)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harry Lime | 20/07/2010 12:10 pm
Anonymous 11:51;
Yes, lets class them as people with Jobs - there are a massive amount of HB claimants in London with Jobs, because of relatively low wages but massive living expenses in London. you clearly are implying that the 75% of HB claimants are unemployed, that isn't necessarily the case.
It really is amazing the proprtion of right wing posters from Islington isn;t it??!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Only One | 20/07/2010 12:34 pm
Several issue to remember here chaps :
- LHAs are different from area to area, therefore the cap in effect affects everyone, not justy the Londoncentric amongst us.
- likewise, with social housing developments, target rent caps vary from region to region so again there is a balcance aqcross the country
- you will never cap private rents. it's not feasible, not legal (and never will be), and is the result of a free market economy. It just means we go back to the good old days of them being advertised as No-DSS!!
And to suggest that only those out of work should receive HB is probably the most stupid on this forum (unless it was only intended as a rouse to get readers agitated!). I refer to a previous psotinghowever, that if you can't afford it then you probably shouldn't have it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment