Thursday, 09 February 2012

Bad news for BME tenants

From: What's the benefit?

BME tenants are particularly concerned about the impact of the reforms to housing benefit announced in the emergency budget. Sheron Carter, chief executive of Arhag Housing Association and Chair of London BME Directors, explains why the cuts are such bad news.

I no longer get hot under the collar each time one of the red-top newspapers pulls out some sensationalised story about some ‘feckless’ immigrant living large on the welfare state. It is a predictably easy target to get the juices flowing from the community at large, which faces ever-increasing house-prices and few affordable options.

In the 1990s I worked with BME homeless households and I found the majority living in worse-than-dire bed and breakfast accommodation or extremely overcrowded conditions, in homes that were poorly maintained and with the constant threat of end of term eviction.

Even with the move away from bed and breakfast to private sector leasing, the Kensington story isn’t at all typical of most people’s housing experience, immigrant or otherwise. In fact, it is more likely that black and minority ethnic communities may end up bearing the brunt of this new age of austerity.

It is commonly known that BME households have a greater need for larger accommodation.  Local authorities have sold off most of the good stuff and the social housing sector has failed to build enough large homes to meet their needs. If living arrangements break down for any reason, may BME households have no choice but to consider private rented accommodation.

Capping the local housing allowance will force people to live in homes much smaller than their needs and result in state sponsored overcrowding with all the inherent health and social problems it generates.

The proposed housing benefit cuts provide even more bad news for BME communities. Amongst the out-of-work, BME people are twice as likely to be unemployed, which means the HB cuts will disproportionately affect these groups. It is naïve to put this down to fecklessness and to assume discrimination in employment no longer exists when there have been many studies which show that out of equally equally qualified candidates, a BME candidate is less likely to get the job. And that’s in the good times.

As a small ethical business I worry about the burden of carrying increasing debt and all the associated risks that brings. Most people on benefits will find it difficult to pay 10 per cent of their rent and I have found that courts are often reluctant to grant an eviction for people in difficult circumstances. This will leave associations to carry losses compounded by ever-reducing grant rates. Over the long-term this will not be sustainable no matter what the size of the association.

At Arhag we charge affordable rents for all tenures including temporary social housing which enables around 60 per cent of our tenants to be in work. Steadier house prices and affordable rents are better for the Treasury and for those trying to get on the property ladder. But there is money to be made and like those bankers’ bonuses I suspect no-one will want to give up what has been a nice little earner, regardless of the consequences.

Readers' comments (5)

  • "I no longer get hot under the collar each time one of the red-top newspapers pull out some sensationalised story about some ‘feckless’ immigrant living large on the welfare state".

    That would be the Somali and family given £2000 HB a week to live in Kensington because he didn't like Kensal Green".

    Not sensationalised. True. And 95% of the population do get hot and bothered, if not on fire, about such stories.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sidney Webb

    I too get incensed at the brassed face of the landlord for charing the state such a huge sum.
    And then there's the complete lack of available housing that allows landlords to exploit the benefit system this way.
    Not to mention the low-wage economy that means people have no other housing option.

    Yes, just like anonymous, I get very hot and bothered over this benefits exploitation, and the economic and political framework that supports such abuse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ALL of the tenants the I work with, on HB, are particularly concerned about the impact of the reforms to housing benefit.
    It has an impact on everybody, regardless of ethnicty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The issue is not whether it is an immigrant whose is getting the over generous payment in live in palatial homes but the local authorities that are allowing it to happen. The responsibility solely lies with the LA for if they are willingly paying these private landlords and not challenging them on the fees charged, it is the LA who are to held accountable. This is the heart of the problem and why many private landlords have become rather wealthy.

    This attitude must change and rents payments must not be more 10% higher than what LA charges for its properties. Lets see some proactive action from the LA rather than blindly paying out unreasonable sums of tax payers money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Chris

    The local authority has to work within the benefits scheme set by government.
    The local authority can no longer regulate private sector rents since the government removed that right.
    The local authority has a duty to house, but because of the government caused housing shortage this means they must turn to the private landlords for housing.

    The government is the cause of the problem, the government can remove the problem. We have a new government. They appear set to continue the problem but beat up the tenants instead.

    Perhaps instead of people feeling good that it is not them they should consider who the government will turn on next.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register

From What's the benefit?

The blog for our What’s the Benefit? campaign, which is calling on the government to find a fairer way to reduce the £21 billion housing benefit bill than its current proposals.

Isabel Hardman writes about

housing benefit, welfare