Posted by: Isabel Hardman
13/07/2010There’s nothing quite like a good story about a housing benefit claimant living in a classy mansion at taxpayers’ expense. Which is why there is another clutch of such stories in the newspapers this week.
A number of papers chose to introduce their readers to Somalian Abdi and Sayruq Nur, who are living in a £8000-a-month house in Kensington with their seven children. Mr Nur is an unemployed former bus conductor who apparently decided to ‘upgrade’ his accommodation from a five-bedroom housing Brent, which cost £900 a week, to the townhouse, worth £2.1 million.
Stories like this always provoke neighbours, leader writers and readers to outrage, and are generally accompanied by photos of the claimant standing next to a gigantic television which they have supposedly funded by having their palatial accommodation paid for by the council.
But they’re not the true face of housing benefit, and shouldn’t be the reason why the government is moving to cap payments of local housing allowance. There are only 100 households claiming more than £1000 a week. That’s 100 out of 1 million LHA claimants. They might make 100 good stories, but the 999,900 other claimants are not living this luxury lifestyle. The majority are retired, have disabilities, are caring for a sick or disabled relative or families who work but earn too little to afford the rents in the areas where their jobs are. This is what The Independent had to say about this yesterday.
For these people, the caps on local housing allowance won’t be the end of living in a beautiful house in what The Mirror calls ‘posh Kensington’. It means not being able to afford living in the area where they have lived for decades, and having to move further away from jobs and the support network they rely on. When you look at the real face of housing benefit, the caps don’t seem so fair, do they?
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
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.
Readers' comments (13)
Sidney Webb | 13/07/2010 3:55 pm
When the majority of MPs were caught with thier hand in our till the outrage was met with a review process, some thinking and planning, and finally some action, meaning that they can now only get into our till one finger at a time.
When the vast minority of housing benefit cases appear excessive (and even then the private gain of the landlord must be suspect) how can a knee jerk move to punish all tenants be justified.
Cap rents, don't punish tenants!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 13/07/2010 9:38 pm
Spot on Isabel - the 'no turning back group' style of extremist and their pals writing the scandal sheets and red tops never miss an opportunity to divide and rule.
Someone knew someone who said that a tenant gained housing benefit that was greater than someone elses annual salary therefore all tenants are bad and all benefit must not only be stopped but tenants must pay back anything they got over the past 20-years as punishment. - Yeah, bash the defenceless, hoist the examples, hide the reality.
Private landlords are milking the system in just the way the system was set up for them to do. MPs knew in the 90's this would happen. MPs saw the benefit bills grow out of all control. Mps allowed the benefit rip off to continue, feeding the 'very thankful' growing army of private sector landlords letting to social sector tenants.
If accountability is needed let the spotlight fall on the MPs that designed and perpetuated the benefit conveyor and the housing shortage that drives it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SocialHousingWorks | 14/07/2010 10:23 am
"It means not being able to afford living in the area where they have lived for decades"
Which is part of the problem - these people have been living beyond the means of normal hard-working people for so long that they now feel they have a divine right to remain in properties that the majority of the population cannot afford, but are expected to contribute towards.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14/07/2010 2:29 pm
For the past few weeks I’ve heard a lot about why we should continue paying for LHA for those living in expensive areas, but no solution how this can continue to be paid for by Taxpayers.
Really simply ask the question if the claimant was working could they afford to live there? The answer is probably no.
For many of us not dependent on benefits we fit our lifestyle around what we can afford; where we live, how many kids we have; what luxuries we can afford...
It seems only right that claimants live modestly, there seems little point in getting them used to a lifestyle that once they’re working (we assume this is their ultimate aim) they won’t be able to maintain and afford.
As for the Ghetto argument surely there is enough social housing and rents at reasonable rents to keep the balance and diversity in those ‘expensive’ boroughs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 14/07/2010 2:43 pm
Anonymous | 14/07/2010 2:29 pm
You appear ignorant of a few basic facts.
The social housing at reasonable rents has mostly gone under right to buy. What is left is the dreggs that could not be sold off.
Do you not remember Dame Shirley and her purge upon tenants?
The solution for taxpayers is to cap rents. This saves £2.4Bn per year. The current proposals saves little.
Benefits are payable to those in work. Your assumption that all this money is going to the jobless is founded on Daily Mail mythology.
Housing is not a luxury.
If we want to get a sandwich or a coffee at lunchtime somebody has to be there to produce it, and at the wages paid they will not be commuting - do you suggest the sleep on the floor of the shop, or are you willing to go without these as well as your basic public services as well?
By turning on your fellow citizens you are enabling the government to undermine your own rights too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14/07/2010 4:02 pm
Cap rents? And therefore cap the supply of available private sector accommodation. There have to be limits of course, so that Kensington mansions are as far from the reach of benefits dependent people as they are from most wage earners. However, there's a balance to be struck here, private sector landlords will simply do other things with their property if rents are capped below a market level. I don't see an increased supply of social housing being developed to pick up the slack at the moment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 14/07/2010 7:27 pm
Only 100 claiming more than £ 1000 a week !!!!
oh yes and how many claiming more than £250 a week and how many more than £150
The ceiling outside London should be set at £150 a week and £250 inside London.
Rentals will drop to realistic figures, when Landlords and HA realise the gravey train is over and cut their building and other costs to a level the tax payers can afford.
One family getting more than £250 a week in HB would be one too many.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 14/07/2010 8:51 pm
Yep, JB is spot on as per usual. Of course booting out these Somalians who have absolutely no business being here in the first place and have absolutely no intention of contributing anything to society (except to breed more Somalians) - just as they do in their country - is a sensible first step. Dealing with NuLab's 13 years of unprecedented mass third world immigration is not going to be easy. Clearly all passports and indefinite-leave-to-remain stamps issued in the last 13 years should be reviewed to see if these decisions were in fact made in the national interest. This would certainly be a most effective means to increase the supply of housing, reduce rents across the board, cut the prison population and slash the street crime rate. ConDems, take note....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 14/07/2010 8:56 pm
Dear Mr Bull, you may not be aware but the government has forced RSLs to increase rents, probably so that the rents their private sector friends charge do not look quite so out of touch with respectability.
The most effective way to meet your wish that people get as little housing benefit as possible is to cap private rents to social rent levels.
Now for those who cry foul for the private landlords, don't forget that they are at perfect liberty to rent their squalid little holes to commercial customers, or sell the houses and pocket the 'investment' proceeds.
If for one minute they believed they could get rents anywhere near what they rip off the tax payer for they would not have got into the non-commercial renting anyway.
The result of capped rents will be either lower rents all around or loads of houses up for sale (meaning lower house prices and lower rents all around), or a government funded scheme to help out their poor buddies and buy back the former council houses for social renting, meaning lower rents all around.
How does the taxpayer other than gain here?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john bull | 15/07/2010 0:08 am
hi chris, yes the government did, the last one, not the present one!!!!!!
Lower rents and lower house prices as the result of capped HB seems good news to me.
Thanks ILAG. I hope the con/dems do take note, It would be a great day for taxpayers/workers.
It would be nice to go to London without thinking I needed a passport.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19/07/2010 3:42 pm
"booting out these Somalians who have absolutely no business being here in the first place and have absolutely no intention of contributing anything to society (except to breed more Somalians)"
Ah, i love the well reasoned and knowledgeable posts from ILAG and John Bull, always good entertainment.
The root cause of most racism is ignorance of the people, places and cultures which are being discussed. ILAG and John Bull are prime examples of this.
The sooner their hate filled, racist and often plainly stupid posts are removed from this site, the sooner IH will regain some of its credability.
Don't take my word for it search the site using one of their names and you will be appauled by some of thier previous postings.
JB you will love this stat: by 2040 one in five britons will be from an ethnic minority.... And your head will probably explode!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27/07/2010 10:00 am
The problem is not particular to London, a housing benefit of £400 a month allows people to live in the poshest estates in other parts of the country. I live in the North West on the most expensive estate of a very large town. I've worked all my life between 56-80 hours a week.When I'm not getting paid for work I'm doing work at home to further my prospects. I'm currently trying to sell my home. Unfortunately a DSS family has moved in to the 500,000 house next door. They leave everything but the kitchen sink on the lawn outside, have two dogs that look like they should be on the banned list and eff and blind as they skive the entire day looking like they dont have a care in the world. I've worked all my life to get to this position where as my neighbour has got it for free. Lavours legacy is a welfare state
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 27/07/2010 10:25 am
Its tempting to add that ILAG would describe the inserting of another tenure into your neighbourhood as breaking up the monotenure ghettos, but it hurts to put my tongue so far through my cheek.
I have every sympathy with your plight.
Have you discussed the matter with the people living in the house? It may be a long shot, but worth a try.
Have you discussed the matter with the owner of the property. As landlord they do have responsibility for the standard of upkeep. As your neighbour they should have at least the civil standard to consider your lifestyle. If they do not respond positively there is legal recourse you can take. A solicitor could advise you on this.
Before, expending money on a solicitor though, have you discussed the matter with the local Council. If they placed the tenant then they also have some repsonsibility, and may have influence over the landlord.
The long term solution is to build more affordable homes so that people can have housing that presents the least drain on taxpayer resources. But do also consider that horror neighbours can be of any background and class. It is to simple to confuse the cause with the effect. I'm sure you would agree that benefit supported or millionaires, your neighbours are who they are because of personality and not income.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment