New LHA Laws Favour Violent Criminals

HI Ben,

This is what I really don't get. If right to buy depleted social housing stock (as we know it did because the stock wasn't replaced) then why is that idiot Mr Shapps trumpeting about an increase in the amount of discounts being made available to, you've guessed it, right to buy?! Admittedly he's promising to rebuild each and every property that's sold (with his own fair hands no doubt) but I still don't get it.

I'm glad you agree that such people should be homed within social housing because of the expertise of those working within it but Grant Shapps needs to be told!!

So with all these 1 bed apartments having to be given up by occupants under 35 where are all the rooms magically going to appear from to house them.
Pehaps the LHA claimants over 35 who are in HMO's will take over the 1 bed flat and those under 35 previously occupying the 1 bed flats will take over the recently vacated HMO rooms!?
Of course there will not be enough supply so where are they going to stay.
One alternative would be the spare rooms of peoples residential property or even tenants who are not on benefit with a spare room.
However not many people would wish to take in a LHA claimant.
Reason it is not worth it and the type of tenant is obviously one who is generally deviant.
Even if someone was to take them on it is not viable.
I would not let my spare room out for less than £150.00 pcw.
The break down goes like this,
£150 x 52 weeks = £7800.00 - £325 loss of single persons council tax discount
= £7475.00 divided by 52 weeks = £143.75 divided by 7 days = £20.53 divided by 24 hrs = £0.85 p hr.
Now factor in additional costs of utilities and increased usage of household consumables(toilet rolls for eg.!), plus loss of privacy for the pricely sum of £85 phr; I don't think so!
Any rent amount less than this would just not be worth it.
So I am afraid these under 35's are in for a rude awakening and bizarrely to assist them in their housing needs it seems they should carry out a crime;  get nicked, go to prison and when they come out they will qualify for a single room property!!!
You couldn't make it up!!
We have a topsy-turvey country where doing the 'right thing' ends up penalising you; how can that be right?
Perhaps with all these alleged empty properties  as per the recent Channel 4 programmes available something could be done to bring them into use with some sort of contribution by these under 35 LHA claimants; a bit like the self build process.
This where contibution in time; effort, labour etc would result in achieving rent of such a 1 bed property.
This effectively would mean that they have achieved something for something rather than something for nothing!  which is the way the benefit system works presently for those who can work but choose not to. 

I think also the ONLY solution for housing in the UK is as Ben suggests;  social housing.
Unfortunately there isn't enough being built and there won't be unless the govt takes the bull by the horns and embarks on a social property building programme like in the 60's.
Instead of giving the banks all the QE money it should be thrown at councils who should be intructed to build masses of social housing.
I think we need about 2 million homes though Ben might have a better idea on what is needed.
Until this happens we are just pussy footing around the edges of the problem.
The UK is a low wage economy and consequently people cannot afford to buy property particularly if the new lending criteria is introduced for residential and BTL mortgages.
If we embarked on this massive building programme the knock on benefits to the economy would be massively beneficial.
Only trouble is it would mean the bankers might not ger their bonuses......ahhhhh!
Does the govt have the vision for such a programme which was carried out by the Tory Macmillan govt??.....I'll leave you to decide!.

@Sharo@twitter-69623856:disqus n and Paul on these points. Yeah we all agree finally, and just in time for Xmas haha

I went to a short seminar on the effects of the new restrictions on Wednesday and was quite surprised to see a raft of exemptions and what are transitional provisions to ease people into it. Also, to help out, my borough have taken the decision to pay the extra rent for everyone of 34 until they are 35 to lessen the burden all around so the prediction of a huge number of evictions and rent arrears in January probably won happen, it will be more of a gradual effect.

As I said above, the more worying thing is going to be people under 35 currently living with their partners who then split up, leaving the remaining tenant reduced to the SAR, there will obviously be a lot of those.

And the fact that people who are a danger to the commuinty will be exempt from the SAR unless they are under 25, in which case they clearly arent deemed to be as a much of a threat, is a clear example that this is an exercise in budget reduction only noit dealing with the problems of scehdule 1 offenders.

And Sharon the roght to buy is a farce. Selling at a 50% discount, the government will still take some caoital receipts on sale, although they havent yet said how much as far as I am aware, will leave a council with exactly how much to build a new one???? The states promise of a house for a house is one thing but if you read the Housing Strategy publsihed a few weeks back it very clevelry states that the money made from sale will "Contribute" to the cost of building a new one, in which case where is the other "Contribution" going to come from?.

Councils have already agreed to shoulder the burden of Billions in housing debt to relieve presure on the government in return for keep all rent receipts without having to hand it over to government but the amount of debt each council takes on is based on how many properties they have, so many councils are demolishing homes to reduce their debt. I seem to recall Birmingham are knocking down 2,000.

The madness of what is going on when everyone in the business accepts that the onl;y way out of this crisis is to build more homes, is staggering

>Councils have already agreed to shoulder the burden of Billions in
housing debt to relieve presure on the government in return for keep all
rent receipts without having to hand it over to government but the
amount of debt each council takes on is based on how many properties
they have, so many councils are demolishing homes to reduce their debt. I
seem to recall Birmingham are knocking down 2,000.

If I recal correctly, many of those properties being knocked down are the ones which should have gone anyway - quoting a conversation with someone in Nottm council - so in some way it is an overdue clearing-out.

ML

Yeah, Nottingham along with Birmingham are in the mix
that is what they are saying ML but surely it must cost less to renovate a much needed dwelling than to knock one down and rebuild it? Even extensive renovations must cost less than that.

If they can produce facts and figures that show otherwise fair enough but I cant see it myself

The problem with renovations is that everyone is different, when if you knock down a complete set of roads and rebuild you can then plan a lot better and hence control costs.  A fixed price is very possible for a “new build” but is less common for a renovation. 

By the time that roofs have to be redone and walls need to have internal or external insulation installed, I can believe that a rebuild may work out cheaper if you have enough space to run a efficient building site. 
I think that renovations need a more skilled workforce then rebuilds, as the workers on a renovation has to be able to cope with whatever they find.