The vast majority is on housing benifit, when landlords can just keep upping the rent and the DWP will rubber stamp it.
I'm glad that'll put a stop to that sort of thing.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:45, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

When I first rented out my flat
it went to someone on housing allowance. Granted this was in Scotland, so it might be a different story up there, but the council agreed an amount of rent, and two years later when I wanted to put the rent up by £50, they refused to honour it. I knew I'd never get the extra from the tenant, so I dropped the matter.
I'm sure what you say is true, and there are some seriously overinflated rental prices, just because councils are willing to pay them - maybe the reform should be focused on that instead. A cap on private sector rental to a certain percentage above rateable value, or something.
( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:48, Reply)

That's partly why we have the problem.
The previous government allowed landlords to charge councils something closer to market rents.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)

If only we could have a system where councils themselves owned properties
because something the size of a council could take out a mortgage at fucking great rates of interest and then they could let people stay in the houses and it wouldn't really be costing the council anything, especially after a few years once the mortgage was paid off.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:51, Reply)

There are very few council properties left.
Most have transferres to housing associations, laughingly called non profit making groups.
(Bear Pookie The Frankly Challenged. Halloween is coming to town., Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:55, Reply)

Bloody Thatcher

( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:57, Reply)

But without the market really being involved.
Say a good 4 bed house goes for £1500 a month in an area, a shit one with rubbish heating damp etc should be more like £1000-£1200, but because the "market rate" is £1500 they can charge that to the council.
fucking cowboys.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:59, Reply)

But will it?
Because the government line is that you should move "somewhere you can afford" and whilst in principle I'm in favour of people living according to their actual capacity to pay their rent, the problem is that a) they are not doing anything to address inflating rents for sub standard properties and b) this looks very much like it will simply lead to creating ghettos that will become even more self perpetuating than those we presently have.

I'm not actually arguing that better allocation of benefits is a bad idea, but a crude cap doesn't appear to be a good way of doing it.
(Bazongaloid, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:49, Reply)

Who knows? The rental sector at the moment is a mess.
I think with only 67,000 homes affected it won't make a massive difference. I think a total revisiting of housing benefit would be for the best.
Not necessarily focused on reducing the cost, but a combination of that and increasing the standard of housing to a fit if basic state for a family on benefits.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:56, Reply)

A crude cap, earlier:

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 13:57, Reply)

I hope you own one of these.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 23 Jan 2012, 14:06, Reply)