Forum Topic

Housing Benefit for Disabled to be HALVED

Housing benefit in Ealing (and presumably throughout the UK) is being cut be 50% as from October 2012. This blanket cut applies to the able bodied, the physically disabled and the mentally disabled. At half the benefit rate disabled people will be forced to live in single rooms in houses and in hostels - sharing bathrooms and kitchens. For so many reasons this will prove painful, inappropriate and could lead to self harm.It would appear that the Tory Government's intention is for disabled people to move out of Ealing (to say Hayes or West Drayton) where they might possibly find that the even more reduced benefit on offer might buy then slightly better rented accomodation. However, moving away from family, friends, physical and psychiatric support is likely to result in significant loss in quality of life and a major increase in vulnerability.The other possible motive is to force Ealing landlords to reduce their rents. So for example if a landlord had been offering a small one bedroom flat in West Ealing for £800/month he/she would reduce the monthly rent to £400/month. However, in no-one's life time in Ealing have home rental rates dropped by 10% never mind 50%. Seemingly the disabled are being punished for the financial collapse which was caused by governemnt, financial sector and regulatory failures. What a sick world we live in.

Eric Alan Leach ● 5182d41 Comments

On the other side of the coin seeExtract from Council Written Questions and Answers – 31st January 2012"Far from alleviating housing issues in the borough, the Localism Bill and welfare reform proposals presents the council with several challenges to its services.The predominant concern remains the introduction of Universal Credit and the blanket capping of overall benefit at £500 per week. This will affect nearly 4,000 households in the borough; some will be over £550 per week worse off.This has placed unneeded pressure on Housing and Benefit teams resources with staff directed to work to help those likely to be worse off under the new regime. The Council is visiting all households." Even the National Labour Party supports the principle of reducing benefits. But this Council thinks the pressure is "unneeded".Which planet does Ealing Council live on?The sad truth after 30 years+ of limited house building, is that in principle people on long term benefits should consider cutting their coat...That means moving out and it means the Homeless procedures need to be adapted to make it easier for people to move out.

George Knox ● 5168d

as in what planet Tony lives on!!!

Jaz Brown ● 5169d

I was just thinking the same thing.

Jaz Brown ● 5169d

Tony, which planet do you live on?

George Knox ● 5169d

Re    if you know how how to work the system            xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  there will be "professional" advisers at the ready. Some of the tricks used  could not be known by " ordinary " people.

Tony Price ● 5169d

Depends on determination, ingenuity and if you know how how to work the system

George Knox ● 5169d

Interesting reading thank you. Re breaking up families, it may have worked before, but not now. There is no alternative accommodation.

Jaz Brown ● 5169d

This makes very sobering reading George.

Arthur Breens ● 5169d

Seehttp://www.cpag.org.uk/press/2012/230112.htmone of the most reputable organisations in their field.It is slightly out of date and so we cannot be clear if any amendments have been agreed.One issue is about breaking up families who can no longer afford to live together. So a spouse separates, get alternative accommodation and both claim as single parents, bringing in more money for the whole family. It's an old trick.So much for DC's broken society.

George Knox ● 5169d

The flats are bought back of them, had a friend who bought her 12th floor flat in South Acton estate, back in the 90's which is now demolished. She actually continued to live there and yes she had to pay out for the up keep as you said. She was glad when they demolished it. The flat was really nice inside, just the lifts etc that were horrible.

Jaz Brown ● 5169d

Re  friend may have lived in a perfectly legal rented property              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      that block is a sky high monstrosity and he lived there with the  "owner ", who I doubt was anyone other than the council tenant. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to buy a flat in such a building, would turn out to be a very expensive business. Whatever  changes the Council want to make,. especially to the outside and communal areas, any private owner has to chip in, including  lift replacements,which crippled a friend who had bought  his council flat in Northolt until the renovations contribution bills started to roll in, so was forced to sell it back to the Council, and that was a low rise building. And councils have a habit of demolishing blocks of flats, so I wonder where private owners would stand in those circs.

Tony Price ● 5170d

Want to point out that your friend may have lived in a perfectly legal rented property. Many council and housing association properties have been bought by the then tenants and are now being rented out. So if you go past a 'council block' they are not all council. Many of the new ones in Isleworth are Notting Hill Housing, some are rented, some a part rent part buy and some are privately owned.

Jaz Brown ● 5170d

Re  like anyone else and go on the list.        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  in general, agreed but he  and no doubt persons like him, did not know re any list or probably that the flat was Council property and the distinction between that and private accomodation, which is what he moved into,hence my meeting him. I thoroughly agree Council property should not be sublet,either in part or in whole and those who do must be punished most severely but there can be innocent victims who should not be punished,as I illustrated. The excesses of those claiming H B, such as the Afghan woman with 7 kids in Acton getting for HB  alone every month 2X greater than a Senior Citizen gets to live on in a whole year, has brought about  the legislation, and not before time. I was disheartened when Boris said he would not allow persons in London to be shifted and thank goodness his wishes are being ignored.. Can't afford it, can't have it. We should adopt the Soviet attitude, no work, no food. That principle would get a few asses in this country into gear, and pdq.

Tony Price ● 5173d

It's hypothetical anyway Tony but anyone in their right mind would say they had no idea the were breaking the law.Ignorance is not however a defence in law.They should have to apply like anyone else and go on the list.

Keith Iddon ● 5173d

Re  Why should someone who colludes with breaking the rules          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    just seen this thread, so comments a bit delayed but Keith, the sub tenants may not always know the rules, which situation I know to be a fact. My main Chinese friend pointed to a  huge block of  council flats in Isleworth as we were driving nearby and said when he first came to England, that is where he lived. He did not know of any ban on sub-letting etc and I am sure there would be many in that situation, especially if from overseas.

Tony Price ● 5173d

I don’t think that HB was the main cause of rents going up. People got benefits towards their rent before HB came in.For me the real criminal was the Conservative party under Thatcher. They relaxed lending rules significantly. They more or less did for Rent controls. They abolished the old security of tenure. In time the property speculators saw they could borrow and get a guaranteed rent from the Council. The right to buy reduced social housing stock. Inflation was extremely high under Thatcher for a while, and rents rose substantially. House building slowed and there was a failure to anticipate the increasing population. The shortage of stock for the poor had many living in B&B hostels until they were more or less abolished.The Labour party were too weak in resisting landlords’ demands for the return they wanted on their investments and Labour were criminally weak on controlling immigration until near the end of their tenure. They failed miserably in starting a new House building programme which was to be led by Prescott. They chickened out of Benefit Reform when Frank Field was given his marching orders very early under the new Labour administration. They were too scared to be tough like Tories and tighten up rules on lending.The trouble with the Labour party is they cannot run business or organise. So many times in the last century they landed us in the financial mire. So we know we have to have the Tories in to clear up the mess, and only kick them out when we get really fed up with their sycophantic pandering to business at the expense of less well off people who want a fairer society. Milliband carries the can at the moment for all those past failures and the country knows that only the Tories are tough enough to get us out of the mire. Milliband needs someone else to do the hard and nasty work for the Labour party and therefore, with not many objections, the Bill will go through. Hence politically he comes across as a weakling. Bell is also failing adequately to control the right kind of costs in Ealing and so here we have another Labour leader who is tarred with the same epithet. The Ealing Tories mount a vigorous opposition. They talk well but do they have the trousers? And how does Shadow housing Cllr Costello think he will resolve our local housing shortage? So sorry, reform of endless legislation being piled on endless legislation is badly needed and it will hurt.

George Knox ● 5175d

Tony,You are very generous. Yes this legislation was cobbled together. But if you care about something would you risk cobbling it together?In their letterbox blurb sheet the Ealing Conservative Group... "has condemned the cuts to vulnerable residents being pushed through by the Labour Council." (Cllr Mark Reen)You see they don't even understand the effects of their own party's policies.This may indicate they like their Westminster colleagues don't care either.

Arthur Breens ● 5175d

>  it has to have been deliberate.Don't be rediculous - nobody in mainstream politics thinks like that.The many unfortunate examples of those less fortunate getting caught in the crossfire of the intent regarding reducing the absolutely enormous welfare bill are as a result of cockup, not conspiracy.IOW, the whole damn thing has been cobbled together at such a pace that inadequate thought and attention has been given to the plight of the sick and disabled compared to the main thrust of trying to do something about those who are taking the michael.

Tony Colliver ● 5175d

Housing benefit actually raised rents, there are so many privately rented properties being paid for partly or in full by housing benefit. Many landlords 'bought' homes knowing that they could rent them out to homeless families put there by the council. It has been going on for at least 20 years. The conservatives started it off, but after they realised that it was costing a fortune, they did cap the rents, in about 1994/5 Ealing capped the rent of a two bed property at £140 per week. This was overturned at some point and with no new social housing being built it became normal for councils to put families in private rented accommodation. Think of all the private landlords who have made a fortune out of the homeless and the tax payer, And think of all the permanent council homes that could have been built with all the housing benefit given out. Also it is not just the poor that need help with housing, it is most families living in London who earn below I would say £40,000. For a single person below £26,000 at least . Owning a home for many now is too expensive, paying private rent is paying someone else's mortgage. Its bank of mum and dad, getting an extremely well paid job or winning the lottery.

Jaz Brown ● 5180d

Don't think that any right thinking person would espouse all the clauses in the Welfare Reform Bill - particularly those who should be properly looked after if they get Disability Living Allowance. That is why we need a second chamber and it does not matter in this case if its Members are elected or not, e.g.Bishops. But the Bill is not all bad.What needs to to be remembered is that some applicants with the assistance of some overly helpful advisers have achieved success when applying for some Benefits. That is another "strand of thought" which may be added to the one which you have identified.Further how right are all these Rights when compared to the rights in other developed countries? Why is it for instance so long been said that Benefits here are more generous, which therefore supposedly act as a magnet to aliens. Just try getting HB in Spain. Just how wonderful are the Left influential thinkers on promoting the having and taking Resposibility?

George Knox ● 5180d

ArthurThe poor are always with us.I do wonder how different the Benefits cut backs would have been had the Labour party won the election. They were already reducing Benefits and the Coalition just got on with it a bit faster.We shall hear endless horror stories about new homelessness and hardship.I agree the rental calculations are much harsher, but not so much that on a grand scale most rents (or even all rents) will be halved. But surely the benefits system is way out of control and it needs radical reform. So the new social engineering will mean another new lost generation. Look what happened in the mining villlages. But harsh as that really was, it did not break the country or the social structure to any really extensive degree. You may remember that Thatcher brought in Incapacity Benefit which was a device to hide the real unemployment figures and show lower numbers on the dole. What happened before? I suspect that quite a few found work to stave off starvation. Back to Beveridge again. He was clearly against the benefits system encouraging idleness. I think prefabs are a great idea. I think relocation should be more widely used especially for those who have made a career of living off Benefits. Rents should be controlled. Security of tenure should be restored. But can you see any of this happening under Tory or Labour?

George Knox ● 5180d

"Seemingly the disabled are being punished for the financial collapse which was caused by governemnt, financial sector and regulatory failures. What a sick world we live in."Yes, well, the clue is in the words 'Conservative Party'.  There's a strand of thought in that organisationthat seems to think that any government action to help those unfortunate enough to be disabled is a surrender to the forces of euro-socialist-islamofascism.I'm only slightly exaggerating this; influential thinkers on the right have long been opposed to any form of groups fighting for the rights of disabled people, or in fact for the rights of anyone else, which should give any grass roots movement of ordinary Britons (the Ealing town centre campaigners, for instance) pause.  The Welfare Reform Bill can't have been accidentally this unpleasant to disabled HB recipients, kids with cancer, etc., it has to have been deliberate.

Thomas Barry ● 5180d

Jaz,Thanks for this it is really helpful. May I come back to George's point. I think for many cases Eric's point could be correct. The website I quoted above gives all sorts of examples. The most telling example and law from April 2011 was that the benefit rate that used to be set at a median value for an area is now set at a 30th percentile. Used to be 50% higher rents and 50% lower rents but now 30% lower and 70%higher. That does make a difference George. You will know by how much because you will be able to find a rent distribution graph and be able to plot a median and a 30th percentile on it for us. It is a real crisis for many.Hitler bombed much of our housing stock. My family moved from cramped accommodation (a small unconverted house shared by two unrelated families) to a council house. Others moved to prefabs and Cornish units. Politicians from both parties recognised the need for housing. And they built it up to their eyes in debt they built it. Now the government screws down the poor and our officers who might be able to do something about it here in Ealing swan off on their bikes to MIPIM.

Arthur Breens ● 5180d

Poor man across the road from me. wife left him with two kids under the age of 5. He couldn't work at first because he had to get round bringing up two kids. The council put him in a three bed rented accommodation at £2000 a month, (and its a tiny house)ten years ago and has left him there.  Now works part-time, claims HB on the rest of the rent. However he has been unable to save because he is left with the same amount to live on as income support. Many people are like this. The trouble is if you are homeless you are given private accommodation and left there, because you are no longer homeless. If you could afford private rent you would have gone there in the first place. There is no waiting list as such, it is who your housing officer is and where you happen to be when a council/housing association  property becomes available. You may have been waiting one month or 10 years.

Jaz Brown ● 5181d

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/200118/housing_and_council_tax_benefit/328/local_housing_allowance/4Unless Ealing's webpage is out of date this is what the position is re LHA. The Welfare Bill is still going through and we can only hope that common sense will prevail and some of the worst law will be relaxed.Eric's first post gave the impression that all LHA (which applies just to private rented) would be halved. That was wrong.It also seems that disabled people needing a live in Carer will get more LHA. Not clear what Ben is saying.Both parties are at fault. Tories relaxed rental levels and reduced security of tenure. Labour allowed an exponential increase in the population which congregated in large cities, especially London.We cannot go on living with the legacy of these huge changes in social engineering (which caused such hardship to various sectors of the community) without further social engineering involving further hardship.How else will the massive Benefits bill be reduced?And while the Labour people in Ealing should be sacked for producing just 6 dwellings which just goes to show their total hypocrisy as regards their belief in social justice, it would be better if we knew how many different categories of Benefits claimants in private rented there are in the borough before we get too exercised about the availability of housing. We need to see a fuller picture.

George Knox ● 5181d

completely agree with all of you with what you are saying about renting out your council property. I was however referring to those ex council properties that were bought by the original tenants then rented out (at a massive profit), or sold to landlords buy to let, making loads of money. Housing is a need, and I believe that nobody should make a profit out of someone's needs. (wants maybe different) Yet rents should never have been allowed to get so high. There are so many greedy people around. I am just so aghast at how psychopathic this government is!

Jaz Brown ● 5181d

Yes Nigel but I think that there is as much chance people would know it was not a private property they were renting.I would wager that many of those renting illegally would not qualify for council intervention in their housing.It would the case that if they were evicted from an illegal tenancy then they would be considered intentionally homeless and the council would be able to house someone who has been on the list for God only knows how long and have no liability for the evicted person.It is called the real world and would help to ease the housing shortage and save millions to boot.The sooner the better I say so that public housing can be allocated to those for whom it was intended.

Keith Iddon ● 5181d

On reflection Keith, you are probably right. I ws trying to avoid the situation where an innocent victim who thought that they were renting from a private landlord is simply evicted by the property owner (the council). Difficult to judge/assess I know but I wanted to avoid homelessness of an innocent party.

Nigel Brooks ● 5181d

This rubbish government whose plans are to cut the £21 billion housing benefit bill will end up driving thousands of vulnerable people from their homes and into poverty. Already 20,000 people are at a 'red alert stage' of becoming homeless - this stupidly will end up costing the state more money. It might be helful to point out here how the government is planning to reduce the benefit bill. Some of the measures are:-Limits of £250 for a one-bed property and £400 for four or more bedrooms. (If you are a single disabled person and living independently, you will only have enough benefit to pay for your bedroom; if you need overnight care, stuff you! Housing benefit reforms propose that the extra bedroom that the carer needs must be paid by the disabled person)Local housing allowance rates set using the bottom 30 per cent of rents rather than the median from October 2011. It will be linked to the consumer price index, rather than the retail price index. There are 1 million LHA claimants in the UK. So all those landlords who have leased their stock to Ealing are going to be faced with a choice. Either cut the rent to keep the tenant in their home or change the tenant to someone who is able to pay the  market rent (when no doubt the landlord will also use the opportunity to raise the rent)  Which one is most likely?Cutting housing benefit by 10 per cent for claimants on jobseekers allowance for more than a year. (Show me the jobs, or where are these jobs?)

Ben Owen ● 5182d

I agree in part Nigel but not evicting them on what grounds? Why should someone who colludes with breaking the rules(not sure if it is housing law but probably is?)benefit from the situation? Let them meet the same criteria that other applicants have to meet.Punitive fine and a ban on future public housing for the tenancy holder by all means,but the person they have let to could be a family member or even someone who owns property themselves and rents it out to make money.

Keith Iddon ● 5182d

Can only agree. What would it take to 'blitz'  the council stock to ensure that the tenant 'on the records' actually lives there?Don't evict anyone (sub-tenants are often innocent victims), simply re-assign the tenancy to the sub-tenant and impose a punitive fine on the supposed original tenant ensuring that they never get social housing again.

Nigel Brooks ● 5182d

THere was alot of harrumphing from the govn. recently about people sub letting their council homes.Should be stopped imo.

Keith Iddon ● 5182d

I know, it's awful. We also have ex council properties being rented out at extortionate rents with someone else getting rich, when the rent could have been put into building new properties. And where does the rent of council properties go now? Also just read this in the Ealing gazette.  http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2012/02/01/residents-living-in-hell-on-greenford-estate-64767-30244802/ Empty properties going to waste

Jaz Brown ● 5182d

£400 is indeed stingy.Less than £100 pw for rent is a very big ask in London.I stand corrected,tho' I did mention I may well heve been wrong.

Keith Iddon ● 5182d

Jaz you are right. That means a lot of rent arrears, moving, debt, stress, upset and instability. And you are right that there needs to be more social housing for rent. The record number of new social rented properties in Ealing last year was 6 yes 6 Only 6. 50% of the flats that are being built on what used to be our land behind the Town Hall are being sold to overseas-based millionaires. What is shocking is that we pay officers to organise this scandal. What fools we are?

Arthur Breens ● 5182d

No, it said monthly. £800 a week is criminal! You can get one bedrooms for £1200 a month in the private sector. For anyone though it is best to get a house share much cheaper. From January this year, any one under the age of 35 is only entitled housing benefit of £85 per week and has to be a shared accommodation, not one bedroomed flats. So for an unemployed divorced father who has access top his children, he will have no where to take them!!! Used to be under 25s

Jaz Brown ● 5182d

I think the £400 is weekly,not monthly.Single people or couples without kids will get less as far as I know.I would be surprised if many council properties were more than £400 pw.but I may well be wrong.

Keith Iddon ● 5182d

Hi Eric,it only you could find a one bedroomed flat in Ealing for £800 a month!!! As for £400 that is less than council rent. What Ealing council needs to do though is build more social housing. One bedroomed housing benefit I believe is going to be capped at £230 a week for one bedroom, but then there is council tax extra!!

Jaz Brown ● 5182d

My researcher (I don't pay em prefering to keep em lean and mean like Tony Blair) came up with this....www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/housing-benefitThis seems to confirm what you are saying Eric.I did look up rightmove's website. Not quite the happy hunting ground the previous poster suggested.I am not happy with this government...that started after they tried to privatise the Blood Transfusion Service. And others are becoming increasingly disenchanted. Just look at the voting patterns of our Bishops in the Lords

Arthur Breens ● 5182d

Yes I did my research.I have copies of letters sent to disabled claimants and I have information from a Social Worker who has many disabled clients.What I have posted is correct.What information do you have about the specific topic I have raised? What research have you done?

Eric Alan Leach ● 5182d

Eric, did you actually think or do any research before posting that?Nope - thought not. If you had you'd have very quickly found out that there are no proposals for a 50% cut in housing benefit.The proposals are in fact to cap the housing benefit at certain thresholds - for example £400 a week for a 4 bedroom house. And before you tell us you can't rent decent places in Ealing for that much you might like to first check Rightmove which has such properties listed:http://tinyurl.com/4bedEalingSo then, not really a case of "the disabled are being punished for the financial collapse which was caused by governemnt, financial sector and regulatory failures" (sic).

Chris Martin ● 5182d