The ‘social cleansing’ row over a London council’s apparent attempt to ship hundreds of tenants who would normally be put into private rented accommodation to places as far away as Stoke-on-Trent has intensified.
Newham Council has written to housing associations in other parts of the UK to ask for help with accommodation.
It blamed a combination of high private rents and housing benefit cuts for its move, saying private rented accommodation is unaffordable for families who rely on Local Housing Allowance.
The council has criticised the Government’s decision to cap housing benefit payments at £400 per week for a four-bedroom home, saying there is a huge gap between that and market rents.
The spokesperson added: “Alongside a number of other London councils, we are exploring the option of working with housing associations outside the borough to house people with an immediate need in the private sector.”
But housing minister Grant Shapps said it was blatant electioneering on the part of Labour-run Newham Council, and has written to the BBC – which broke the story – to complain about its coverage.
He complained that the coverage could be causing Newham people real distress, and said that the BBC had been ‘hoodwinked by politically driven scaremongering’.
However, the National Housing Federation said that Newham’s attempts to house up to 500 families away from the capital were just the tip of the iceberg.
It said the ‘desperate move’ by Newham was a consequence of cuts to LHA.
Jacqui McCluskey, director at the umbrella body Homeless Link, said: “Charities warned Government that housing benefit reforms could risk increasing both evictions and homelessness in the capital – something the Department of Work and Pensions own assessment predicted.
“Because of LHA caps and a lack of affordable housing, homeless charities are already struggling to find clients private rental accommodation in London. Reports that councils are being left with little choice but to seek housing outside the capital only add to our concerns.
“We are working with our members to see if they have received similar requests from councils. If this is becoming common practice, Government must modify its reforms.
“With more welfare reforms in the pipeline, we must avoid making homelessness worse.”
Shapps has claimed that there are more than 1,000 properties for rental within five miles of Newham currently advertised on Rightmove.
But there are questions as to how many landlords are now accepting LHA tenants, even if they are happy with the rent levels.
Landlord bodies say that their members are quitting the sector, not just because of caps to the benefit, but because LHA is paid to the tenant, who is then trusted to pass it to the landlord.
There is also a question mark over Newham’s own attitude towards private landlords: the council is attempting to be the first in England and Wales to introduce blanket licensing of every rental property in its borough, effectively regulating all local landlords.
The Residential Landlords Association said the Newham case proved that more needs to be done to help the private rented sector.
The RLA said there is a ‘crisis’ in the London private rental market, with a chronic shortage of rental properties.
.png)
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
Comments
With respect the cap does exactly that. It recognises that the public purse is being relentlessly hammered by high rent claims from benefit claimants taht are unsustainable, thats why it was introduced.
If people can't afford to live in London then they have to move, simple. The ridiculous utopian fantasies that capping rent claims would drive rents down was just that, a fantasy. London is no different from any other capital city in the world; if you want to live in one you have to be prepared to pay the price; if you can't afford it why should the public purse - thats our tax money by the way - pay for it.
The main point for me is that the cap doesn't take into account the absurdly high London rents. Londoners renting a one bed flat for £250+ a week are not living in luxury, that's just how much it costs. We can’t blame Benefit claimants for ‘choosing very expensive houses’ when that’s all they can get in London (this side of a squalid bedsit). The human story here is that people will be uprooted, without choice: that means families disrupted, social networks destroyed, kids taken from schools. You wouldn’t want your own child to be forced from his or her school, and you wouldn’t want your parents forced to relocate. It’s the old yardstick: if it’s not good enough for you and yours, it’s not good enough for anyone else. Meanwhile, I suggest that most taxpayers like the idea of being involved in a thriving welfare state, and are happier seeing their taxes go in that direction that towards less worthy causes (nationalised banks, House of Commons catering, Royal shindigs, tax loopholes, etc.)
@georgie - Beggars can't be choosers, it's simply unsustainable and unfair to expect the tax payers to pay for something they wouldn't be able to have.
I won't comment on the spelling.
You receive 400 for a FOUR bedroom house. It gets lower depending on how many rooms you have. Also, We should
Move school children in there final year of year 11 so they can't sit there gcse's? Then they won't get a place at sixth form because it's to late. Then they won't be able to work?
@ sullomeo
A bit misguided there my friend.
Joe Public needs to live within their means, and if that means that LHA tenants have to live within our means too, then why shouldn't they? If they can't afford to live in one town then they need to move like the rest of us. Regardless of what caused the issu, thats what they need to do - in their case they actually have someone who's prepared to do the searching for them.
Market rents didn't deter benefit claimants from choosing very expensive houses to live in when they were looking so they have to accept the consequences in the same way that a person who takes out a big mortgage has to when houyse prices plummet.
LHA caps promote common sense use of the public purse, something that this country has needed for a long time.
Sorry, I appear to have landed on the Daily Mail's comments page by mistake. Rising rents and LHA caps are a cynical pincer movement, with government policy and landlord greed the driving forces. There are ordinary people suffering out there, not just the stereotypical scapegoats shaved, tarred and feathered by the kind of righteous but myopic frustration voiced above. I commute endlessly and see far too little of my young kids too, but it's not the fault of LHA tenants. The LHA cap promotes evictions and homelessness. Newham and co are victims of the ConDems just as much as the tenants are.
I work at an agency in Hertfordshire that has seen rents rise significantly in the last two years as working Londoners seek more affordable rental options outside of the capital; even with additional travel costs, the rents here still make it worthwhile for them to commute.
Consequently, I have had to move away from my home town (oh, the irony!) to seek more affordable options for my family and it beggars belief that the local authority has criticised landlords for refusing LHA tenants, especially when they can receive a higher amount from someone who has the gumption to get a job to pay for it!
We live in a capitalist economy, driven by market forces, of which the government allegedly approves until such time as it becomes inconvenient. I have grasped that reality and taken a step that leaves me with around 30 minutes of time with my son at either end of each working day - all six of them - but enables me to feed and clothe him on the salary I receive. I don't think for one minute that the tax I pay to feed, clothe and put a roof over the heads of the jobless and hopeless should permit them greater choice and believe it's high time some harsh realities were spelled out.
I dread to think what will happen if/when Labour return. I may have to follow Paul and emigrate.
I completely agree with James. I don't get nearly enough time with my child, and would happily move areas if I was given a free house and money to live on. They should be grateful for what they are given. The only stress they have is what to watch, Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women!
Nice to see the comments here following the same theme. As a worker who commutes into London to work and gets very little time with my kids in order to afford my rental costs I have no sympathy whatsoever with benefit tenants who 'only' get £400pw. I could never afford £1730pcm so why on earth should those who dont even work get the privilege?
Fact is there should be some gratitude shown for having any place to live in for free rather than moaning that its not in the area they prefer.
I would be eternally grateful to receive £400 a week gratis. These people need to get of their bottoms and work!
'Social cleansing' makes it sound as if they are being shipped off to a labour camp rather than being offered good quality free housing in, more than likely, a nicer part of the country. Many no doubt will be immigrants who have ended up in London because it is the only place they knew of in England. Indigeneous citizens have to live in a part of country they can afford so surely it is not too much to ask the same of those who the state supports.
£400 is far far too much, what planet do these people live on. I do not understand why people get to choose where they live if they get it for free. It's crazy left wing lunacy!
We are all in trouble if Labour get back in next time round, in fact I will be emigrating should this happen.
BBC left wing liberal bias? Shock horror! Whatever next?