Government Statistics No Longer Reliable Say Charities As Homelessness Epidemic Gets Even Worse

How private sector evictions are driving homelessness. AST stands for Assured Shorthold Tenancy. Graph from Crisis.

Figures showing that statutory homelessness has soared in England by 27% since this government weren’t elected do not even scratch the surface of the desperate homelessness epidemic.

53,250 families were accepted as homeless in 2014, up from 41,780 five years earlier and the latest official homelessness statistics uncover some stark facts about those without a home. There are now twice the number of families living in B&Bs than in 2010 and the number who have been there over six weeks has leapt by an appalling 500%. This is a practice which had almost died out, but as demand for temporary housing has risen over the the last five years there are no longer enough hostels, refuges and other forms of emergency accommodation for the growing numbers of homeless families.

These statistics come after last month’s rough sleeping estimate which showed that there are now more people sleeping on the streets than since official records began. But neither of these sets of government approved figures come close to telling us the true extent of the homelessness crisis.

In February the Homelessness Monitor report was released. This is an annual study commissed by charities which looks at the impact of government policies on homelessness. It makes for horrifying reading.

Changes introduced in the way homelessness is managed by local authorities mean that many councils are now using ‘informal’ measures to help homeless families which are not included in official statistics. According to homelessness charities this means that “the bottom line is that we can no longer rely on these figures to show national trends”.

The report points out that “there were some 280,000 ‘local authority homelessness case actions’ in 2013/14, 9% up on the previous year”. In other words many cases of homelessness were swept under the carpet with families often fobbed off into precarious private sector accommodation. And of course as word gets round that all the council will do is send you off to your local slum landlord if you approach them for housing assistance then less people are likely to ask for help.

The majority of homeless people are not included in any figures, anywhere. Local authorities are only duty bound to help people judged to be what is known as in ‘priority need’. That means people with children, those over pensionable age, or people with serious health conditions or disabilities. If you are single, under 65 and not seriously ill then you will be left to fend for yourself. Should you end up on the streets then you may eventually get picked up by a charity outreach worker and offered a place in a nightshelter or hostel. But turn up at the council saying you have nowhere to go that night and most will do little more than shrug their shoulders.

There are around 40,000 single people in Engalnd who are living in hostels or nightshelters – sometimes in dormitory style accommodation. They are not recorded in any formal homelessness statistics. Nobody knows how many people are living in squats, vehicles, campsites or in unregistered providers of temporary housing like grotty B&Bs and backpacker hostels. Then there is the largest group of homeless people by far, the hidden homeless sleeping on a friend’s sofa or in over-crowded family accommodation. The Homelessness Monitor says that an astonishing 2.23 million households contain what they call ‘concealed’ single people in addition to a hidden 265,000 couples or lone parents.

Whilst the true scale of homelessness in England can only be guessed at there is one thing that is certain. Every form of homelessness that is formally recorded is rising sharply, from the (widely believed to be fixed) count of how many people are on the street to the number of homeless families approaching councils for help. Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms are directly responsible according to homelessness charities, with benefit sanctions, the bedroom tax and the benefit cap identified as doing the most damage.

David Cameron has pledged to introduce a further benefit cap within weeks of being re-elected whilst both parties appear to favour regional benefit caps. The truth is that benefits have always been capped, currently at £72.40 a week for single unemployed people. What Cameron really wants are caps on Housing Benefit, the government subsidy paid out to landlords which swallows up the largest part of the UK’s benefit’s bill. The result will be more evictions as people are unable to pay their rent whilst more landlords will decide, possibly illegally, not to accept any tenants on benefits at all. As the graph above shows, it is private sector evictions that are driving rising homelessness.

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/government-statistics-no-longer-reliable-say-charities-as-homelessness-epidemic-gets-even-worse/

And of course as word gets round that all the council will do is send you off to your local slum landlord if you approach them for housing assistance then less people are likely to ask for help.

Why do people go to their council if they're homeless? They can find somewhere to rent themselves. The main difficulty is paying a deposit and rent up front, and also some private landlords don't like renting out to people who don't have a job or are on housing benefit. This seems to be largely because some of them tend to default on the rent.

If housing benefit was paid directly to landlords, maybe they wouldn't mind renting out to benefit recipients because they would know that the rent is going to be paid.

Re deposits and rent up front, this is a problem of cash flow, so a system whereby people can get that paid via benefits would solve that.

As a general point, if someone does have a job, they really should save as much as they can just in case they fall on hard times, then they would have something to fall back on and be able to pay a deposit and rent at least until they are able to get benefits.

Firstly, families with children are never sent on to the streets.

Secondly, the rent by social benefits is paid to the landlords directly.

Thirdly, there aren't enough houses to put people in since the influx of immigrants.
Don't believe me? Get over it! I've fought this war for years for myself and others and spoken to top bods in local councils - so I know it's true!

Housing shortage = nowhere to put people = families homeless and having to stay in b&b's or halfway houses

I can't c&p at mo but you,only need to google "housing shortage due to immigrants" and you'll see the evidence for yourself.

It's not bloody rocket science. This is why, after what I've seen and learned, I know we are over-populated in certain areas of England, and this has caused a housing shortage.

As to the families who've defaulted on their mortgage and lost their hoise.....well let's ask ourselves why?

I spend acouple of minutes composing a reply to a post and it's wiped because of "time out" What the fcuk is that all about?

eddie wrote:Firstly, families with children are never sent on to the streets.

Secondly, the rent by social benefits is paid to the landlords directly.

Thirdly, there aren't enough houses to put people in since the influx of immigrants.
Don't believe me? Get over it! I've fought this war for years for myself and others and spoken to top bods in local councils - so I know it's true!

Housing shortage = nowhere to put people = families homeless and having to stay in b&b's or halfway houses

I can't c&p at mo but you,only need to google "housing shortage due to immigrants" and you'll see the evidence for yourself.

It's not bloody rocket science. This is why, after what I've seen and learned, I know we are over-populated in certain areas of England, and this has caused a housing shortage.

As to the families who've defaulted on their mortgage and lost their hoise.....well let's ask ourselves why?

I think that housing benefit for council tenants is paid directly to landlords, but not to private landlords - it's paid to the tenant, who then pays the landlord.

nicko wrote:I spend acouple of minutes composing a reply to a post and it's wiped because of "time out" What the fcuk is that all about?

That's a shame. Can you remember what you said? If you type it again, you could copy it before you submit it.

What Cameron really wants are caps on Housing Benefit, the government subsidy paid out to landlords which swallows up the largest part of the UK’s benefit’s bill. The result will be more evictions as people are unable to pay their rent whilst more landlords will decide, possibly illegally, not to accept any tenants on benefits at all.

I thought there were already caps on housing benefits. Didn't they introduce that a couple of years ago?

I think the amount varies from place to place because of the difference in prices.

Raggamuffin wrote:

What Cameron really wants are caps on Housing Benefit, the government subsidy paid out to landlords which swallows up the largest part of the UK’s benefit’s bill. The result will be more evictions as people are unable to pay their rent whilst more landlords will decide, possibly illegally, not to accept any tenants on benefits at all.

I thought there were already caps on housing benefits. Didn't they introduce that a couple of years ago?

I think the amount varies from place to place because of the difference in prices.

Each privately rented property's rent, is assessed on the house and area and HB is only paid as to the rent assessment of the property.

I'm not too sure about private rent but I know that a friend of mine recently split from her husband and had to apply for HB - she only got a certain amount (which was most of it) but she has to pay the shortfall; she's in council property

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:I spend acouple of minutes composing a reply to a post and it's wiped because of "time out" What the fcuk is that all about?

That's a shame. Can you remember what you said? If you type it again, you could copy it before you submit it.

If you refresh the page it asks if you want to submit the form again and if you click yes it will normally post what you've just written, Nicko x

I understand that Edds, but why should it happen in the first place?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought there were already caps on housing benefits. Didn't they introduce that a couple of years ago?

I think the amount varies from place to place because of the difference in prices.

Each privately rented property's rent,  is assessed on the house and area and HB is only paid as to the rent assessment of the property.

I'm not too sure about private rent but I know that a friend of mine recently split from her husband and had to apply for HB - she only got a certain amount (which was most of it) but she has to pay the shortfall; she's in council property

I think it's called local housing allowance. They put a limit on how much you can claim. I'm not sure if that's what the article is talking about, but I thought it was already in place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Firstly, families with children are never sent on to the streets.

Secondly, the rent by social benefits is paid to the landlords directly.

Thirdly, there aren't enough houses to put people in since the influx of immigrants.
Don't believe me? Get over it! I've fought this war for years for myself and others and spoken to top bods in local councils - so I know it's true!

Housing shortage = nowhere to put people = families homeless and having to stay in b&b's or halfway houses

I can't c&p at mo but you,only need to google "housing shortage due to immigrants" and you'll see the evidence for yourself.

It's not bloody rocket science. This is why, after what I've seen and learned, I know we are over-populated in certain areas of England, and this has caused a housing shortage.

As to the families who've defaulted on their mortgage and lost their hoise.....well let's ask ourselves why?

I think that housing benefit for council tenants is paid directly to landlords, but not  to private landlords - it's paid to the tenant, who then pays the landlord.

When I rented privately, mine went to me to pay my land lady.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought there were already caps on housing benefits. Didn't they introduce that a couple of years ago?

I think the amount varies from place to place because of the difference in prices.

Each privately rented property's rent,  is assessed on the house and area and HB is only paid as to the rent assessment of the property.

I'm not too sure about private rent but I know that a friend of mine recently split from her husband and had to apply for HB - she only got a certain amount (which was most of it) but she has to pay the shortfall; she's in council property

That's right the LHA is set and you pay any difference to your landlord

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that housing benefit for council tenants is paid directly to landlords, but not  to private landlords - it's paid to the tenant, who then pays the landlord.

When I rented privately, mine went to me to pay my land lady.

That's right. I'm not sure why benefit claimants are less likely to pay their rent, but I suppose they have less money in general so they might spend it on other things.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

When I rented privately, mine went to me to pay my land lady.

That's right.  I'm not sure why benefit claimants are less likely to pay their rent, but I suppose they have less money in general so they might spend it on other things.

As the price of other items such as fuel rises people do sometimes fall short on the rent.

Nems wrote:

eddie wrote:

Each privately rented property's rent,  is assessed on the house and area and HB is only paid as to the rent assessment of the property.

I'm not too sure about private rent but I know that a friend of mine recently split from her husband and had to apply for HB - she only got a certain amount (which was most of it) but she has to pay the shortfall; she's in council property

That's right the LHA is set and you pay any difference to your landlord

That's why I don't understand that bit of the article.

What Cameron really wants are caps on Housing Benefit, the government subsidy paid out to landlords which swallows up the largest part of the UK’s benefit’s bill.

It's like it was written before caps were introduced.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's right.  I'm not sure why benefit claimants are less likely to pay their rent, but I suppose they have less money in general so they might spend it on other things.

As the price of other items such as fuel rises people do sometimes fall short on the rent.

Yes, and that's why landlords get fed up. If they have a mortgage to pay, or if they rely on the rent for other things, they're not going to rent to anyone who they think is unreliable.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

That's right the LHA is set and you pay any difference to your landlord

That's why I don't understand that bit of the article.

What Cameron really wants are caps on Housing Benefit, the government subsidy paid out to landlords which swallows up the largest part of the UK’s benefit’s bill.

It's like it was written before caps were introduced.

It certainly reads that way, but caps have been in place a while

what the world needs to do is stop being considerate of landlords. they are parasites on the economy. they inflate housing cost (that is the root cause of all the benefit and poverty issues in the western world) and take money out of the economy that should be used to create jobs (why have a business that employs people when you can artificially inflate the price of a held asset for no cost, here they even get a tax cut for it).

stop all tax incentives for property investment, place additional tax on rental income and basically make it uneconomic to borrow money for property investment.
YES this will crash the housing prices THAT IS THE POINT then there will return to reasonable prices and the average family can afford them as opposed to 1 family owning 10

Under Universal Credit rent payments will go to the claimants not the landlords.

Q4. How will Universal Credit be paid to claimants?

In the majority of cases Universal Credit will be a single, monthly payment which is paid in arrears directly into the claimant’s account. Payments will include all eligible housing costs which means that claimants will be responsible for paying their rent themselves.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403738/universal-credit-and-rented-housing.pdf

veya_victaous wrote:what the world needs to do is stop being considerate of landlords. they are parasites on the economy. they inflate housing cost (that is the root cause of all the benefit and poverty issues in the western world)  and take money out of the economy that should be used to create jobs (why have a business that employs people when you can artificially inflate the price of a held asset for no cost, here they even get a tax cut for it).

stop all tax incentives for property investment, place additional tax on rental income and basically make it uneconomic to borrow money for property investment.
YES this will crash the housing prices THAT IS THE POINT then there will return to reasonable prices and the average family can afford them as opposed to 1 family owning 10

I'm in favour of house prices going down, but without any landlords nobody would be able to rent.

Are you suggesting that someone should start a business and employ people instead of buying a house and renting it out? Not everyone is suited to that, and not everyone wants to be responsible for employees. Besides, it's much more risky. People don't have a responsibility to provide jobs for others.

@raggs
Actually Raggs they do have a moral obligation too or they LOSE THEIR HEADS in the time honoured tradition of human society dating back thousands of years.

they don't legally need to but we need the money to work for society and NOT just inflate housing. so we need to change the laws. they then will NEED to, the laws are just artificial they currently favour them because they have had the wealth to fund lobby groups to the detriment of society at large.

Society needs to encourage them by taking away the incentives to be a land lord
There will be some that continue but at the moment you have landlords borrowing money to meet inflated house prices (by other landlords) and then need to charge inflated rents to meet the repayments they could not actually afford. It is their greed and NOT being responsible and borrowing more than they could afford that is fuelling this situation

the Landlord is being irresponsible and going to collapse the entire economy. it is a case of IF society does not stop this the threat the landlord currently posses children will live in poverty and starve.. which is justification for the guillotines. Currently The landlord is far more detrimental and taking a bigger share of the benefits budget than the dole bludger or the pensioner, the housing benefit exists because a landlord borrowed more than they could repay and need to charge unrealistic rents to make up the short fall.

That's why we need a concentrated effort to build social housing which takes out the landlord problem.   We have never got back to the level we had after Thatcher brought in the right to buy policy, which Cameron wants to reintroduce, without building more homes.   Immigration has never been the problem with housing.   The selling off of housing stock at ridiculously low prices and now allowing the councils to use the money to rebuild has always been at the heart of it.   Because of the lack of social housing, landlords can get away with driving up rents.  Because of a lack of housing, house prices having risen beyond the reach of most of the country.   Building social housing will not only mean that people in them will have a safe roof over their heads, it will bring down the cost of renting because the demand will be cut, which in turn will bring down the cost of housing so that people who want to buy will have a chance.   Except in London of course, where most of it has been bought by foreign investors at hugely inflated prices.   That needs a different solution.

there are less expensive ways than gov't funded housing, as you are just feeding more funds into the property bubble keeping it artificially inflated, gov't funded housing is a band-aid not a cure.

the issue is often a negative geared investment property can greatly reduce you tax bill thus it creates and artificial incentive to buy a house for much more than it's worth on credit you cant afford so that the asset makes a loss to offset the your taxable income. It is a scam that will continue to work as long as there is a housing bubble created by other investors which will continue to take money out of the economy and lock it up in a tax avoidance scheme that is literally backed and subsided by the gov't.

by removing tax benefits and making tax penalties for investment in property, immediately you will see and increase in tax revenue as a huge currently legal tax avoidance scheme will be shut down. the demand for property will plummet and the value will plummet as there is no longer a reason for investors to pay as much as possible to offset taxable income. Any smart investor will take their money out of a non-productive asset and invest in productive assets (like businesses) that then create more jobs which means more taxpayers and people with money to buy services which then creates more jobs.



I fully support additional taxation or simply banning foreign purchase of land as again it is a negative to local community. the idea that investors are doing a favour needs to change investors in community beneficial projects are good and need to be supported, ones that choose to invest against the betterment of society should not be supported by the society that are detrimental to.

Not here Veya, we have a history of council housing that worked well, buillt to high standards, but because it could be done by builders etc paid by the council, much cheaper. The fact that we don't have enough council/social housing here is what is driving the housing bubble.

it's not that council housing wont work it is that it is a very expensive and inefficient way to subsidies a tax break for property investors. Nor does it stop the cycle every year it will cost more and you have not generated any additional income to cover it.

Plus all it does it shift the pain point to the middle class, at the point where you cant get the benefit and cant afford a house either. give the pain to those that caused it which was not the middle class, they have been the hugely screwed over the past decade by the 1%.

It's not being done for a tax break for property investers.   Our councils can build their own housing that is then owned by the council and run for the residents of that council area.   It has absolutely nothing to do with private investers.   The people who live in it then pay a fair rent to the councils, who in turn provide services to that area.   It was done after the war when we had not only a huge homeless problem, but also areas of squalor and houses that had been damaged during the war.   It means our poorest people on low incomes have safe reliable housing.

Because we haven't got enough of those, the people who should be in housing like that are forced into the private sector.  This means there are more tenants looking for housing than there is housing, so landlords can change more or less what they like.

it does because it effects the market. and keeps house prices and rents high for the Vast majority and only the very worst off see a slight improvement in living conditions. like I said band aide solution because if you extrapolate that policy eventually you have to publicly house the majority of the population as nothing has been done to affect the drivers of the market which have already pushed home ownership out of reach for the average citizen.

the poor are not the cause of the rise in demand and rents, it is not driven by low income at all they are just affected by it, it is driven by middle and even upper middle class being forced into the rental market And YES they can afford to pay more so the rents rise, low income earners would not drive a price rise simply because they cannot afford it. Get those middle income earners back into home ownership and the demand from people that can afford to pay more goes away ceasing the rise in rents.

And after the War you did it by BORROWING a lot of money, Now you already owe a lot of money and cannot afford to borrow more. SO yesterdays solutions are not tomorrows solutions. (plus you don't have to rebuild war damage towns)
Part of the problem with many western economies in Debt is policies like that that are expenses that will grow every year because they don't deal with the root cause instead just pour more money into the pit of 'profit for investors'.

Sorry Veya, but you are completely and utter wrong.   The housing market over here has only been in trouble since Margaret Thatcher introduced the 'right to buy' scheme, that allowed council house tenants to buy their houses as a greatly reduced rate, and did not allow the councils to reinvest that money to build any others in their place, so our council house numbers dropped hugely.   Many of those houses it turns out were sold on to private landlords who let them out at inflated prices.  Our housing market is vastly different to the Australian housing market.   The rates have been driven up because of the loss of housing stock in the public sector, which put greater strain on the private sector, driving the cost of those houses up.  We also have the problem here of land that you are allowed to build on being restricted, quite rightly so that we have 'green belts' and property developers buying 'brown site' ie place in towns etc where there have already been houses that have been run down, and then holding on to those sites until prices rise.   London prices have gone through the roof because investors from overseas have bought prime sites for enormous amount and sold them to the very rich for fantastic sums, have then run out of 'good' areas and gone to areas than can to built up and bought them for inflated prices.  This in turn drives up the price of ordinary housing.

PS, yes we borrowed money, but a lot less than Osborne has borrowed, and we are almost now in the state we were after the war, and we need to kickstart the economy. Building will do just that. It will provide more jobs, which will in turn provide more taxes for paying off the debt. Council housing also comes out of local government expenditure and it is up to the local council to decide where to spend it.

public housing is a band aid not a solution it does not work.
YES the UK is stuffed up now because of all the public housing it DID have when socialism and communism MAY have taken over and the economy wasn't globalised. Trying to make more public housing now!... may as well just call the UK Greece. it is a old world idea for a world that no longer exists.... All it will do is delay the revolution, As it hasn't fixed anything you just stopped the poorest being homeless but pushed everyone that doesn't have property comparatively down and increased the gap between those with investments properties and those that cannot afford to buy a home.

why should the middle class work and pay tax for the lower class to have better houses than them!!! this is personal to me as My office is surrounded by Public housing that I could never afford yet some dude that has never had a job let alone paid 10's of 1000's of dollars in further education to get a good job lives there !! fuck him when someone on charity has more than someone on an above average (well above medium wage) it is fucked up. the system is broken and unfair.
In Sydney public housing means their are people that have never had a job(and not even qualified for the jobs in the area) that live in houses that are walking distance from the CBD, valued over a million dollars while people that Work in that CBD have to commute 40+Km each way. Public Housing has fucked the system too, needs to be gotten rid of and work towards balancing the housing market properly NO MORE BAND AID lets fix it for the future instead of being another generation that just pushes problems onto the future generations. Let the current old pensioners starve and be homeless THEY LET THE WORLD GET THIS WAY !! THEY SHOULD PAY not the generation starting kindergarten or not even born...

It simply does not work under a capitalist system, all it does it through out the supply and demand curves. In Capitalism if you want to affect something at it's cause you have to affect the supply and demand curves. Public housing is actually BAD for the majority of citizens it only helps those with investment properties and or at the very bottom. It leaves the top with everything they have and takes off the middle to give to the poor.

The solution:

The latest Government data on empty properties suggests that there are over 610,000 empty homes in England. The Government data is derived from individual local authority council tax base data which is a snapshot of the position in October 2014. The latest Government data also records over 200,000 long-term empty homes (that is homes empty over six months). We will produce detailed analysis of the 2014 data once we know that all the local authority figures are confirmed.  

Empty Homes is an independent charity. We help people create homes from empty property and campaign for more empty homes to be brought into use for the benefit of those who need housing.

http://www.emptyhomes.com/

same thing here most people cannot afford a home but there are bunch that have been bought be investors that are sitting empty because no one can afford the rent they want on them. and they want that much rent because they bid against other investors and sky-rocketed the price.

Here is seems the market is going to correct itself soon.

veya_victaous wrote:@raggs
Actually Raggs they do have a moral obligation too or they LOSE THEIR HEADS in the time honoured tradition of human society dating back thousands of years.

they don't legally need to but we need the money to work for society and NOT just inflate housing. so we need to change the laws. they then will NEED to, the laws are just artificial they currently favour them because they have had the wealth to fund lobby groups to the detriment of society at large.

Society needs to encourage them by taking away the incentives to be a land lord
There will be some that continue but at the moment you have landlords borrowing money to meet inflated house prices (by other landlords) and then need to charge inflated rents to meet the repayments they could not actually afford. It is their greed and NOT being responsible and borrowing more than they could afford that is fuelling this situation

the Landlord is being irresponsible and going to collapse the entire economy. it is a case of IF society does not stop this the threat the landlord currently posses children will live in poverty and starve.. which is justification for the guillotines. Currently The landlord is far more detrimental and taking a bigger share of the benefits budget than the dole bludger or the pensioner, the housing benefit exists because a landlord borrowed more than they could repay and need to charge unrealistic rents to make up the short fall.

It could be said that landlords are providing somewhere for people to live. I agree with a lot of your points, but I think it's going a bit far to say that people should start businesses instead of becoming landlords. They have no moral obligation to do something they might hate just to provide others with jobs.

They're not really taking a share of the benefits budget because they are free to rent to those who are not on benefits. It's not their fault if someone else is claiming benefits. On the other hand, they get criticised for not renting to someone on housing benefit. There are of course some people in jobs who also claim housing benefit because their pay is not enough, but I don't think that's the landlords' fault.

Those who are on housing benefit could always move to a cheaper area to save the tax payers money, but nobody blames them for not doing that.

risingsun wrote:Sorry Veya, but you are completely and utter wrong.   The housing market over here has only been in trouble since Margaret Thatcher introduced the 'right to buy' scheme, that allowed council house tenants to buy their houses as a greatly reduced rate, and did not allow the councils to reinvest that money to build any others in their place, so our council house numbers dropped hugely.   Many of those houses it turns out were sold on to private landlords who let them out at inflated prices.  Our housing market is vastly different to the Australian housing market.   The rates have been driven up because of the loss of housing stock in the public sector, which put greater strain on the private sector, driving the cost of those houses up.  We also have the problem here of land that you are allowed to build on being restricted, quite rightly so that we have 'green belts' and property developers buying 'brown site' ie place in towns etc where there have already been houses that have been run down, and then holding on to those sites until prices rise.   London prices have gone through the roof because investors from overseas have bought prime sites for enormous amount and sold them to the very rich for fantastic sums, have then run out of 'good' areas and gone to areas than can to built up and bought them for inflated prices.  This in turn drives up the price of ordinary housing.

PS, yes we borrowed money, but a lot less than Osborne has borrowed, and we are almost now in the state we were after the war, and we need to kickstart the economy.   Building will do just that.   It will provide more jobs, which will in turn provide more taxes for paying off the debt.   Council housing also comes out of local government expenditure and it is up to the local council to decide where to spend it.

I don't think that council tenants should be allowed to buy the houses, whether more are built or not. If they want to buy a house, they're free to do so like anyone else, but why should they get a discount just because they've been paying rent? Those who have paid rent in the private sector don't get such a discount.

veya_victaous wrote:public housing is a band aid not a solution it does not work.
YES the UK is stuffed up now because of all the public housing it DID have when socialism and communism MAY have taken over and the economy wasn't globalised. Trying to make more public housing now!... may as well just call the UK Greece. it is a old world idea for a world that no longer exists.... All it will do is delay the revolution, As it hasn't fixed anything you just stopped the poorest being homeless but pushed everyone that doesn't have property comparatively down and increased the gap between those with investments properties and those that cannot afford to buy a home.

why should the middle class work and pay tax for the lower class to have better houses than them!!! this is personal to me as My office is surrounded by Public housing that I could never afford yet some dude that has never had a job let alone paid 10's of 1000's of dollars in further education to get a good job lives there !! fuck him when someone on charity has more than someone on an above average (well above medium wage) it is fucked up. the system is broken and unfair.
In Sydney public housing means their are people that have never had a job(and not even qualified for the jobs in the area)  that live in houses that are walking distance from the CBD, valued over a million dollars while people that Work in that CBD have to commute 40+Km each way. Public Housing has fucked the system too, needs to be gotten rid of and work towards balancing the housing market properly NO MORE BAND AID lets fix it for the future instead of being another generation that just pushes problems onto the future generations. Let the current old pensioners starve and be homeless THEY LET THE WORLD GET THIS WAY !! THEY SHOULD PAY not the generation starting kindergarten or not even born...

It simply does not work under a capitalist system, all it does it through out the supply and demand curves. In Capitalism if you want to affect something at it's cause you have to affect the supply and demand curves. Public housing is actually BAD for the majority of citizens it only helps those with investment properties and or at the very bottom. It leaves the top with everything they have and takes off the middle to give to the poor.

A very interesting post, and the issue of people on benefits or being "poor" ending up with a better house or lifestyle than those who work is often debated in the press. I think that's behind some of the benefit cuts tbh - it's not right that someone who never works and contributes can actually end up with more money than someone who does.

I don't think it's fair to blame pensioners though. They probably worked and paid taxes themselves. You might as well blame people for having children in a country where people keep saying there's a housing shortage.

veya_victaous wrote:same thing here most people cannot afford a home but there are bunch that have been bought be investors that are sitting empty because no one can afford the rent they want on them. and they want that much rent because they bid against other investors and sky-rocketed the price.

Here is seems the market is going to correct itself soon.

So they would rather get nothing than lower the rent? That makes no business sense.

There's a program on BBC1 called "Homes Under the Hammer" they auction empty houses to the highest bidder. 99% are bought by Landlords to add to their Portfolio One Landlord confessed to owning 150 properties. There's a few young couples hoping to buy but they are always out bid by greedy landlords who, in some cases pay over the odds for the property. Example, house bought for £100.000 land lord spends £6.000 or more on "doing it up"" total cost one hundred @6 thousand pounds. He will sell for £140 thousand or rent for about £500 a month. the young couple have no chance of buying an affordable house. [all prices as examples]

nicko wrote:There's a program on BBC1 called "Homes Under the Hammer"  they auction empty houses to the highest bidder.  99% are bought by Landlords to add to their Portfolio One Landlord confessed to owning 150 properties.  There's a few young couples hoping to buy but they are always out bid by greedy landlords who, in some cases pay over the odds for the property.  Example, house bought for £100.000 land lord spends £6.000 or more on "doing it up""  total cost one hundred @6 thousand pounds.  He will sell for £140 thousand or rent for about £500 a month.  the young couple have no chance of buying an affordable house.  [all prices as examples]

Do you know, I used to like that programme, but then it seemed that every house was sold to someone who wanted to do it up and rent it out, or sell it on. Therefore, whenever they revisited the houses later, they all looked the same - white walls, beige carpets, etc. I really wanted to see someone buy a house and actually live in it! They weren't necessarily big landlords - they were often people who just wanted to do something different, but it got so boring because it was all about money and not about transforming a neglected house.

How would it work if caps were put on rents? If a potential landlord knew that he or she could only get a certain amount in rent, it would prevent them from paying so much for a house, and prices wouldn't keep going up.

I have to say though that it's very well blaming landlords, but the people who are selling the houses are very happy to get as much as they can for them, not surprisingly. I don't think that landlords have cornered the market in greed. Those who bought their own council houses got as much as they could later as well, and made a profit without actually having to take any risks.

I am sure it's only England that are obsessed with buying properties! Can't remember where I read that, but it seems we are one of the only countries in Europe who obsess over buying...?

@eddie
it seems it is the UK and Australia, Particularly Sydney and London both have huge property bubbles. it's crazy a fibro shack 45km from Sydney cbd is still half a million US dollars

@raggs
you don't even have to do that just tax it (not hard to do, land tax on your non-residence property), this is the way to fix things in capitalism, tax the thing you don't like, it is good because it not a hard line it is not Stopping someone doing something it just makes it less attractive. this also helps the economy because by making it less attractive it makes shares or investing in your own business more attractive, AND give the gov't some money to reduce deficits While reducing housing benefits pay outs thus balancing the budget from both sides spending less and earning more.

And they do receive the payments. if the gov't didn't give them then they would have been stuck at a point where people couldn't afford to rent it.. you are covering such a large proportion of renters that it allowed them to keep increasing rents. again all it is doing is screwing the middle class, pretty much every fix but tax the landlord screws the middle class or leaves the poor in absolute poverty and homelessness.

here we saw 'first home buyers grants' of $20K, literally the day it became available all the house prices jumped $20K putting money into the bottom doesn't work as the top are already in the position to take it straight away.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:same thing here most people cannot afford a home but there are bunch that have been bought be investors that are sitting empty because no one can afford the rent they want on them. and they want that much rent because they bid against other investors and sky-rocketed the price.

Here is seems the market is going to correct itself soon.

So they would rather get nothing than lower the rent? That makes no business sense.

I lost the post that explained how it works it is the Developers that drive it because currently in Sydney about 85% of property buyers are investors so the first building in the multi building complex gets bought up straight away and filled with high paying renters. then the 2nd and 3rd building are all bought up 'off the plans' by smaller investors and when they are eventually built... well they struggle to get the rents that the first building WAS getting, interestingly those high rates all disappear after the first lease and the building is also suspiciously empty looking during that first lease period.
People have been complaining and the competition watch dog (ACCC) has been investigating and have uncovered that the developers are renting them out to themselves at the high rents (so on the book it looks like a good earner) currently they are working out IF this is illegal and how to make it illegal if it isn't.

veya_victaous wrote:@eddie
it seems it is the UK and Australia, Particularly Sydney and London both have huge property bubbles.  it's crazy a fibro shack 45km from Sydney cbd is still half a million US dollars

@raggs
you don't even have to do that just tax it (not hard to do, land tax on your non-residence property), this is the way to fix things in capitalism, tax the thing you don't like, it is good because it not a hard line it is not Stopping someone doing something it just makes it less attractive. this also helps the economy because by making it less attractive it makes shares or investing in your own business more attractive, AND give the gov't some money to reduce deficits While reducing housing benefits pay outs thus balancing the budget from both sides spending less and earning more.  

And they do receive the payments. if the gov't didn't give them then they would have been stuck at a point where people couldn't afford to rent it.. you are covering such a large proportion of renters that it allowed them to keep increasing rents. again all it is doing is screwing the middle class, pretty much every fix but tax the landlord screws the middle class or leaves the poor in absolute poverty and homelessness.  

here we saw 'first home buyers grants' of $20K, literally the day it became available all the house prices jumped $20K putting money into the bottom doesn't work as the top are already in the position to take it straight away.

Where I live the cheapest house to buy is about £400,000 and that is a small three bed house, nothing special