Lowered Benefit cap could affect landlords from 8th May?

Lowered Benefit cap could affect landlords from 8th May?

11:04 AM, 13th April 2015, About 7 years ago 159

Text Size

If nothing is changed post election on the 8th of May the Benefit cap will be reduced from £500 to £440 pw in London with a lower cap in other regions of £396, 90% of the London figure.

As an example: A two parent household with three children receive £334 per week and then deduct the welfare benefit and child tax credit income to leave a maximum residual HB or LHA payable.  From the new cap figures this leaves a maximum of £62 per week in housing benefit outside the capital and £106 per week in London.

The question is will landlords risk renting their investments to benefit families who will only receive £275 per calendar month in HB or LHA towards the rent on a three-bed property? Or to a single parent with three children who will only receive £456 per month in HB to pay for a three-bed property in an area such as Liverpool with a typical three-bed private rent of £525 per month?

The last two years has seen some social landlords refuse to tenant a property with those under occupying due to the bedroom tax. Now landlords could face a greater financial risk, even on fully occupied properties, and so some may be forced to stop providing property to such households. Thus creating even greater pressure on council supplied social housing.

Mick Robertsbenefit cap



Comments

by Mick Roberts

8:17 AM, 22nd April 2015, About 7 years ago

Might have been £18,000 I mean't.

by Joel Hearne

22:51 PM, 23rd April 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "22/04/2015 - 08:16":

Hi Mick,

I'd love to see more of your Videos when you get time and thanks for sharing the numbers of what you bought properties for and the rents way back then and what they are now. Just goes to show how inflation works in this game.

I hope you got that Lamba in the end but I bet you probably thought crikey thats a deposit on 10 more properties so never bothered! Thats the problem when you get older, not as much testosterone as u used to have! Lol

Thanks once again, u a star in my book and i'd have love to have been through your property journey way back then....good and bad parts

by Mick Roberts

7:53 AM, 24th April 2015, About 7 years ago

Here’s a thought for some people when deciding to buy nice vehicle now, or deferring purchase.

These figures did add up more 10 years ago, but still apply to a degree:

Buy your nice car now, plod along, it depreciates, u may be 20k down in a few years.

OR buy two houses now, the income from rent every 3 years buys u a NEW nice car FREE EVERY 3 years.

PLUS the houses are STILL there hopefully appreciating all the time, buying your new nice car forever.

Or keep the car 6 years, then get FREE car, & three years extra income. All this wouldn’t be here if you couldn’t do GRATIFICATION POSTPONEMENT at the beginning.

by Joel Hearne

20:53 PM, 24th April 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "24/04/2015 - 07:53":

I hear you Mick.....

by Property Saviour

14:58 PM, 25th April 2015, About 7 years ago

Sadly people in London have to move further out until they can actually afford the rent in line with HB payments.

by Alan Loughlin

23:20 PM, 25th April 2015, About 7 years ago

and what is wrong with that? if working people cannot afford the rents why should taxpayer funded people be so priveleged, if they are not working there then there is no tie, they should do like all the rest of us do, live where we can afford to.

by Jay James

19:30 PM, 26th April 2015, About 7 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "25/04/2015 - 23:20":

Hi Alan

I am not sure that Property Saviour's main point was to sympathise with London HB claimants, despite his words just above.

Setting aside any (very little) likelihood of myself becoming a London HB Landlord, I really don't like seeing the public purse being used to pay for expensive housing. Your sentiments mirror my own.

by Alan Loughlin

20:03 PM, 26th April 2015, About 7 years ago

thanks for that, I think the people of this country who work very hard and struggle to make a decent law abiding life get very angry when they see this sort of waste of the tax that we all pay, this tax should be spent wisely, and seeing the sort of figures we see on here being given out to people who are too idle to work to continue living in a house that most of us would only dream of doing is nothing short of an insult.

by Mick Roberts

7:22 AM, 27th April 2015, About 7 years ago

What if that person has lived in their home for 20 years?

They moved in knowing they could afford it. You get your kids in the schools, the friends in the area, family, neighbours etc. etc. And then the Govt changes the rules-WHEN YOU’VE ALREADY LIVED THERE 20 YEARS?

One has to see & work with these people on ground level to fully understand the situation.

by Alan Loughlin

7:30 AM, 27th April 2015, About 7 years ago

we lived in a lovely large detatched house for 30 years, but because of changes financially had no choice but to downsize, this was all with our own money, those on benefits should not be in a better position, they will have to make sacrifices just as we did, if they cannot afford to live there, they have no job ties there, then they must move, I see no reason why we, as taxpayers should fund non earners a lavish lifestyle in the capital where most of us taxpayers could not afford to.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

BECOME A MEMBER