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 8 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

Share This Article


Mick Roberts

9:05 AM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

You obviously don't understand it Alan.
The figures you are talking about (Out of London), relates normally to people with 4 kids & more.
People that years ago maybe 'just had too many kids'.
They don't get 29k just like that.

This 29k is with rent, Child Tax Credit, Child benefit, Income support etc.

The 29k mounts up per kid. At the time they had the kids, they wasn't told 'In 5 years time, we gonna' take money off u for having these kids'.

I agree, seems a lot of money if you don't understand DWP & HB, which clearly you don't, but what do we do after they've already had the kids?
They quite harshly are unemployable.
The kids need to eat.
The kids need home at night.

What we gonna' do if they've already had the kids & they don't live in London?
Your 29k will seem paltry when Council has to pick Homeless bill up for them, as was proved at the end of the 80's I think it was when tenants were allowed 'rent' money to spend as they liked. They didn't spend it on rent, ended up homeless, Council's had to put them in B&B's up & down the country at much more than 29k per year.

Si G

9:32 AM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

That sounds a bit like slavery - get cheap labour in to do the dirty work, not good long term planning tho, cut the benefits and get people into work but don't let tens of thousands into the country to enjoy the benefits of living here which have been provided for by our parents and grandparents. If people want to come to the UK to live and work they must have the means of independent support, no one should be able to claim benefits nor obtain healthcare unless they have contributed by paying 2 - 3 years of NI contributions. I think then we'd be getting to where we need to be. The way things are going there will be big problems, ghettoes, no go areas and poor schooling and healthcare. Has the UK dug a hole for itself ? then stop digging !

Luke P

10:13 AM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "12/05/2015 - 08:42":

I think the point is, Mick, that if you are in need of state support, under no circumstances should you receive more than **FILL THE BLANK** -whether the blank be 'more than 40hrs at the minimum wage' or 'more than the average UK take-home pay/annual salary' or whatever. Any which way, it should not be very much at all. I think after a maximum of say 18 months, those in the capital should be made to leave and seek cheaper alternative accommodation (that would allow time for someone who in genuine need -perhaps because of redundancy etc.- to get back on their feet), the FULL rental amount (HB PLUS any top-up taken from other benefits) should be sent directly to the landlord...after all a roof over your head is the most important thing and step one in the process of assisting someone. The remainder of any welfare should be in food vouchers and electricity tokens, childcare assistance etc. Very little money should pass through the hands of those on benefits. If I want something, I have to earn it.

Those who have hit rock bottom (or maybe never got off the ground in the first place to have anywhere to fall to), should never be better off than someone who is working. Ever.

Sure there'll always be a few exceptions, but that's why I left the blank to be filled. I would definitely say it cannot be more than the average wage and more closer to a 40hr/week minimum wage.

I'm not sat in some ivory tower in a picturesque part of middle-England, I am in Grimsby and I see daily the problems facing some of the poorest in society. The vast, vast majority just do not want to work. Fair enough, but don't expect very much in life.


10:22 AM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

Simon, mate, I feel for you. It is not the immigrants that are the problem. Since my dad came off the boat in the mid 40's from India and worked at Merchant Navy then railways in Wales he never stopped working, even at 66 worked the back kitchen of Indian restaurant. It is in our culture to work hard and help our family, to own property, to provide for our kids and our parents. Now what's happened under Labour Gov't (who I always traditionally voted for, not this time), we had an influx of foreigners who "were allowed" to claim benefits. That has nothing to do with the British "immigrants" who contribute to society. Look at all of "us" as people, as humans, and that is why I and folk like Mick and Rob Mellors help people on benefits. It is an expensive hobby, workload, but are you saying that "we the providers" are the problem here??? For if we are, then we evict them all and leave them on the streets as dogs?? You need to get off your high horse and think of this site as your therapy session for "our common good and outrage". LOL!

Si G

23:35 PM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

AA Properties, don't feel for me but feel for the tax payers. Your father sounds like an excellent example of a hard working British settler. Yes Labour made a lot of mistakes and you do what you do as a business, you clearly have a growing niche market paid for by taxpayers, an expensive hobby ? All I am saying is that there is an undercurrent of growing unease at the way things are headed in this country, there need to be checks and balances and a taking of stock of the position with regard to migration and work and benefits. There will never be a one size fits all policy that suits everyone. Benefits are for those in need not those who come here to graze on the system and that applies to council homes as well, they are for those in need of affordable accommodation, not for selling off for a discount then onto the b2let sector for a profit.


23:45 PM, 12th May 2015, About 8 years ago

I agree.with you Simon. Also I think council house tenancies should.Not.be for.life. How many times have we driven past a council house where the latest bmws are parked. If the children grow up and get a good job then the famo.is.Not needy anymore, they need to move onto the private rented sector to allow for that house to be used for its original intended purposes and that to house people in genuine need. Plus council do.all the repairs for free, a joke.

Mick Roberts

7:49 AM, 13th May 2015, About 8 years ago

I agree, food vouchers etc.
But minimum amounts ie. £120 for rent. £30 for council tax, £30 for food for Mum. £30 for food & clothes kid 1, £30 for food & clothes kid 2 etc.
And this is how more or less the DWP amounts up now.
But the Benefit cap then takes the ‘minimum’ amount too low to live. Kids & Mums ain’t eating properly or heating their bodies enough.

Alan Loughlin

7:53 AM, 13th May 2015, About 8 years ago

just need to give up the fags and sky etc, start cooking proper basic meals which actually cost very little instead of buying mcdonalds, it is all a matter of money management, and prioritizing.
strange how on Benefit Britain all those complaining of lack of money had a fag in hand, is it only me who sees the link?.

Robert M

8:20 AM, 13th May 2015, About 8 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "13/05/2015 - 07:53":

Hi Alan, not many of your previous comments (on this thread) have I agreed with, but this one I do agree with. Most of my tenants are DSS but they are also mainly smokers, and they also spend part of their benefits on owning dogs. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against dogs or responsible dog owners, but if you are living on benefits then that is to feed and clothe the family, not feed pets. I've also nothing against smokers, but again it is an expensive habit that should not be funded by the taxpayers (especially when there is so much help available to help people quit).

I still disagree with you about the benefit cap generally, particularly how it relates to renting a place to live, but I do think the idea of food vouchers instead of cash may be an option worth further consideration as that way the taxpayers would be funding food and clothes for the family, not funding fags, booze, pet owning costs, Sky TV, etc.

Alan Loughlin

8:24 AM, 13th May 2015, About 8 years ago

and why are they are always big dogs, and often banned breeds?

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now