Lowered Benefit cap could affect landlords from 8th May?

Lowered Benefit cap could affect landlords from 8th May?

by Readers Question

Guest Author

11:04 AM, 13th April 2015, About 9 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


Comments

Alan Loughlin

8:29 AM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

as regards the cap, it seems it has already been lowered, and I suspect will be gradually lowered over the course of this parliament. Strange is it not that I do not align myself with the tories, but did vote tory as there was no credible alternative, I suspect many others felt the same, but it is impossible to escape the reality that the tories manage economies better than anyone, hate saying it but it is a fact. Already there are policies being implemented that were thwarted by the coalition, and i find myself cheering when I read about it, us taxpayers have been taken for a ride, abused even, for far far too long.

Luke P

9:30 AM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mick Roberts" at "13/05/2015 - 07:49":

Mick,

I completely understand that once a child is born, it is not possible to put it back and therefore we're pretty much stuck with providing the basics (as things stand), but I wonder what your ideal plan would be going forward...to all the potential children who have not yet been born. In a similar way to fags not being necessary and dogs being just another mouth to feed, surely having any(more) children going forward also ticks both of these boxes.

Perhaps there should be an announcement that in, say, three years from now (giving all ample opportunity to get used to the idea), no benefit will be given to those who choose (it's always a choice) to have children. Those that do, well tough on you. You either provide for your offspring yourself or you a kicked to the kerb.

This is not sustainable and you can't even have the smallest responsibilities in this country without a test/exam/qualification license etc. (e.g. drive a car), so why should something that comes with the ultimate responsibilities (and massive burdens for the rest of society) -having children- as freely as you like.

I cannot afford to buy nor run a Ferrari, so I do not have one...

(I should also add that I do not have children for the very same reasons)

This will no doubt be scoffed at, but unless anyone has any better, long-term, sustainable solutions, suggest it may be the only option: Life on benefits should be miserable for two reasons -firstly it will encourage those off it and to not remain on it long-term. Secondly, it will ensure that those claiming it are not better off -and I'm talking by some considerable margin- than those that work (when I say miserable, I do not mean just in and of itself, but in the sense that you barely have enough to scrape by on the very, VERY basics of life).

If we the state are funding the upbringing of a child, I jolly well expect the parents to raise a decent, educated, productive future member of society. Sadly this is very often not the case.

Alan Loughlin

9:41 AM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

Luke P
I am in full agreement, this is my point about the cap in general, and inparticular why it is higher in London, we need to set it below the average wage, that of a normal worker which is cerca 14k, the present cap equates to double this, hardly fair on the hard working backbone of this country. If this means that HB claimants have to suffer with no fags, no take aways, no sky, no big dogs etc then tough, and why they need to live in London with rents approaching 2k pm, at our expense, when they have no work ties there is totally beyond me.

Robert M

10:15 AM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Alan Loughlin" at "13/05/2015 - 09:41":

At £2k per month rents in London, then those earning the average "normal worker" pay of £14k per year (as you suggest) could not afford to live in London either, so does that mean all the low paid workers have to move out of London as well? - After all, as Luke P says, if they cannot afford a Ferrari they should not own one...... or rather, if they cannot afford to rent a place in London then they should not rent a place in London.

I wonder where all these low paid workers are going to go to live? and who is then going to do all the low paid jobs in London when they've gone?

Expanding yours and Luke's argument further....., if they cannot afford to live in London (or other expensive areas outside London), and also look after and feed their families, then these workers should also ensure they do not drink, smoke, have pets or have children (after their 3 year advance warning of course)............ mmmm, I guess this is where the ideas start to break down a bit, unless you and/or Luke are seriously suggesting this? Or is this idea reserved for those who are completely unemployed, rather than those who are low paid workers (e.g. working on minimum wage, part-time workers, early stage self-employed, those on zero hour contracts, etc)?

Then of course, there's the workers who could afford to live in London, without claiming benefits, but then something happens that changes the situation (accident, illness, redundancy, etc, etc, etc), what happens to these people? In order to stop them being a drain on the taxpayers do we then make them homeless and force them to move to a cheaper part of the country? Or "kick them to the kerb" as Luke suggests? ....... mmmm, again the theory and rhetoric breaks down.

Luke P

10:24 AM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Robert Mellors" at "13/05/2015 - 10:15":

Nothing breaks down. I don't know if the 14k figure is correct, but it IS happening -people are being forced out of London.

What happens to me if I lose my job? I have to make do, make ends meet. Alter my lifestyle accordingly.

Put an alternative plan forward, Robert.

Jay James

15:10 PM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

For now at least, I really don't want to be forced (via tax) to use my money to provide for others. It's just unfair. I therefore have no moral compunction around any and all benefits being means tested and limited to the level that a single man gets, five years from now.

Alan Loughlin

15:35 PM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

high wages just fuel high prices, chicken and egg, that is why I said there should not be a difference in the cap for London.

Luke P

16:45 PM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

I would still like to know an alternative rather than people shooting down my idea...

Alan Loughlin

16:51 PM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

the alternative for people on HB living in London is simply for them to move out, to somewhere that has rents that are affordable, just like the working population do, ie. live within what they can afford, we are now treating tenants on benefits as privileged people, paying their HB for a house that most of the country could not afford. The tie between where one works and where one lives is obvious, but if someone on benefits is not working then that tie does not exist, the fact that family may be there is spurious.

Luke P

16:53 PM, 13th May 2015, About 9 years ago

I would agree. The alternative plan I'd really like to hear is from Robert. I get this a lot with my liberal minded friends -they find my ideas too radical, but have nothing else better to offer.

Leave Comments

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

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now