The SSR LHA rate was previously 25. Anybody under 25 and out of work or on a low income, could get this form of housing benefit to pay for a room in a shared house.

Anybody under 25 was deemed unworthy of a 1 bed flat.

This unworthiness will be extended childless people up to the age of 35.

BTL landlords can now maximise rental yield by converting 2+ bed houses into HMOs.

Below are the current WEEKLY Sheffield rental rates for LHA, the monthly amount are shown in brackets and weekly increase if converted into a HMO in bold...

Shared accommodation - £65.00 (£281.67) FOR CHILDLESS UNDER 35s

1 Bedroom accommodation - £94.36 (£408.89)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £113.92 (£493.65)
[i]2 bed HMO £130 +16.08pw (£563.34)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £120.82 (£523.55)
[i]3 bed HMO £185 +64.18pw (£845.01)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[i]4 bed HMO £260 +104.66pw (£1126.68 )
5 Bedroom accommodation - £224.38 (£972.31)
[i]5 bed HMO £325 +100.62pw (£1408.35)

[i]6 bed HMO £390, +165.62pw

and £65 extra per bedroom for both weekly values thereafter.

These are the minimum weekly rents you must pay, this is the new bottom end of the market, this is the lowest price workers must pay.

The amount of housing benefit will be capped for at the average level of take home pay for working households. The LHA SSR rate will be well below this, HMOs are the future form of living for childless under 35s.

The value of a living room turned into a bedroom will be £65 per week.

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!
BREED FOR ENGLAND
We need more tax payers quick!

- edit (April 2011):

HMOs are now the most profitable form of property after the LHA cuts.
Housing benefit is capped at 80% of market rents and social rents are set to rise well above RPI, both private and social rents are designed to increase.

Next year they want to shift anyone under 35 into HMOs. :o


Here are the current April 2011 figures, after the lha cuts.., properties are now worth less, due to lower rental yields, however these will increase above RPI due to the perverse schemes in power.

Shared accommodation - £60.00 (£260.00)

1 Bedroom accommodation - £88.85 (£385.02)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £103.85 (£450.02)
HMO - 120 (520)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £114.23 (£495.00)
HMO - 180 (780)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £144.23 (£625.00)
HMO - 240 (1040)

HMOs then +60/week and 260/month per extra room (if let fully to the vast swathes on unemployed youths and elder youths, 16,17,18-25 and as of April 2012, the 25-35 age range).

Who the hell wants to house a family when you can fill it with 3 adults.

If HMOs are favoured then we will have a lack of family homes!

Sounds eminently reasonable. It's better than having to pay for it yourself.

The SSR LHA rate was previously 25. Anybody under 25 and out of work or on a low income, could get this form of housing benefit to pay for a room in a shared house.

Anybody under 25 was deemed unworthy of a 1 bed flat.

This unworthiness will be extended childless people up to the age of 35.

BTL landlords can now maximise rental yield by converting 2+ bed houses into HMOs.

Below are the current WEEKLY Sheffield rental rates for LHA, the monthly amount are shown in brackets and weekly increase if converted into a HMO in bold...

Shared accommodation - £65.00 (£281.67) FOR CHILDLESS UNDER 35s

1 Bedroom accommodation - £94.36 (£408.89)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £113.92 (£493.65)
[i]2 bed HMO £130 +16.08pw (£563.34)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £120.82 (£523.55)
[i]3 bed HMO £185 +64.18pw (£845.01)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[i]4 bed HMO £260 +104.66pw (£1126.68 )
5 Bedroom accommodation - £224.38 (£972.31)
[i]5 bed HMO £325 +100.62pw (£1408.35)

[i]6 bed HMO £390, +165.62pw

and £65 extra per bedroom for both weekly values thereafter.

These are the minimum weekly rents you must pay, this is the new bottom end of the market, this is the lowest price workers must pay.

The amount of housing benefit will be capped for at the average level of take home pay for working households. The LHA SSR rate will be well below this, HMOs are the future form of living for childless under 35s.

The value of a living room turned into a bedroom will be £65 per week.

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!
BREED FOR ENGLAND
We need more tax payers quick!

ive got a shed at the bottom of the garden...its only 50 a week....

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!
BREED FOR ENGLAND
We need more tax payers quick!

Part of Broken Britain's problem is that the WRONG people are breeding :)

x x x

ive got a shed at the bottom of the garden...its only 50 a week....

Proper buzzing, smackhead Billy says he will move in ASAP, if he claims the LHA and pays you, he can keep the £15 per week difference, but no more than that, so he ain't bothered about renting anywhere cheaper.

Proper buzzing, smackhead Billy says he will move in ASAP, if he claims the LHA and pays you, he can keep the £15 per week difference, but no more than that, so he ain't bothered about renting anywhere cheaper.


no my shed is smackhead free....and the tennant must be in fulltime employment to enjoy the delights of this 4 star accomadation....he will be vetted by the local neighbourhood watch...happy days

Well, the rich (Landlords) will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Just like last time.

And it's inequality that causes problems, not cuts themselves.

Well, the rich (Landlords) will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Just like last time.

And it's inequality that causes problems, not cuts themselves.

Why will the poor get poorer?

They will still get free accommodation (well, it's not free - somebody else will pay.)

The free accommodation they get will not be as large as they had hoped.

Well, the rich (Landlords) will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Just like last time.

And it's inequality that causes problems, not cuts themselves.

Wont this mean that the landlords will get less money? This may even drive down the cost of rents.

The problem is when you're earning enough to have your own flat (and all the stuff that goes in it), but you suddenly lose your job. Basically you're going to have to give up your home.

Wont this mean that the landlords will get less money? This may even drive down the cost of rents.


With HB capped and benefits ceiling lowered to £26k there is a fear that there will be mass movement of people on benefits from the South east to cheaper areas.

Are you under 35 (childless) and aspiring to a council/ housing association property?

Opposed to renting privately without a secure tenure, or buying a house at 10 times income.

How do you feel about the increase in council/housing association property for new tenants, people like yourself?

How do you feel about the the reduction in worthiness for housing for people in the age bracket 25-35?

Only yesterday, people in the UK only deemed the under 25s unworthy of 1 bed flats, today they deem the under 35s unworthy.

Will you drop your housing aspirations and live in a room in a shared house?

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!


Or just pay for it yourself, and solve the problem altogether.

Aren't they actually saying "if you are single and the state pays for your accommodation then we will only pay for a room in a house shared with similar people".

What can be wrong with this?

the delights of this 4 star accomadation

Are those the four stars that are visible through the roof?:D

Alternatively, GO OUT AND GET A JOB, then pay for your own accommodation.

Stop immigration now. No room at the inn.

Or just pay for it yourself, and solve the problem altogether.


say you earn £20k, not a bad wage, and have £10k in savings.

That gets you nothing nowadays.

Why will the poor get poorer?

They will still get free accommodation (well, it's not free - somebody else will pay.)

The free accommodation they get will not be as large as they had hoped.

You answered the question in the first sentence with the third sentence did you not?

The poor will be poorer because they are in worse accomodation.

The poor will be poorer because they are in worse accomodation.

The poverty trap just got a little bit deeper:(.

There are, no doubt, single soldiers living 4 or 6 to a tent in Afghanistan.
When those soldiers are living in barracks in the UK, many would think themselves extremely lucky to get a room of their very own. - Often they have to share a room - and they have to pay for it, they don't get it for nothing.

There are people who work and pay rent for a tiny bedsit. (I lived for 5 months in a 'bedsit' which was 4 ft wide and 11ft long. Wide enough for a single bed (just) and room at the end for wardrobe, a small table and chair and a single-ring stove. It was pretty crummy accommodation - but it was all I could afford.)

Given that some people who are working can't afford decent accommodation, why should those who are getting free accommodation complain because it doesn't meet their desired standard of luxury?

I've just found possibly one of the most important graphics in the entire SR document. It shows that as a percentage of their income, the poorest actually pay more than every other single group - other than the very richest. (It's on page 98)


http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2010/10/pension-age-hikes-and-the-tricky-womens-issue.html

Mod Note

Threads merged

say you earn £20k, not a bad wage, and have £10k in savings.

That gets you nothing nowadays.

Nor would it need to. My income is considerably less than £20k and we get along just fine as a couple.

Alternatively, GO OUT AND GET A JOB, then pay for your own accommodation.

Many people under 35 with jobs on a low wage require housing benefit due to the high price of rents (due to immigration and lack of housing).

What about them ey?

Many people under 35 with jobs on a low wage require housing benefit due to the high price of rents (due to immigration and lack of housing).


The high price of rents will be falling, if all the people currently on housing benefit have to move out of their properties; hence they will no longer need housing benefit in order to remain in them. It's a self-solving problem.

Alternatively, GO OUT AND GET A JOB, then pay for your own accommodation.

That's the trouble though, isn't it? Most jobs available and within reach for most people, do not pay enough to pay the bills and still leave the person with enough to live.

The high price of rents will be falling, if all the people currently on housing benefit have to move out of their properties; hence they will no longer need housing benefit in order to remain in them. It's a self-solving problem.
There are other things to consider.

The people already in council/HA properties will remain in them. New tenants will now pay more.

People renting privately under 35 and without children might have to downsize from a 1 bed flat to a HMO.

Houses will be converted to HMOs (planning permission now no longer need ;))

Not enough houses are being built to meet demand. Immigration is increasing demand.

More people will be crammed into less properties.

20 Square metres = Spacious :hihi:

This just seems to provide those under 35 with no intention of working with another peverse financial incentive to have kids they can't afford, which I thought the coalition was supposed to be getting rid of not making worse.

That's the trouble though, isn't it? Most jobs available and within reach for most people, do not pay enough to pay the bills and still leave the person with enough to live.

The rent is so high, that the people accepting the few national minimum wages jobs in supermarkets that are available require housing benefit to keep a roof over their heads.

A lot of working people claim housing benefit.

The SSR LHA rate was previously 25. Anybody under 25 and out of work or on a low income, could get this form of housing benefit to pay for a room in a shared house.

Anybody under 25 was deemed unworthy of a 1 bed flat.

This unworthiness will be extended childless people up to the age of 35.

BTL landlords can now maximise rental yield by converting 2+ bed houses into HMOs.

Below are the current WEEKLY Sheffield rental rates for LHA, the monthly amount are shown in brackets and weekly increase if converted into a HMO in bold...

Shared accommodation - £65.00 (£281.67) FOR CHILDLESS UNDER 35s

1 Bedroom accommodation - £94.36 (£408.89)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £113.92 (£493.65)
[i]2 bed HMO £130 +16.08pw (£563.34)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £120.82 (£523.55)
[i]3 bed HMO £185 +64.18pw (£845.01)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[i]4 bed HMO £260 +104.66pw (£1126.68 )
5 Bedroom accommodation - £224.38 (£972.31)
[i]5 bed HMO £325 +100.62pw (£1408.35)

[i]6 bed HMO £390, +165.62pwI'd love to know where you got the 6 bed rate from

I'd love to know where you got the 6 bed rate from

6 * SSR of £65 = £390, +165.62pw compared to the 5 bed rate ;)

6 * SSR of £65 = £390, +165.62pw compared to the 5 bed rate ;)So its not an LHA rate then its just a multiple of £65
. Bear in mind that its likely the 5 bed rate will soon be gone

6 * SSR of £65 = £390, +165.62pw compared to the 5 bed rate ;)

In Sheffield we are at least lucky to have some shared accomodation available. But is there enough shared accomodation available to house those this will make homeless? Where will students live? In London realistically the only places available at the rates they have set will be in hostels and I don't think there are anywhere near enough of them either.

Maybe we will start to see shanty towns being built up out of corrugated iron to decorate our inner cities?

Alternatively, GO OUT AND GET A JOB, then pay for your own accommodation.

That's going to get a bit tough when about 500,000 more people are unemployed in a year or two. What the Tories and their cheer leadeers are conveniently forgetting is that most people on benefits aren't scroungers or fraudsters. They are the inevitable result of there being more workers than theire is work. Furthermore, when all this takes it's toll on the private sector, as it inevitably will, there will be a lot of people - some of whom attribute the fact they have always been in employment to some innate sense of superiority - who will get a rude awakening as to the random and uncontrollable effects of economic recession.

So its not an LHA rate then its just a multiple of £65
. Bear in mind that its likely the 5 bed rate will soon be gone

It is the LHA potential rate if you convert your property to a HMO.

The jist of my post is that housing benefit will yield more rent to the landlord if a property is letted as a HMO to people claiming SSR (the under 35s).

With high demand for houses and not enough to go around, I forsee a city where people are crammed into houses due to a lack of social housing (and now increased prices of it).

There is a financial incentive to provide HMO accommodation.

I see an increased amount of HB expenditure, being spent on less properties.

It is the LHA potential rate if you convert your property to a HMO.

The jist of my post is that housing benefit will yield more rent to the landlord if a property is letted as a HMO to people claiming SSR (the under 35s).

With high demand for houses and not enough to go around, I forsee a city where people are crammed into houses due to a lack of social housing (and now increased prices of it).

There is a financial incentive to provide HMO accommodation.

I see an increased amount of HB expenditure, being spent on less properties.I did realise that after you pointed it out but it seems a touch misleading to say its an actual rate

In Sheffield we are at least lucky to have some shared accomodation available. But is there enough shared accomodation available to house those this will make homeless? Where will students live? In London realistically the only places available at the rates they have set will be in hostels and I don't think there are anywhere near enough of them either.

Maybe we will start to see shanty towns being built up out of corrugated iron to decorate our inner cities?

I want to know how many under 35s we have whom aspired to a 1 bed flat bidding unsuccessfully via Sheffield Homes, who'll now have to drop aspirations to a shared room in a shared house.

I want to know that number as they will likely opt to live in a HMO rather than wait for years for a 1 bed flat via Sheffield Homes.

Shanty towns IMO would be a welcome addition, where people are not exploited to pay the rent.

You no longer need planning permission to convert a house to HMO. HMO's will become increasingly popular tenure in Sheffield.

I am of the opinion that man should improve the condition of man, and one way of doing this is to increase living space. Not to cram people into less houses at greater expense.

Some economic migrants might cram as many in as possible to a house to save money, but they only do so short term.

We need to build more, not turn houses into HMOs.

I did realise that after you pointed it out but it seems a touch misleading to say its an actual rate

You own a 6 bedroom house and plan to let it (because nobody can afford a mortgage). You can let it for the 5 bed rate, or SSR*6 for £165+ per week compared to the 5 bed rate.

Many people (the under 35s whom are unemployed or on a low income) are only entitled to SSR benefit, and there is a shortage of it available in the local housing market compared to their vast numbers.

What do you do?

Probably me being thick but what's a HMO?

You own a 6 bedroom house and plan to let it (because nobody can afford a mortgage). You can let it for the 5 bed rate, or SSR*6 for £165+ per week compared to the 5 bed rate.

Many people (the under 35s whom are unemployed or on a low income) are only entitled to SSR benefit, and there is a shortage of it available in the local housing market compared to their vast numbers.

What do you do?I don't disagree with you and you're not wrong. I just thought it misleading to say its an LHA rate when there is no 6 bed rate it would be replacing.

To be fair there already are a few 6 bed HIMO's in sheff anyway

Stop immigration now. No room at the inn.
theres always one :suspect:

Probably me being thick but what's a HMO?House in Multiple Occupation

I don't disagree with you and you're not wrong. I just thought it misleading to say its an LHA rate when there is no 6 bed rate it would be replacing.

To be fair there already are a few 6 bed HIMO's in sheff anyway

theres always one :suspect:

I know a few HMO's of that size.

1 is Full of Polish and Russians incidentally.


Mel, with increasing immigration population driving an increase of our population, we will have more people and less homes between them.

HMOs will become increasingly popular.

More profit will be generated by turning a house into a HMO than by building a house.

By all means allow immigration, but build enough houses so it does not effect the demand (and ultimately the cost) of our already overpriced property.

House in Multiple Occupation

Thanks for the info, i've always called them shared houses.

Thanks for the info, i've always called them shared houses.

Soon they'll be called social housing, or tenements.

Thanks for the info, i've always called them shared houses.They're somewhat different from shared houses. Main difference is that if you, me, chem1st and mel went to live together in a house and we signed the same contract we'd be in a shared house, if we all had seperate contracts we'd be residents of a Himo

House in Multiple Occupation

Strictly speaking, an HMO is a house which is occupied by three or more unrelated persons, who do not form a single household

More info here:

http://www.mglewisandson.co.uk/hmo-houses-in-multiple-occupation/hmo-definition

Interestingly, 'occupied' means 'lived in' (Silbers v Southwark LBC 1977). Therefore vacant houses cannot be HMOs under the legal definition.

Strictly speaking, an HMO is a house which is occupied by three or more unrelated persons, who do not form a single household

More info here:

http://www.mglewisandson.co.uk/hmo-houses-in-multiple-occupation/hmo-definition

Interestingly, 'occupied' means 'lived in' (Silbers v Southwark LBC 1977). Therefore vacant houses cannot be HMOs under the legal definition.Not necessarily. A single occupant can be deemed to be living in a HiMo and treated accordingly

They're somewhat different from shared houses. Main difference is that if you, me, chem1st and mel went to live together in a house and we signed the same contract we'd be in a shared house, if we all had seperate contracts we'd be residents of a Himo

So for the purposes of the council if 4 people jointly rent a house would they work on £65 per person per week or the 4 room rate shared between them all?

They're somewhat different from shared houses. Main difference is that if you, me, chem1st and mel went to live together in a house and we signed the same contract we'd be in a shared house, if we all had seperate contracts we'd be residents of a Himo

Now you don't need planning permission to convert a house into a HMO there is potential to fraudulently claim housing benefit much more easily :|

So for the purposes of the council if 4 people jointly rent a house would they work on £65 per person per week or the 4 room rate shared between them all?Depends on the people but in general each would be allocated the shared room rate whether it was a HiMO or not

So for the purposes of the council if 4 people jointly rent a house would they work on £65 per person per week or the 4 room rate shared between them all?

4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[i]4 bed HMO £260 +104.66pw (£1126.68 )

It would be 4*SSR.

£104.66per week more than the 4 bed rate.

£1126.68 a month rather than £673.14

HMOcial housing, resurgence of the Victorian tenement, for the under 35s at least.

Now you don't need planning permission to convert a house into a HMO there is potential to fraudulently claim housing benefit much more easily :|I wasn't aware you ever needed planning permission.

HiMO is more of a council tax concept than a benefits concept anyway. Shared occupation for benefits purposes would apply to anyone of any age if they were in any kind of shared house.

Depends on the people but in general each would be allocated the shared room rate whether it was a HiMO or not

Could an eligible person (over 35 say) be given the 1 bed rate entitlement and then choose to live in a HMO in order to pocket the £15 a week difference in rent allowance??

Aren't they actually saying "if you are single and the state pays for your accommodation then we will only pay for a room in a house shared with similar people".

What can be wrong with this?

The biggest problem with it hit me as soon as I saw this in the spending review. There are a lot of people who can't work and can't reasonably share either. I'm talking about people with mental health problems or with Autism who are capable of living by themselves but can't cope with sharing their space with others. A lot of those people need their own space, and in the case of people with Autism can't tolerate interference with their living space by others. Someone with full-on bipolar disorder is likely to struggle around flatmates unless they are particularly understanding. But now we are saying they have to live with their parents until they are 35? Really?

Given that the shared room rate applies only in private rented, it will just put more pressure on social housing which is already in woefully short supply.

Like a lot of these cuts, this just ends up being a nasty attack on ill and disabled people.

Could an eligible person (over 35 say) be given the 1 bed rate entitlement and then choose to live in a HMO in order to pocket the £15 a week difference in rent allowance??It would depend on the rent. If you (currently) are over 25 and given the 1 bed allowance then move into a shared house you go onto the shared rate, if that rent was £50 then they would get the excess. The rate you get changes according to the accommodation you are in

In Sheffield we are at least lucky to have some shared accomodation available. But is there enough shared accomodation available to house those this will make homeless? Where will students live? In London realistically the only places available at the rates they have set will be in hostels and I don't think there are anywhere near enough of them either.

Maybe we will start to see shanty towns being built up out of corrugated iron to decorate our inner cities?

How will this affect students? They don't get housing benefit, do they?

I wasn't aware you ever needed planning permission.

HiMO is more of a council tax concept than a benefits concept anyway. Shared occupation for benefits purposes would apply to anyone of any age if they were in any kind of shared house.

Planning permission was introduced and required in April I think. Then a couple of weeks ago the requirement was dropped for those converting a home into a HMO.

Planning permission was introduced and required in April I think. Then a couple of weeks ago the requirement was dropped for those converting a home into a HMO.Not to my knowledge. Any house can be determined a HiMO it all depends on the tenancies rather than the property

Not to my knowledge. Any house can be determined a HiMO it all depends on the tenancies rather than the property

It also has to be 3 storeys or higher I think

The biggest problem with it hit me as soon as I saw this in the spending review. There are a lot of people who can't work and can't reasonably share either. I'm talking about people with mental health problems or with Autism who are capable of living by themselves but can't cope with sharing their space with others. A lot of those people need their own space, and in the case of people with Autism can't tolerate interference with their living space by others. Someone with full-on bipolar disorder is likely to struggle around flatmates unless they are particularly understanding. But now we are saying they have to live with their parents until they are 35? Really?

Given that the shared room rate applies only in private rented, it will just put more pressure on social housing which is already in woefully short supply.

Like a lot of these cuts, this just ends up being a nasty attack on ill and disabled people.

New social housing tenents will now pay more too :|

100% of RTB receipts will go to the government instead of 75% of previously.

Housebuilding will fall, HMOs prosper.

It also has to be 3 storeys or higher I thinkNo it doesn't. A flat or apartment can be designated a HiMO

Not to my knowledge. Any house can be determined a HiMO it all depends on the tenancies rather than the property

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8459656.Court_rejects_bedsit_law_re_think/

Last month, the Government changed planning laws to allow homeowners to convert properties into shared homes – known as houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) – without planning permission.

But the city council joined with other authorities to challenge the move, arguing the Government had not carried out the correct consultation.

However, a High Court judge has ruled in the Government’s favour.

Today, the government has condemned under 35s to being housed in HMOs.

They are not putting one PAST ME.

I was unaware of that. Maybe theres a different definition for benefits of HiMO. Or possibly it means that previously if you bought a massive house and then converted it you did need planning permission. From a council tax point of view any property can be a HiMO it just needs to be designated as such

New social housing tenents will now pay more too :|

100% of RTB receipts will go to the government instead of 75% of previously.

Housebuilding will fall, HMOs prosper.

I agree that the Tories seem determined to reinvent the slums of the 1920s and '30s. Give it 5 to 10 years and anyone in Sheffield unlucky enough (or ill enough) to be out of work will find themselves living in a slum in Page Hall or Tinsley or Darnall

How will this affect students? They don't get housing benefit, do they?

It's more likely to affect their landlords who can apply the same model across the rest of town.

However, during the summer vacation all the HMOs might get filled up by the under 35 doleys and shop workers.

The students will have to rent in an expensive area like parkhill for example :hihi:
:o

How will this affect students? They don't get housing benefit, do they?[In general no but there are exceptions

I'm interested in some direct action against the worst slumlords in Sheffield. If anyone is interested or knows of a particularly bad landlord then please let me know.

say you earn £20k, not a bad wage, and have £10k in savings.

That gets you nothing nowadays.

It gets you plenty of houses/flats in sheffield

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Sheffield.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&maxPrice=60000&index=10

People need to get a grip. Many single people over 25 on what would be considered very good wages cannot afford their own accommodation privately, particularly in London, so have to put up with living in HMO's. It's not ideal, but it's tolerable. Why, yet again, should being jobless provide you with a higher standard of living than those who work?

It gets you plenty of houses/flats in sheffield

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Sheffield.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&maxPrice=60000&index=10

Plenty of HMO house shares to rent ;)

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

Quite right. Speaking as someone with a mortgage, I sincerely hope that house prices absolutely tank in this country. Then we can have a good laugh at anyone who bought their place as an investment :hihi::hihi:

That's going to get a bit tough when about 500,000 more people are unemployed in a year or two. What the Tories and their cheer leadeers are conveniently forgetting is that most people on benefits aren't scroungers or fraudsters. They are the inevitable result of there being more workers than theire is work. Furthermore, when all this takes it's toll on the private sector, as it inevitably will, there will be a lot of people - some of whom attribute the fact they have always been in employment to some innate sense of superiority - who will get a rude awakening as to the random and uncontrollable effects of economic recession.

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?
Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

There's a major aspect to this topic that always gets ignored. House pricers are so high because, as a siociety, we have come to view our houising stocks as a quick way to make money. In fact the root of the global erconomic crash lies in this very issue. It was the attempt to make quick money on housing stocks in the USA which led to rapidly escalating prices fueled by 'sub prime' mortgages.

As things stand in the UK, housing prices are still totally out of proportion to earnings. This is a situation which benefits the few and is paid for by the many. Yet, rather than introducing measures to reverse this situation, most the talk is of when the 'housing market' will 'pick up' again. Well I for one don't want it to, because it would be nice if people could buy their own homes at a price which reflects the actual real value, instead of being doomed to paying off other people's mortgages and making profits for the banks, which seems to have now become the primary function of houses in this country.

Completely agree. It would be nice to see house prices stay flat for 5 years, which with inflation at the current rate would bring it back within touching distance of the historical price to earnings ratio average.

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?
Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

Actually I'm self employed and rent in the 'private sector' and do not claim housing benefit. Your original statement, I'll remind you, was that people claiming housing benefit should 'get a job.' I appreciate that the deficit has to come down, but, like most people, what I object to is that the extremely wealthy people who made personal fortunes out of the type of financial sector gambling which caused the economic crash are left totally unscathed. The cuts don't effect tjhem, and the amount of extra tax they are being asked for is negligable.

These types are in the same social elite as the likes of Osbourne and Cameron. Many of them will have a large cross over in business interests with the political elite and know the same people etc. When you take this dimension into account, it becomes truly sickening the extent to which the losses incurred by people of this type are being off loaded onto the rest of us, while they continue on with the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. All in it together? Sure we are.

Chem1st, you seem to have a view that no-one can afford to buy unless they are on mega incomes?

This is far from the truth me and my partner dont earn a mega income but quite easily bought our house when the market crashed and mortgages were sparce, we easily afford the £600+ a month for our mortgage, and due to this we are looking to buy a second house to rent out(possibly HMO).

IMO its all about budgeting, people can and are still buying houses, even people on less income than you quoted earlier (20k).

Its not all doom and gloom, I think its a very good move by the Government.

People need to get a grip. Many single people over 25 on what would be considered very good wages cannot afford their own accommodation privately, particularly in London, so have to put up with living in HMO's. It's not ideal, but it's tolerable. Why, yet again, should being jobless provide you with a higher standard of living than those who work?

This is due to the high cost of housing and a lack of housing. Particularly a lack of social housing.

Given the state of government finances, etc... Why are we even having to discuss that it's right to reduce benefits, particularly of the kind that provide free housing?
Yes, there will be more unemployed people who used to be government employee's. Yes, living in a shared house at 35 is a bit rubbish.

But no, the country does not somehow owe you something better. The people that are still working have to pay for this accommodation out of their taxes, so if you can't get a job that pays enough to rent a place for yourself, then why should it be that everyone else is obliged to do it for you? And if they were so obliged, how exactly is the government supposed to fix it's financial situation.

It may seem a bit harsh if you're the one moving into an HMO, but the OP has ranted at every reduction in benefit so far. I think he's missing or ignoring the bigger picture.

This measure will likely increase benefits, yet people will live in housing of a lower standard.

Social housing ain't free, it generates profit. Housing benefit is the problem, and high rents and house prices.

I hope this assault upon social housing is mentioned on QT.

Caroline Lucas is on, so she will no doubt raise the issue.

Philip Hammond is an odious, evil creature.

Actually I'm self employed and rent in the 'private sector' and do not claim housing benefit. Your original statement, I'll remind you, was that people claiming housing benefit should 'get a job.' I appreciate that the deficit has to come down, but, like most people, what I object to is that the extremely wealthy people who made personal fortunes out of the type of financial sector gambling which caused the economic crash are left totally unscathed. The cuts don't effect tjhem, and the amount of extra tax they are being asked for is negligable.
Really, did you actually work out how much they pay? That 50% rate on incomes over 150k doesn't sound negligible to me...
And when I said "the country doesn't owe you", that was the royal "you", ie anyone, not the personal "you".

These types are in the same social elite as the likes of Osbourne and Cameron. Many of them will have a large cross over in business interests with the political elite and know the same people etc. When you take this dimension into account, it becomes truly sickening the extent to which the losses incurred by people of this type are being off loaded onto the rest of us, while they continue on with the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. All in it together? Sure we are.
The cost of benefits is huge and unsustainable. It should have been reduced anyway whether or not the government was running a massive deficit.
Since it's being done alongside changes to provide a universal benefit, plans to increase the no tax threshold and a plan that means no one ever loses out by taking on some work, I can't see how this is anything but a good thing. Unless you (not the personal you, the general one), were free loading and see that easy ride disappearing.

This measure will likely increase benefits, yet people will live in housing of a lower standard.

Social housing ain't free, it generates profit. Housing benefit is the problem, and high rents and house prices.

Reducing the amounts paid in HB will have a positive effect then, as it will stop buoying up the market (as you believe it does).

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!
BREED FOR ENGLAND
We need more tax payers quick!

Is this not one of the reasons the housing situation has gotten so bad.

Children having children and then given houses. We had a young girl a few years ago move on the road. She was 16 with a baby. She couldn't cope and caused havoc on the street with her friends coming to stay over etc.

Result of that, a few decent people moved out and more baby-mothers moved in.
These youngsters don't usually stay long because they have no idea how to manage a home and the bills etc, but the damage they do whilst there can ruin a whole street.

I was 22 before I was given a council property, You couldn't get one under the age of 21 and then only a 1bed flat.

Of course there are other factors to the housing crisis but this culture of "Breeding to get a house" is a big one, in my opinion.

Reducing the amounts paid in HB will have a positive effect then, as it will stop buoying up the market (as you believe it does).

For this to be tackled I prefer and welcome a fair cut across the entitlements.

Changing the entitlements to the largest cohort of people needing social housing (and generally needing 1 bed properties) will not stop this.

It could have an adverse effect on properties with more than one bedroom.


Weekly rate (monthly rate) SRR rate

1 Bedroom accommodation - £94.36 (£408.89)
[SRR] 1 bed HMO = £65 £-29.64pw
2 Bedroom accommodation - £113.92 (£493.65)
[SRR] 2 bed HMO = £130 +16.08pw
3 Bedroom accommodation - £120.82 (£523.55)
[SRR] 3 bed HMO = £185 +64.18pw
4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[SRR]4 bed HMO = £260 +104.66pw
5 Bedroom accommodation - £224.38 (£972.31)
[SRR]5 bed HMO £325 = +100.62pw
[SRR]6 bed HMO £390, +165.62pw
[SRR] +£65pw per room per week thereafter

If this is passed, then 1 bed flat values will plummet. Properties with two bedroom bought by people sharing perhaps, and properties with 3 bedrooms or more would be converted in HMOs, pushing up their value further as the stock dwindles.

Properties with more rooms should be reserved for families.

Perhaps the Shared Room rate and 1 bed rate are too high, or the rates of 2+ bed properties too low.

SRR = £65 per room per week
1 = £94.36 pr pw
2 = £56.96 pr pw
3 = £40.37 pr pw
4 = £38.83 pr pw
5 = £44.88 pr pw
6 = £37.40
7 = £32.05
8 = £28.05
9+ = further exponential decay..

The way I see it, we have a hell of a lot of single people and couples unable to access social housing or buy a property, ultimately relying on the private rental sector. One which I do not think adds any value to our economy.


Social housing for example being bought on a mortgage via RTB for £16000 (maybe £32000 with interest) in the 1980s, then being sold to a Buy to let investor in 200X for £100 000 (maybe £200 000 with interest [25 years @6% avg. repayment])

To then be rented back to people on HB who should be accommodated in the social housing sector.

For say £10140 a year housing benefit (3 bed HMO let at SRR), assuming no rent increase or repairs, there is already a 2.5% yield.

Consider that most rents rise in line with inflation and have currently being rising more than inflation for a while now (slowly eating up peoples income), I think we are heading for disaster.

The room rate must be expanded, we hear of couples with 12 children needing social housing, they are going to need 7 beds @2 to a room MINIMUM

A prisoner gets 48+ sq ft for crying out loud.

Prison Cells

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the statutory minimum size of prison cells; [19333]

(2) what is the average cell size per inmate in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [19334]
(3) what is the (a) average cell size and (b) current average number of prisoners per cell, in each prison in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [19335]

19 Mar 1996 : Column: 155

Miss Widdecombe [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 19 March 1996:



The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about average cell size and average number of prisoners per cell in each prison in England and Wales and the statutory minimum size of prison cells.
Information regarding the size of cells is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
With regard to the number of prisoners per cell, the position at the end of January this year was that some 8,488 prisoners were housed two to a cell which was designed for one person. There were no instances of three prisoners sharing a single cell.
There is no statutory minimum size for existing prison cells, although Prison Service operating standards do lay down an ideal minimum size of 5.5 square metres. Section 14 of the Prisons Act 1952 requires cells to be certified as being fit as regards their size, lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings.

source (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960319/text/60319w15.htm)

Ideal minimum = 5.5 SqM (59.2 sq ft)

And that is for the cell, there is also on site kitchens, laundry, eating, gym, library and outdoor areas etc. for the prisoner.


People need housing, and there should be social housing.

As it stands the first time buyer is 37 (38?), currently half of a working life of a homebuyer is spent living at home or renting privately.
The social housing waiting list is estimated at 22 years in Sheffield to clear, registration is only allowed from 16+. These people will be living at home or in private rented housing while they rent.

We need secure housing for people to breed and build decent lives. As it stands people must breed to access secure social housing and those renting in private housing cannot afford to breed or access a mortgage until 38 (You see the bizarre arguments against people having children on here and in the dailymail quite often). By which time, they might aswell not breed due to the high risk of birth defects.


The answer in addressing overpriced housing lie not in increasing the price of social housing (which has been increasing in price FASTER THAN INFLATION).

It lies solely in the need to build more housing.

As we value our green space we are compelled to build UP.


Lets hope it doesn't go through.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11616741

When it comes to housing, spatial awareness should be of paramount, benefit and prices should be based in an appropriate dimension. Person per Sq mature per week for example, with children or partners being counted as 0.5 for example.

Perhaps per room, if minimum standards are legally required, Parker Morris for example.

Our population is set to increase, so should our housing stock.

Due to the lack of of building and selling off, along with demolition of social housing we need to build in the millions. If we had had a bit of foresight as a sovereign state and were not motivated by short term profits we could probably get away with a few 100 000 per year.

What makes you think that our population is set to increase?

What makes you think that our population is set to increase?Because a rapidly-growing sector of the population has very large families?

What makes you think that our population is set to increase?

You know full well we have an increasing population.

For well over a decade the population of this city was in decline.

After 2002 this decline stopped and the population began to rise again.

The increase is mainly immigrant driven.

Since 2002 our social housing stock has lost nearly 20% of its units.

We now have a massive shortage of social and affordable housing.

Executive Summary
􀂃
Sheffield’s population declined between 1974 and 2002.
o
570,000 people in 1974.
o
512,242 people in 2002.
􀂃
Sheffield’s population began increasing from 2002.
o
Current Sheffield population 520,700.
o
Sheffield’s population projected to rise to 561,300 by 2029.
􀂃
Numbers of households in Sheffield have been increasing constantly since 1981:
o
There were 203,100 households in Sheffield in 1981.
o
There were 227,100 households in Sheffield in 2006.
o
2006 household numbers represented a 10 percent increase over 1981.
o
Rising household numbers coupled with a shrinking population (up to 2002) is illustrative of shrinking average household sizes.
􀂃
Sheffield’s population is getting older.
o
The 0-14 age group is projected to shrink until 2011.
o
The 65-79 age group is projected to increase in size by around 20 percent (10,000 people) in the next 20 years.1
o
The 80+ age group is projected to increase in size by over 40 percent (10,000 people) in the next 20 years.1
􀂃
Sheffield’s BME population is increasing in size and diversity.
o
7 percent of Sheffield’s population in 1991 (36,500 people).
o
13 percent of Sheffield’s population in 2005 (69,300 people).
o
Increasing numbers of BME people from Eastern Europe.
􀂃
Sheffield’s student population is increasing in size.
o
6 percent of Sheffield’s population in 1996 (32,000 students).
o
8 percent of Sheffield’s population in 2005 (40,000 students).

Source = Developments in Sheffields population (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/sheffield-facts-figures/population-information)

Work bootcamp ghettos here we come

Work bootcamp ghettos here we comeWithout necessarily being ghettos, something along those lines may be the answer for the product of our sink estates.

Sheffield’s BME population is increasing in size and diversity.
o
7 percent of Sheffield’s population in 1991 (36,500 people).
o
13 percent of Sheffield’s population in 2005 (69,300 people).Quite alarming.

You know full well we have an increasing population.

For well over a decade the population of this city was in decline.


I thought we were talking about the entire UK, in which case the population is not increasing is it.

The increase is mainly immigrant driven.



Is there anything in that report that actually talks about immigration, or do you wish to pretend that the change in the BME population is entirely through immigration?
Are we considering students to be immigrants now as well, since we're suddenly only talking about Sheffield?

Polly Toynbee writes an interesting article in today's Guardian about the extreme random violence these and more general benefit cuts will have on our cities and those unable to find work because of the Tories economic incompetence

Polly Toynbee writes an interesting article in today's Guardian about the extreme random violence these and more general benefit cuts will have on our cities and those unable to find work because of the Tories economic incompetence

Dont worry your greasy head about towd Polly, she's got her Italian villa to escape too.

I thought we were talking about the entire UK, in which case the population is not increasing is it.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=950

And it is expected to continue to rise.

Is there anything in that report that actually talks about immigration, or do you wish to pretend that the change in the BME population is entirely through immigration?
Are we considering students to be immigrants now as well, since we're suddenly only talking about Sheffield?

Read it.

We have an increasing population, in Sheffield and in the UK.

Read it.

We have an increasing population, in Sheffield and in the UK.

And is the BME population synonymous with immigration as you tried to imply?

And is the BME population synonymous with immigration as you tried to imply?

How much is the price of fish in Barnsley market?

Read it.

We have an increasing population, in Sheffield and in the UK.

Last year the population increase was a giddy, errr, 0.25%

How much is the price of fish in Barnsley market?

Is this some sort of admission that no, there is no direct relation between the % of the Sheffield population that is BME and immigration.

Don't be shy, just come out and say it.

Dont worry your greasy head about towd Polly, she's got her Italian villa to escape too.

What has that got to do with her article?

Do they know what they are doing? Are they incompetent bunglers or do they mean to clear low earners out of the country's prosperous districts? As some residents since time immemorial are driven away – with maybe a few picturesque pearly kings and queens among them – this will become a cut that brands this government. Perhaps they think nobody will notice the new ranks of rough sleepers. Or that housing benefit is too fiendishly complicated to understand. Few Conservative voters claim it, and the removals will be an invisible migration, not a mass exodus in special coaches. However, these cuts are so extreme and random as to who will be evicted that the political noise will rise to ear-splitting decibels.

Follow these numbers carefully and see how they multiply upon one another. This month people who lost their job have had their help with mortgage interest payments cut in half. Expect more arrears and repossessions. Next year housing association and council rents will rise from their present heavily subsidised rents to 80% of the market rent for new tenants – about £100 more a week. New social housing will no longer be available to the poorest, but only to those who can pay high rents.

People in private rented accommodation will see their benefits capped from April. From October only rents below the 30th percentile for the area will be eligible. The Department for Work and Pensions says families will pay an average £22 more a week, but evidence suggests in many places it will be far more. But that's only part of it. In a radical change to benefit philosophy, anyone out of work for more than a year will lose another 10% from their housing benefit. This is a departure into the realms of US welfarism, influenced by the architects of American time-limited welfare who have been visiting David Cameron. Conditionality now gives way to punishment, shadow DWP secretary Douglas Alexander points out, regardless of how hard someone tries to find work that isn't there. This arbitrary cut is the first step to an entirely new policy.

But that's not all. The sum paid towards the rent will fall every year, in perpetuity: it will no longer rise as average local rents rise but will be pegged to the consumer price index. If that had happened in the last decade most people would have been priced out: rents rose by 70%, but the CPI only rose 20%.

Now add in something more sinister. Council tax benefit, worth an average £16 a week, is to be cut by 10% and then handed over to each local authority to decide how much benefit to offer: if some councils want to push poor people out, they can pay virtually nothing to their residents. But hey, that's localism. Add up the cumulative effects and there is the biggest welfare cut ever attempted: even Margaret Thatcher was careful never to take benefits away from existing claimants. New claimants don't know what they are missing, but old claimants – especially pensioners – make very nasty headlines indeed.

Ministers know what will happen, since the housing minister has set aside £10m to £12m for "transition costs" – the cost of removing families and their belongings from London boroughs to places like Hastings, or Shoeburyness. London councils told the work and pensions committee that they are already block-booking bed and breakfast and cheap properties in far away places.

London will be hardest hit, but low earners in salubrious parts of the south-west, Bristol, Nottingham, Manchester and anywhere prosperous will also see rent rises that force removals. Those in new jobs will only be able to find homes in districts that are cheap because there is no work. Children will be taken out of their schools, however close to exams they may be. Who will do the cleaning, caring and catering in expensive places once low earners are cleared away?

Karen Buck, DWP shadow minister and MP for the poorer part of Westminster, will see many depart. The borough has 5,300 households living in private rented flats who draw housing benefit, with 6,000 children in Westminster schools. All will face huge rent rises, most will move. How will Iain Duncan Smith explain that his reforms are meant to make work pay when he is forcing people to move to cheap ghettos where there is least work? In his London constituency of Redbridge, 5,110 households in private rentals will lose heavily, 290 of them pensioners: that's the number in just one borough. A family in a Chingford two-bedroom flat will lose £624 a year. Add in another barrier – anyone wanting to work will lose 65p in housing benefit for every pound they earn.

What would Duncan Smith say to the caretaker Buck met? He lives in Brent, one of the third of housing benefit claimants who are in work, and he earns £12,000. But he will lose £80 a week, so he can't afford to stay. He will look for somewhere cheaper, and distant. That means losing his job with its 7am start: Duncan Smith and his "get on your bus" will not get him there in time. Another problem – will this caretaker qualify for jobseeker's allowance, or will the jobcentre say he made himself intentionally unemployed? And has he made himself "intentionally homeless" when he throws his family on the mercy of the council to be rehoused?

The great house price bubble helped cause the crash: US sub-prime loans to the poorest lit the fuse. Labour failed to build enough private or social housing while waiting lists grew. House prices doubled in the golden decade but that unearned windfall for the lucky generation went untaxed. Meanwhile housing benefit claims soared as lack of cheap council housing saw councils put people into expensive private housing instead. The crash meant new claimants among the unemployed and those whose hours and pay were cut. Councils put people into private rentals for lack of cheaper social housing, and of course the number of households is growing as people live longer. The shortage will get much worse with the housing budget halved.

Rent was always the glitch in the benefit system, and Beveridge never found a logical answer. Well, here at last is a final solution he never considered: put all poor people in distant dumping grounds where nobody wants to live because there is no work, then call them workless scroungers, lacking in aspiration for the children they have taken out of class to throw together in schools where nobody's parents work. Might we hear a little less sophistry about fairness from David Cameron and Nick Clegg?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/benefits-cut-rents-up-housing-time-bomb

Is this some sort of admission that no, there is no direct relation between the % of the Sheffield population that is BME and immigration.

Don't be shy, just come out and say it.

No it's a pointless question in response. Much like yours.

I don't want this thread to descend into bickering about immigration.

I made the point our population is increasing, both in Sheffield and in the UK. And provided reputable evidence to back up the claim.
You then reply with a question about the relationship of two words wrt each other which were contained within the evidence, which has nothing to do with your previous claim that the population of the UK and Sheffield is not increasing.

Population is increasing. That is a well known fact, as such, there is, and will be a greater demand for housing.

Last year the population increase was a giddy, errr, 0.25%

In Sheffield or the UK?

It stands to reason then, that we need to have increased the number of houses, flats etc. by 0.25% to keep the current standard of living the same as last year.

If we have increasing population, we need to build more social housing.

I'm sure we both agree with that.

No it's a pointless question in response. Much like yours.

I don't want this thread to descend into bickering about immigration.
So why try to equate the BME population with immigration. It was you that brought immigration up, not me.

I made the point our population is increasing, both in Sheffield and in the UK. And provided reputable evidence to back up the claim.
You then reply with a question about the relationship of two words wrt each other which were contained within the evidence, which has nothing to do with your previous claim that the population of the UK and Sheffield is not increasing.
I accept the evidence that the population is increasing.

Population is increasing. That is a well known fact, as such, there is, and will be a greater demand for housing.
A demand which should be solved by paying for your own IMO. The state doesn't exist to give everyone a free ride, it can't, the state is formed from that 'everyone'.

Shared accommodation - £65.00 (£281.67) FOR CHILDLESS UNDER 35s

1 Bedroom accommodation - £94.36 (£408.89)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £113.92 (£493.65)
[i]2 bed HMO £130 +16.08pw (£563.34)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £120.82 (£523.55)
[i]3 bed HMO £185 +64.18pw (£845.01)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £155.34 (£673.14)
[i]4 bed HMO £260 +104.66pw (£1126.68 )
5 Bedroom accommodation - £224.38 (£972.31)
[i]5 bed HMO £325 +100.62pw (£1408.35)

[i]6 bed HMO £390, +165.62pw

Here are the current April 2011 figures, after the lha cuts.., properties are now worth less, due to lower rental yields, however these will increase above RPI due to the perverse schemes in power.

Shared accommodation - £60.00 (£260.00)

1 Bedroom accommodation - £88.85 (£385.02)

2 Bedroom accommodation - £103.85 (£450.02)
HMO - 120 (520)
3 Bedroom accommodation - £114.23 (£495.00)
HMO - 180 (780)
4 Bedroom accommodation - £144.23 (£625.00)
HMO - 240 (1040)

HMOs then +60/week and 260/month per extra room (if let fully to the vast swathes on unemployed youths and elder youths, 16,17,18-25 an 25-35).

Who the hell wants to house a family when you can fill it with 3 adults.

And what with the tax breaks for large investment funds to buy large amounts of housing now set up, a hell of lot of people are going to be living in this **** poor housing.

Mortgage, job?

How about repossession, bankruptcy and unemployment with housing benefit to tide you over a decade in a HMO?

Some kind investors are going to be happy to house you at the expense of taxpayers like yourself to provide a stream of unearned income!

I hate to be so negative about the situation, but it has to be said.

People need to know how vital council housing is to society as a whole.

If you want a house, YOU MUST BREED!
BREED FOR ENGLAND
We need more tax payers quick!
Or get a job and save money for a deposit, then apply for a mortgage and buy an house.

Or get a job and save money for a deposit, then apply for a mortgage and buy an house.

Breeding is no longer advised. Family homes don't guarantee much housing benefit.

It's all about the HMOs for under 35s, who would have thought it eh!

Last decade's unsustainable housing boom caused by manic speculation to make under 35s live in tiny rooms in shared houses (HMOs)

There, I've fixed your title for you.

From about 2001 to 2005, many house prices (which had been rising since about 1995) increased by 100%, 150% or 200%. Apparently people seem to genuinely believe the following about this:

That such increases were quite normal and not the result of a speculative bubble.

Reasons given included a "shortage of housing" despite the fact that every spare bit of land was being built on. People were even selling the bottom of their gardens to developers.

No one seemed to notice that the "demand" for housing ended coincidentally just as the global credit taps were turned off in late 2007.

And more relevant to this thread, no one seems able to make the connection between high house prices (which lead inexorably to high rents) and the current high cost of supporting people in BTL tenancies.

No efforts were made by the last government to build more social housing or to keep private housing from becoming unaffordable (without people getting into massive debt). Why?

As the film "All the President's Men" advised, "follow the money".

Who benefits?

Well BTL landlords make a packet as their property purchases are subsidized by the taxpayer. And interestingly, many MPs own BTL properties.

Take former left wing firebrand Michael Meacher, who owns 4 flats (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10427) which he rents out.

According to this article in The Guardian, the figure was 9 (or even 12!) in 2001.

The many homes of Michael Meacher (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jan/20/politics.labour)

Do you really think he wants house prices to fall? His priced out constituents might, but <removed>! He's got bills to pay.

And Meacher is just one of hundreds.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Unsustainable high house prices are socially corrosive. Something Gordon "I will not let house prices get out of control (http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/2008/09/gordon-brown-house-price-inflation/)" Brown never realized.

However the only thing is this isn't law yet. It may never be law.

However the only thing is this isn't law yet. It may never be law.

Let's hope it never is!

Lets hope it isn't. Its a particularly vile piece of law and punitively punishes people for no good reason. It makes no sense to impose this from what I can see. Benefits nobody, creates homelessness, poverty and decreases living standards greatly.

Lets hope it isn't. Its a particularly vile piece of law and punitively punishes people for no good reason. It makes no sense to impose this from what I can see. Benefits nobody, creates homelessness, poverty and decreases living standards greatly.

What with the B2L tax breaks it is very profitable for a privileged few.

I suggest people who are genuinely interested in social housing watch last nights programme on BBC4 - link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0109dvs/The_Great_Estate_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Council_ House/

A really interesting and factual programme about the start, growth/success and eventually downward trend of council housing in England. The success was mainly due to the vetting of prospective tenants, and the policies of localism. The 70s saw changes to policy that changed the demographics of council housing for ever. For local interest, Parkhill is featured.

Best bet is to go all out and buy your own flat or house even if you have to live on cans of fish paste and bread for a few years,
Government housing is from what I see either crap or shot through with rules, regulations and red tape.