Boris Johnson backs down over 'Kosovo' comments on housing benefit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ng-benefit

I'm not sure what to make of the whole thing.

I did have a thought though, I have moved several times in order to work in better jobs. I would expect if I lost a job or got a less well paid one then, equally, I would have to move elsewhere.

There is an alternative though, Government enforcement of rental prices of houses in which tennants receive Housing Benefit.

Yes but this will be people losing their jobs because they cannot get a home in the area. Add in the cost of travelling then it could make the job unviable, so be forced to find jobs and a home in a new area. Also if someone is unable to find a home in an area councils will move them to another area possibly a long way from family, friends and support network. This could create unemployment. They will be forced to move to an area that they can afford to live in. It will be another matter if they can find work within a reasonable distance.


All that will happen is that private landlords will block all claimants. It is hard enough to get a private tenancy when you are on benefits. Even as a disabled with good references it can be unbelievably tough to get a place even if the rent is right. What could make a difference is that the landlord will be liable for council tax for every day that the property is empty. This means that they will have to find a tenant quickly it if means that they are liable otherwise. This could lower rents for private tenant as well who make up the majority of tenants anyway. It will also help maintain council incomes. It will also eliminate the benefits of leaving a property empty for years. If councils could charge more for empty homes then that will bring them back into the market sooner.

What the government have failed to consider is that as the bottom end of the property market gets congested it will drive up rents at the lower end so the savings might be minimal. For those that do rent privately who are saving for a mortgage will not like the upward pressure on their rents. It could increase the poverty trap.

They have suggested payment direct to the landlord. That would be fine except councils operate housing benefit on a fortnightly basis but landlords want it monthly.

True, like I say I don't know what to make of the situation. Instinctively it feels wrong but then, thinking about it, if you move to an area because of work then, logically, an equal move because of the converse is, well, logical.

How the offices in London would get cleaned and services though I don't know, AFAIK the majority of housing benefit in London actually goes to people who are working but do not earn enough. I guess the problem is people who do the necessary jobs that no one else wishes to do don't get paid enough.



Make it illegal to discriminate if the payments go directly to the landlords.

They'd have to do checks, one huge house I lived in years ago seemed to have cheques arising for people I'd never heard of that the landlord took away.

I have read somewhere else today that unemployed only make up 20% of HB claimants. The rest being disabled, those caring for someone disabled, elderly or in low paid work. The supposed reason of this move is to stop those unemployed getting a home which effectively stops them looking for work because it does not pay enough. It will end the poverty trap. Though if the government really wanted to cut the housing benefit bill they should stamp on house price bubbles. It is the speculation in housing that has driven up HB levels. They complain about the cost of housing benefit but ignore that is a side effect of high property prices. It makes me wonder if they actually know what they are doing.


That might not work either. There is the issue of guarantors being required. You only have to see last Mondays Panorama to see that it is a open door for fraud. I would like to see the end of guarantors as well. Also to stop slum landlords allow councils to make mandatory purchase orders if a property is found to be in disrepair and then to repair it and add it to the housing stock. Force the slum landlord and their bankers to take losses. Eventually the banks would blacklist the bad landlords.

Another change could be to allow people who would be repossessed because their landlord failed to make payments to have an automatic right to maintain the same rent from the bank or building society. Ultimately the banks should have to give the tenant the right to buy from the bank. The bank could then actually make a profit from the whole deal. It would also mean that tenants who want to buy will look after the place, and mean that renting could be just as good an option.


Yes but the claimant was the one getting charged with fraud, even if the landlord was the one getting the money. I get my HB directly every couple of weeks and have to pay monthly and the HB does not cover the rent anyway. I am in favour of checks, but if it takes too long it can create problems for tenants. Some councils used to take months to catch up with payments. When I moved into this place the council took two months to resolve even though I was a priority case.

That is very true. I heard on a news article the other day that a majority of the mortgages issued recently have all been for people buying to rent. It was the buy to rent overkill that kept prices artificially high before. Nothing is changing and in the meantime bankers are getting big bonuses, getting on the property market is a dream to many and rents are unaffordable.

I'm not entirely sure why the public/press are so willing to believe that by picking on the unemployed and disabled will solve the ills of the nation. It's like blaming a paper cut in your hand for your loss of blood when you've had the other arm cut off.


I'm not sure they ever existed TBH.

The government have outright lied about some figures. Yes there are a few who got stupendous homes that no one else working could afford. Though these are very few. I can support the idea of a cap for those working as it would give people an excuse to not take job. Though it should also apply to bed and breakfast accommodation. If a person is made homeless from a £150 a week flat they could be housed in a B&B for £350 plus a week. It does not take long before the costs exceed what it would have cost to keep that person in a home of their own. The current figures of 80000 people being made homeless could mean that many of them end up in bed and breakfast at a far higher cost. A complete lack of joined up thinking. It will also have an appalling impact on any children who find their lives disrupted.


In some cases these people never existed or lived elsewhere. It was a form of identity theft. Yes the claimant would have been the one that the benefits agency or council would have been chasing.

Somehow I don't see a Tory government doing much to stop property speculation or limit house price inflation. 'Free market' and all that

Exactly but a housing benefit claims are a direct consequence of property bubbles and until governments realise that then they will have an uphill struggle. They have capped benefits to the lowest 30% of properties. What next the bottom 20% or even 10%?