[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It is, but I was pointing out that it isn't true to say that "those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room". They are. The amount they are paid towards their rent is subject to the same "bedroom number" restrictions as council tenants. So, they don't get penalised IF they can find a property with more rooms, but for the same rent as the average property with fewer rooms. Thats not very often the case, though... more rooms in a house = higher rental prices.

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's due to the benefit cap isn't it? It is as restrictive yet there is no medding of lifetime tenancies, throwing those with disabilities out of adapted properties.
Bedroom allowance isn't as black and white, if you can find a home to suit your needs for the money you are entitled to there is nothing to stop you taking said house. This is why people on welfare are priced out of private renting in the capital and are making their way oop north.

Affordability of Rent in 'The Capital' is not just a problem for those on 'Welfare' - those in work are being priced out of housing too. In fact, there ARE examples where those in work are WORSE off than those on benefits.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

A brilliantly honest and informative post T.S - it is a thoroughly disgusting and unfair system which renders a hardworking, decent and honest man unable to afford his own property, and this needs addressing with the utmost urgency too.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's not actually how it works... private renting people on benefits are given a "bedroom allowance" the same as those in social housing, and the money (housing allowance) paid to them is only enough to cover the "local average" for a property of that size.

e.g. if a family of 4 is in a 3 bedroom house with a private rental price of £550 pcm, but they are only "entitled to" 2 bedrooms and the local average for a 2 bedroom property is £450 pcm, then the absolute maximum they will get for rent is £450 pcm. The rest they will have to cover by other means.

This is actually a huge problem because, in truth, what they call "the average" seems to be dramatically skewed towards the lower end. E.g. for benefits purposes, around where I live, they say a 2-bed average is £450. I have very rarely seen a 2-bedroom property being rented out for less than £525.

Another example: single people, I think under the age of 35, only get a "shared accomodation" rate. Enough to rent one room, not a whole one-bed flat. Problem? In towns like this one, there is little to zero shared accomodation available. As usual, it's something that works fine in larger towns and cities, but is utterly useless outside of that.

I'd actually guess that the majority of housing allowance private sector tenants will have to add extra cash from elsewhere to make up their rent. Usually more than the excess charged for a spare room in a council-owned property.

Thanks TS
I was aware of the cap on private rentals and that, that cap varies depending on where you live. It used to be (I used to work for an estate agent that also did rentals) that someone who was working full time could be subsidised for rental payments if they earned under a certain amount but it was rarely enough to pay the full amount in rent.

I worked in Surrey where lots of smaller property was available but prices were high and so even the top capped rentals were beyond most people who had to claim entire rents.

Yes, private tenants don't have to have an extra room to not afford rent which of course is unfair but its not a penalty on the number of bedrooms, its just a housing benefit that's far too low to pay the rent in full with.

The other thing about renting privately is, you are expected to fork out a hefty deposit, pay a month or two rent in advance; get a short term contract where the tenant is expected to pay every time its renewed. You often have to pay for the closure of that contract and many people have a fight to get their full deposits back, regardless of how clean and tidy they've been. On top of that rents can suddenly go up on contract renewal and like you say, landlords/agents can give you notice after a mere six months.

People who privately rent don't have the security of knowing they can live in a place for long. They also know that if they don't have a good agent, that agent will try and screw them for more money at every given opportunity. If they have children or pets finding property is more problematic. If they smoke they have to lie and say they don't and if they are on benefits they will be turned away by most landlords. Private rentals is the biggest scam on the property market and although I'd recommend renting to anyone in this present unpredictable crisis, if its security of a long term home they are looking for, I'd warn them off.

More social housing is needed because more and more people are renting their homes. Landlords and agents have got greedier and greedier over this past decade and its time they were stopped. But the present social housing system doesn't work and they have no intentions of making it work.

I would love to see a government that will bring back affordable social housing for anyone who needs it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I just think that the LHA system is a disaster in general and shouldn't be held up as being somehow better or with less issues than the current social housing issues. No, there's no meddling of lifetime tenancies... because there are no lifetime tenancies. Usually short agreements between 6 months and 2 years, at the end of which the owner can arbitrarily ask the tenants - often families - to leave, or sell the house out from under them, with there sometimes being no suitable other properties nearby available to rent, meaning children being pulled out of school and all sorts.

Also, LHA rates aren't universal. You can't just take your London rate and move north for a nice big house - your applicable rate up north will be for the average property in that area. i.e. if there are lots of cheap 2-bed rentals, and you are entitled to a 2-bed house, then you won't get much in the way of rent allowance. You'll get the amount for a 2 bed house. If you want a 3 bed house, you'll almost certainly have to pay the extra out of your own pocket. Probably somewhere in the region of £50 to £100 a month more... or in other words, a similar amount to what people have to pay in "bedroom tax".

Now... I'm not ADVOCATING bedroom tax. Far from it. I think it's far too arbitrary. I don't think it should apply to 2-bedroom properties at all, and above 2 bedrooms, there should be far more consideration for circumstances. Also, there should be a no-questions-asked grace period of at least 2 years when circumstances change (e.g. kids leaving home and ESPECIALLY deaths).

I just also know that there is a huge lack of social housing available and, frankly, that being in private rentals is not an enviable situation. We don't get benefits - we're the poor saps who are stuck square in the middle. Not poor enough to get any housing help, but also not in the position to buy property. We've been in private rentals since our first was born - 4 different homes in 6 years and have now been told that our current landlord is selling up in 6 months, so that'll be move number 5. Away from all of my daughter's friends that she's spent two years making. It's not an enviable situation. I'd pay full rent plus double bedroom tax for a secure, guaranteed home while my kids are young tbqfh... but there isn't housing available for people who aren't on low income.

I don't understand this part, are you on the waiting list for social housing? You don't have to be on a low income or on welfare to qualify it's not means tested.
Out of interest why don't you buy? If you have a decent income it's dead money renting.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I don't understand this part, are you on the waiting list for social housing? You don't have to be on a low income or on welfare to qualify it's not means tested.
Out of interest why don't you buy? If you have a decent income it's dead money renting.

No, not on a waiting list, there is effectively zero social housing where I live. A few grubby one and two bed flats / bedsits, nothing suitable for families. What there are thousands of, funnily enough, are ex-council homes that we're bought on the cheap years ago and are now in the private rental market for almost double what the mortgage on the same house would be.

Anyway, yes, I'm aware that it's dead money... However... Like I said, stuck in the middle. Too much money to get any sort of help, and whilst we could more than afford a mortgage (mortgage on a BIGGER house is less than we pay in extortionate private rent), we can't buy. We would need at least a £20,000 deposit and I personally wouldn't buy without a "safety net" of at least 5k for potential early problems. Realistically I'm not going to have that for at least another 5+ years, probably longer.

Basically, being a first time buyer, if you need a family home, is very difficult these days without some other help e.g. a loan from family. Or someone handily dying and leaving some cash.

Again, we could technically buy "a property" but it would be a smaller flat, fine for singles or couples, not suitable for a family of 4. It's something I did look into in terms of an investment, buying to rent out, but unfortunately it seems more complicated than it would first appear.

[DemolitionRed]

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

[Kizzy]

Do you have 'handy' friends, people who would help you with a fixer upper?.. I'd consider again TS if you found a smaller place you over time could extend up (loft conversion) or out on, you could do that over time and let the girls share a room for now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

It does, hey move in with them while you save up

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It does, hey move in with them while you save up

Reckon everyone from Tibb should just chip in and pay my deposit tbh...

In all seriousness though; every one of my friends my age who now owns property has had help to do so. Money left by grandparents, or have been able to stay with family while they save, etc.

For us on the other hand... My parents sold the family home when they divorced 12 years ago, my mum drank her half of the money and then died leaving nothing (well no, that's not fair there was some money and I paid off student debts, so it's now gone) and my dad moved into a one bed flat so that he could, as far as I can tell, spend the majority of his half on guitars and gadgets.

My wife's family... Well... We lived 15 minutes walk from them for a year and a half and then literally moved countries to be away from it .

Not that I'm even saying everyone is entitled to family help. Just that most young families who want to buy, these days, need at least a little.

Maybe I could adopt a grannie or something. A really old and rich one and then I could inherit her cash. If she was super old I'd probably only need to have sex with her two, maybe three times...

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's also this... Friends of ours have just bought a detached 4 bed house with "land", moving up from a 2 bed property (that was fully paid off). But they have stretched their repayment budget to the absolute maximum and also wiped out their savings. With things as precarious as they are, it seems like a massive risk.

Unfortunately most people don't buy as a necessity any more, they buy what they believe to be an investment. Back in the day, people bought houses to make into permanent cosy homes. A two or three bed terrace was a place they could start and raise a family and grow old together (its still like that in France thank goodness). Now most home buyers in the UK expect to be moving onwards and upwards after a few years because its all about investment, moving up the property ladder and making profit and because banks are willing to lend such huge amounts, the aspiring middle classes are more than willing to move on to yet another crushing mortgage.

Lets hope your friends have a fixed rate mortgage and not a standard variable rate. You should ask them and warn them because if they are on an SVRM, when the bubble bursts they will inevitably will be faced with unsustainable mortgage re-payments for a house with negative equity. Show them this http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...ion-in-201617/

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Reckon everyone from Tibb should just chip in and pay my deposit tbh...

Do a 'crowd funding' I'll chip in.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not that I'm even saying everyone is entitled to family help. Just that most young families who want to buy, these days, need at least a little.

Absolutely.

I recently tried to explain to a friend why some people end up being homeless. If they don't have that back up system of a generous family and they fall on hard times (most people are only two pay checks away from becoming bankrupt) then its easy to become homeless.

When our children buy we totally expect to help them out and we will do that because we can but we can only do that because we have inheritance savings ourselves.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Do you have 'handy' friends, people who would help you with a fixer upper?.. I'd consider again TS if you found a smaller place you over time could extend up (loft conversion) or out on, you could do that over time and let the girls share a room for now.

That's what we did.Cheap 2 bed bungalow in an ok area and 5 years later got a loft conversion to make it a 4 bed.It worked out cheaper than a 4 bedroom house would have cost.Probably around the same price a 3 bed house would have cost in a bad area.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

That's what we did.Cheap 2 bed bungalow in an ok area and 5 years later got a loft conversion to make it a 4 bed.It worked out cheaper than a 4 bedroom house would have cost.Probably around the same price a 3 bed house would have cost in a bad area.

There you go TS, talk to the monkey

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Unfortunately most people don't buy as a necessity any more, they buy what they believe to be an investment. Back in the day, people bought houses to make into permanent cosy homes. A two or three bed terrace was a place they could start and raise a family and grow old together (its still like that in France thank goodness). Now most home buyers in the UK expect to be moving onwards and upwards after a few years because its all about investment, moving up the property ladder and making profit and because banks are willing to lend such huge amounts, the aspiring middle classes are more than willing to move on to yet another crushing mortgage.

Lets hope your friends have a fixed rate mortgage and not a standard variable rate. You should ask them and warn them because if they are on an SVRM, when the bubble bursts they will inevitably will be faced with unsustainable mortgage re-payments for a house with negative equity. Show them this http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...ion-in-201617/

Fantastic posts from both you and TS, DemolitionRed,sadly as you both really point out the housing situation is a mess and over the last 5+ years has not improved at all.

Your opening line to this particular post is absolutely spot on too.

[smudgie]

Back in the day, we realised we couldn't have it all, bought a cheap house and then worked our way up.
We bought ex council as our first home, loved it, then when second baby came along we moved to a bit bigger house, bit extra mortgage but we were earning a bit more.
Eventually we moved to this house, mainly to get the best education in the area, stretched us a bit but well worth it, now lived here for coming up to 23 years.
Love it here and never felt the urge to move, mind you a lottery win would see us in a nice bungalow
But I can assure you, back in the day people were moving up the ladder all the time, wanting to do a bit better for themselves or to give themselves a little nest egg for their later years.
Nothing wrong with it either, if people didn't move up the ladder then there would never be the opportunity for others to geT on that first rung.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Back in the day, we realised we couldn't have it all, bought a cheap house and then worked our way up.
We bought ex council as our first home, loved it, then when second baby came along we moved to a bit bigger house, bit extra mortgage but we were earning a bit more.
Eventually we moved to this house, mainly to get the best education in the area, stretched us a bit but well worth it, now lived here for coming up to 23 years.
Love it here and never felt the urge to move, mind you a lottery win would see us in a nice bungalow
But I can assure you, back in the day people were moving up the ladder all the time, wanting to do a bit better for themselves or to give themselves a little nest egg for their later years.
Nothing wrong with it either, if people didn't move up the ladder then there would never be the opportunity for others to geT on that first rung.

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids .

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I certainly wouldn't buy atm. Five years from now is a good plan.

I'd advise anyone who's not on a fixed rate mortgage for the next five years to get on one asap because if the economy crashes, the interest rates will rocket and there's going to be loads of default.

Why not? if you are buying a home rather than an investment it's a great time as buyers can take advantage of locking down a fixed rate for the next ten years, yes the value might fall but it will rise again down the road, equity in a property either positive or negative is just a figure in a home that you plan to live in for along time.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Why not? if you are buying a home rather than an investment it's a great time as buyers can take advantage of locking down a fixed rate for the next ten years, yes the value might fall but it will rise again down the road, equity in a property either positive or negative is just a figure in a home that you plan to live in for along time.

So true Cherie. There is ALWAYS cyclic 'peaking' and 'troughing' in any market - not just the property market - but historically, property prices have only increased, and the price of the average property DOUBLES every 10 years or so.

True again, is the fact that Fixing at a relatively low rate now for as long as possible is a very smart move.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids .

What do you think they were on the 80s, free?
Property has always been an investment and although yes houses were cheaper wages were less weren't they...
A mortgage on £120,000 would be less than you pay monthly, rent a 2 bed flat instead of a house next and get your deposit together.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids .

Hell no, I know it's a world of difference now TS.
We don't kid ourselves, if we were starting out now there is no way on earth we would end up where we are now in our lifetime.
Not just the ridiculous house prices but also the total lack of job security for so many people.
We had a few blips and worries on the way with the firm hubby works for being taken over three times since if was British Steel but he was fortunate enôugh to keep his job.
I really do worry for the future of our kids generation, something needs to be done re the hosing situation, and I mean a bit more thán whichever government that is in just wringing their hands and sayîng what they intend to do.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Based on this and just to clarify; I'm not being fussy or unwilling to work up... 2-bedroom ex council houses around here go for nearly £120,000. And I live in a small village in Scotland. It ain't the 80's any more, kids .

Its not the 90s either, interest on our first mortgage was 15 per cent