The true housing benefit scroungers

[pap]

Meet Richard Benyon, the richest MP in the country and outspoken critic of the "something for nothing" culture, received over £625K in housing benefit on account of all the properties he lets out to housing benefit tenants.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richest-mp-britain-slams-welfare-3178089

 

The article features a nice map showing taxpayers the big housing benefit earners. The biggest scrounger in Southampton is Paul Broach of Mya Property Limited. They cleared £566K turnover in Southampton last year.

[Tokyo-Saint]

What they cleared in turnover doesn't really matter Pap. Were they charging a fair rent for the accommodation offered?

[hypochondriac]

Who is the biggest scrounger in Liverpool?

[pap]

What they cleared in turnover doesn't really matter Pap. Were they charging a fair rent for the accommodation offered?

 

Define fair rent.

 

Is it:-

 

a) What people can afford?

b) What everyone else is paying?

[pap]

Who is the biggest scrounger in Liverpool?

 

These guys:-

 

http://www.newstarthomes.org.uk/

[bridge too far]

What they cleared in turnover doesn't really matter Pap. Were they charging a fair rent for the accommodation offered?

 

The article says that it costs councils 29% more to house tenants in privately rented property than in council / housing association property.

[Tokyo-Saint]

From a private landlords point of view, it's B Pap.

 

Otherwise I take it they can go and offer it to private tenants. To be honest, even a little more than the going rate to cover additional 'risk' of accommodating someone I guess they have little knowledge of (I don't know the ins and outs of it but I guess the council just allocate who lives where as opposed to an estate agent who would do greater background checks etc) would be fair. It is not the private landlords responsibility to house the nation. Should the government? Probably, but that is not the argument you are making is it?

[Tokyo-Saint]

The article says that it costs councils 29% more to house tenants in privately rented property than in council / housing association property.

 

Probably fair to be honest. I know this won't be popular but if you had a house and could either rent it to the local council or a private professional, who would you go for?

 

If the accommodation is in poor condition or the tenants are badly treated, that's another issue. However, I assume the extra 29% is like for like?

[pap]

From a private landlords point of view, it's B Pap.

 

Otherwise I take it they can go and offer it to private tenants. To be honest, even a little more than the going rate to cover additional 'risk' of accommodating someone I guess they have little knowledge of (I don't know the ins and outs of it but I guess the council just allocate who lives where as opposed to an estate agent who would do greater background checks etc) would be fair. It is not the private landlords responsibility to house the nation. Should the government? Probably, but that is not the argument you are making is it?

 

Who gives a f**k about private landlords, Tokes?

 

Certainly not me, in starting this thread.

 

Every government is a spineless apologist for the status quo, or at its most radical, proposing minor changes to help out in edge cases. Look at Labour with their energy price controls. What a pile of f**king arse. Short-term thinking when they should be talking about nationalisation.

 

Similar here. Rent controls would clear many of the speculators out of the market.

 

It is government's job to ensure that people are housed. If they can't do it, get a new government.

[aintforever]

The situation is screwed up, people can't get mortgages because the banks ****ed up so they are forced to rent - pushing rents up.

 

The government need to heavily tax anyone with a second home IMO, making it less viable to rent out properties.

[Tokyo-Saint]

I agree to some extent, however in the OP you are demonising a private landlord for offering accommodation. You quote their turnover as supporting evidence. It is not their fault that there is a housing crisis is it? I don't know if the ones you quoted are the worst landlords in the world making huge profits or if they are actually providing a necessary service due to Thatcher thinking it was a good idea to sell off the council houses.

 

However, the premise of the whole thing is too not far removed from a Dune/Barry sensationalist link from a right wing news paper - just from the opposing wing.

Edited 24 February, 2014 by Tokyo-Saint

[OldNick]

Who gives a f**k about private landlords, Tokes?

 

Certainly not me, in starting this thread.

 

Every government is a spineless apologist for the status quo, or at its most radical, proposing minor changes to help out in edge cases. Look at Labour with their energy price controls. What a pile of f**king arse. Short-term thinking when they should be talking about nationalisation.

 

Similar here. Rent controls would clear many of the speculators out of the market.

 

It is government's job to ensure that people are housed. If they can't do it, get a new government.

what a load of tosh. If the country was not in massive debt we could talk about your utopia world. Now I assume you mean a house for everyone, whether they have never lived in the country and just walked in. Whether they actually try to work or just hold their hand out for a cushy life.

Iam not a landlord by the way.

I know your way out to pay for it, put up the taxes or borrow, yep that has always worked for the working man.

Our nation can barely pay its way with the debt and social payments we have now, let alone the nonsense pension burden from the civil service and military we have to dish out.

Our nation has used the Pompey budgeting for far too long, and until we get that straight we will never be able to get the houses. add to that the planning issues and how the green effect hinders that there is little hope.

[aintforever]

what a load of tosh. If the country was not in massive debt we could talk about your utopia world. Now I assume you mean a house for everyone, whether they have never lived in the country and just walked in. Whether they actually try to work or just hold their hand out for a cushy life.

 

They get that anyway, we foot the bill and the landlords rake it in.

[pap]

I agree to some extent, however in the OP you are demonising a private landlord for offering accommodation. You quote their turnover as supporting evidence. It is not their fault that there is a housing crisis is it? I don't know if the ones you quoted are the worst landlord in the world making huge profits or if they are actually providing a necessary service due to Thatcher thinking it was a good idea to sell off the council houses.

 

However, the premise of the whole thing is too far removed from a Dune/Barry sensationalist link from a right wing news paper - just from the opposing wing.

 

I have a very polarised view on this, although the Tory is being rightly pulled up for saying one thing ("people shouldn't get something for nothing") and doing another (making a vast fortune out of something for nothing). I know, I know. They have to sign mortgage papers and do a bit of business administration. They probably also have to pay the likes of British Gas a small amount per property to ensure it's up to spec. Still, that's not too onerous for £625K a year, is it?

 

The rest? The facts are simple. They make their money from taxpayers. The political situation is relevant in that it created the conditions for them to thrive. They still had to decide to become private landlords, and many would have made the call knowing it was money-for-nothing forever because there aren't enough socially-rented properties. Those are the people I reserve my ire for, and judging from the map, not only are there plenty of them but also plenty who know they're doing wrong. There wouldn't be as many redacted names otherwise.

Edited 24 February, 2014 by pap

[Smirking_Saint]

Who gives a f**k about private landlords, Tokes?

 

Certainly not me, in starting this thread.

 

Every government is a spineless apologist for the status quo, or at its most radical, proposing minor changes to help out in edge cases. Look at Labour with their energy price controls. What a pile of f**king arse. Short-term thinking when they should be talking about nationalisation.

 

Similar here. Rent controls would clear many of the speculators out of the market.

 

It is government's job to ensure that people are housed. If they can't do it, get a new government.

 

Nationalisation of the energy companies will never be the answer, will never be viable and wont change a thing, but that a different arguement.

 

From a tenants POV I dont see what the issue is really, Im looking at starting to build a property portfolio and obviously Ill be looking to get a decent return on my investment. A counter arguement I suppose is that if I am purchasing and ultimately maintaining a property then it is saving the government money that would have been used to build that property in the first place.

[pap]

Nationalisation of the energy companies will never be the answer, will never be viable and wont change a thing, but that a different arguement.

 

Let's address it though, mate. You're wrong. EDF is proof that you're wrong.

[Smirking_Saint]

Let's address it though, mate. You're wrong. EDF is proof that you're wrong.

 

Needs a different thread really bud, presumeambly you are talking about nationalisation due to the vast profits made by these companies ? Ill discuss it aslong as it doesnt turn into the usual arguement against capitalism which is a completely different arguement ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

How on earth is making a fortune out of renting houses getting "something for nothing"? It's not the private landlords fault that there aren't enough council houses or that the Government pay housing benefit. They are spending their own money or borrowing money at commercial rates to provide a service. If nobody rents their houses, they go tits up.

 

What do you want Pap, laws that say you can only buy a house to live in it. The simple truth is that if demand outweighs supply and the market is distorted by Government paying people's rent for them via housing benefit, then the outcome will be people making fortunes out of the rented sector. If you make owning property to rent out too expensive, you're going to shrink supply even more.

[pap]

Needs a different thread really bud, presumeambly you are talking about nationalisation due to the vast profits made by these companies ? Ill discuss it aslong as it doesnt turn into the usual arguement against capitalism which is a completely different arguement ?

 

I don't want to fight this too much on this thread either. However, part of the reason that things were privatised was because we were assured the very same things that you mentioned in your post. I don't agree with that. If UK taxpayers are subsidising the French gov because nationalised EDF is making 1.6Bn in profits, I think that lances the idea that nationalised industries don't or can't work.

 

It's political spin bowled perfectly for British defeatist tastes. It has taken on an undeserved whiff of authenticity and I wanted to address it.

[pap]

How on earth is making a fortune out of renting houses getting "something for nothing"? It's not the private landlords fault that there aren't enough council houses or that the Government pay housing benefit. They are spending their own money or borrowing money at commercial rates to provide a service. If nobody rents their houses, they go tits up.

 

What do you want Pap, laws that say you can only buy a house to live in it. The simple truth is that if demand outweighs supply and the market is distorted by Government paying people's rent for them via housing benefit, then the outcome will be people making fortunes out of the rented sector. If you make owning property to rent out too expensive, you're going to shrink supply even more.

 

What do I want?

 

How's about rental prices based on square footage with the lower end of the market tied to the minimum wage.

[Smirking_Saint]

I don't want to fight this too much on this thread either. However, part of the reason that things were privatised was because we were assured the very same things that you mentioned in your post. I don't agree with that. If UK taxpayers are subsidising the French gov because nationalised EDF is making 1.6Bn in profits, I think that lances the idea that nationalised industries don't or can't work.

 

It's political spin bowled perfectly for British defeatist tastes. It has taken on an undeserved whiff of authenticity and I wanted to address it.

 

Open up a new thread then, can nationalisation work ? Probably TBH, would it work now ? No, the values of the big six are far far too high for the government to reasonably take back control of them. It was widely reported at the time that the government at the time of privatisation was losing millions of taxpayers money as the old EB's could not effectively run their businesses to the breakeven points required, energy prices are always relevent to supply/demand as well as other taxeable qoutas that is written in legislation and requirement from the government. As a distribution company we can only effectively spend money on areas of the network that the government allow anyway.

 

France went the right way about it, ploughing money into generation which as you can see now has created a supply surplus that they are able to sell off to the continent, this effectively keeps energy 'prices' down but the network maintenance etc will always have to come out of the taxpayers pocket which is different to how the UK operates within which that maintenance effectively is paid for by the companies themselves.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What do I want?

 

How's about rental prices based on square footage with the lower end of the market tied to the minimum wage.

 

 

So you want the Government to decide what people can charge to rent their house out?

[buctootim]

The stupid part is the government not addressing lack of housing and continuing to pay out billions in housing benefit. Its a supply side problem.

[pap]

So you want the Government to decide what people can charge to rent their house out?

 

Working out okay for the Germans, Lord D.

[pap]

On the rent-control note:-

 

How Germany Achieved Stable and Affordable Housing.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I do find you perplexing some times Pap.

 

On the one hand, govts are evil and everything they do is untoward and we should not trust them.

 

On the other hand, they should control rent, and own industries.

 

[Tokyo-Saint]

Playing devils advocate but what is the 'real' cost compared to building and maintaining council places? Taking out the few Brian Badonde looking conservatives that the mirror have used as an example of private landlords renting to the public, is it really that bad?

 

At worse (cause they are the figures the mirror gave) the price is 29% over and above the going rate. This means the landlord takes care of the up keep of the properties and assuming he does his job, deals with emergencies such as broken boilers etc.

 

Then, he pays 20% tax their profits as a company (which of course goes back in the public purse) and then if he wants to take a dividend, he will have to pay tax on that as well (again into the public purse).

 

Is the problem that a large amount of these places are in really expensive areas? Camden for example is one of the most expensive places in London to live (Brett will testify) but has a huge amount of council houses and private landlords. A private landlord here will be charging 29% over and above an already huge figure. Should the location of these rents be looked into as well? Should people be given the option of waiting longer on the waiting list or take this place slightly out of town? I am sure Ludwig will be along in a minute to call me a **** and a few lefties will say people have the right to live where they want, however in October a council house in Southwark was sold for £3m. Providing this money is/was reinvested into new properties in a less central location, isn't this a good thing?

[holepuncture]

Similar here. Rent controls would clear many of the speculators out of the market.

 

The situation is screwed up, people can't get mortgages because the banks ****ed up so they are forced to rent - pushing rents up.

 

The government need to heavily tax anyone with a second home IMO, making it less viable to rent out properties.

 

I enjoyed a mates rant about the whole buy-to-let market recently. Im not sure what its like north of London, but south of it rents are often a fair % higher than mortgage repayments.

 

He argued that the buy-to-letters are sucking up all the entry level properties, to the point that he was having difficulty getting even a viewing before an investor had bought it up for the rental market! So in this case, even with the mortgage ready to go, the buy-to-letters are snapping up all the available properties, which ironically cuts out the supply of houses and pushes the property price market up further!

 

I suspect this was all pre-planned in the 80's, the Benyon family as mentioned in the OP article, amognst others, were no doubt very well briefed on the future.

[pap]

I do find you perplexing some times Pap.

 

On the one hand, govts are evil and everything they do is untoward and we should not trust them.

 

On the other hand, they should control rent, and own industries.

 

Governments are comprised of many individuals, some less trustworthy than others. Same things can be said of governments as a whole.

 

Anyways, it's not like I'm doing Arnie-style one-liners here. I've talked at length about various aspects of government; how far it should go, its responsibilities, the way it's composed, the way it's f**king us now and the general tricks which facilitate all of the above.

 

You've reduced seven years of input on the subject to two conveniently opposing viewpoints for your purposes here. Uncharacteristically straw-man for you, KRG

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Governments are comprised of many individuals, some less trustworthy than others. Same things can be said of governments as a whole.

 

Anyways, it's not like I'm doing Arnie-style one-liners here. I've talked at length about various aspects of government; how far it should go, its responsibilities, the way it's composed, the way it's f**king us now and the general tricks which facilitate all of the above.

 

You've reduced seven years of input on the subject to two conveniently opposing viewpoints for your purposes here. Uncharacteristically straw-man for you, KRG

 

Come on Pap, you know I can't resist a bit of light-hearted joshing with you

 

I'm not being serious.

Edited 24 February, 2014 by KelvinsRightGlove

[pap]

Playing devils advocate but what is the 'real' cost compared to building and maintaining council places? Taking out the few Brian Badonde looking conservatives that the mirror have used as an example of private landlords renting to the public, is it really that bad?

 

At worse (cause they are the figures the mirror gave) the price is 29% over and above the going rate. This means the landlord takes care of the up keep of the properties and assuming he does his job, deals with emergencies such as broken boilers etc.

 

Then, he pays 20% tax their profits as a company (which of course goes back in the public purse) and then if he wants to take a dividend, he will have to pay tax on that as well (again into the public purse).

 

Is the problem that a large amount of these places are in really expensive areas? Camden for example is one of the most expensive places in London to live (Brett will testify) but has a huge amount of council houses and private landlords. A private landlord here will be charging 29% over and above an already huge figure. Should the location of these rents be looked into as well? Should people be given the option of waiting longer on the waiting list or take this place slightly out of town? I am sure Ludwig will be along in a minute to call me a **** and a few lefties will say people have the right to live where they want, however in October a council house in Southwark was sold for £3m. Providing this money is/was reinvested into new properties in a less central location, isn't this a good thing?

 

The real cost of building a home is land, time, materials and labour.

 

Any monetary figure you see is always going to be some kind of fiction, because it's all based on the same fiction - the level of credit created by the banks to finance the property market. So let's examine the labour component of building a home. You'll need to pay x people for y day's work, at z an hour. I'm not really interested in x and y; there's a saying the Irish have - "it is what it is". Absent some revolutionary change in the way we build houses or the sort of houses we build, we're stuck with it. The rate of pay is something I'm interested in, because I know the only reason I'm paying the z rate is because I'm covering someone else's housing expenses, which are set too high in the first place.

 

Further, many of the items on the bill of materials are going to be locally sourced. You're paying bank tax there too. Anyone involved in the production of those materials will probably also have expensive housing costs to cover. Of course, much will come from overseas, which creates its own problems (less jobs, more people on housing benefit in first place).

 

Finally, you need to look at the cost of land, which could also come down. The idea that Britain is concreted over is a fallacy. There are just a lot of people holding onto a lot of land and making it more expensive for anyone else to procure.

 

Housing shouldn't be a market, and shouldn't be a business. The only people that benefit from its current state are banks and landlords.

[Jonnyboy]

Yes, we need a land tax so that people start selling their land which they hang onto as a status symbol.

 

The socialist dreams of full employment. The venture capitalist torys love unemployment. Gives them a pool of exploitable low paid workers and someone to blame the country's problems. Plus now it seems many of them are making vast fortunes out of our generous welfare system.

[Whitey Grandad]

The real cost of building a home is land, time, materials and labour.

 

Any monetary figure you see is always going to be some kind of fiction, because it's all based on the same fiction - the level of credit created by the banks to finance the property market. So let's examine the labour component of building a home. You'll need to pay x people for y day's work, at z an hour. I'm not really interested in x and y; there's a saying the Irish have - "it is what it is". Absent some revolutionary change in the way we build houses or the sort of houses we build, we're stuck with it. The rate of pay is something I'm interested in, because I know the only reason I'm paying the z rate is because I'm covering someone else's housing expenses, which are set too high in the first place.

 

Further, many of the items on the bill of materials are going to be locally sourced. You're paying bank tax there too. Anyone involved in the production of those materials will probably also have expensive housing costs to cover. Of course, much will come from overseas, which creates its own problems (less jobs, more people on housing benefit in first place).

 

Finally, you need to look at the cost of land, which could also come down. The idea that Britain is concreted over is a fallacy. There are just a lot of people holding onto a lot of land and making it more expensive for anyone else to procure.

 

Housing shouldn't be a market, and shouldn't be a business. The only people that benefit from its current state are banks and landlords.

 

Oh no it isn't, there's barely room to move, unless you want to build all the new houses in Scotland. Besides, there's a lot more to providing land for a house than just the plot it's sitting on.

[pap]

Oh no it isn't, there's barely room to move, unless you want to build all the new houses in Scotland. Besides, there's a lot more to providing land for a house than just the plot it's sitting on.

 

Do better.

 

This is the debating equivalent of pantomime.

[Bearsy]

oh no it isn't

[Batman]

Do better.

 

This is the debating equivalent of pantomime.

 

we could build in somerset. loads of (flat) land there

[Tokyo-Saint]

Oh no it isn't, there's barely room to move, unless you want to build all the new houses in Scotland. Besides, there's a lot more to providing land for a house than just the plot it's sitting on.

 

Not really whitey. Compared to Tokyo, even London is covered in green and pleasant land and brown and not so pleasant land.

[pap]

we could build in somerset. loads of (flat) land there

 

Must be returned to nature to please our EU masters, according to the Torygraph.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Not really whitey. Compared to Tokyo, even London is covered in green and pleasant land and brown and not so pleasant land.

 

One of the things that makes it such a great city compared to many others of comparable size. In my honest, probably slightly biased, opinion.

 

Even though housing over Hyde, Regents, Victoria, Finsbury Parks would probably/possibly give me a better chance of getting my own place, it would be to the detriment of the city I feel.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Yeah I agree, not complaining just saying we are not that in a situation where there is barely room to move or anywhere close to it.

[pap]

Not really whitey. Compared to Tokyo, even London is covered in green and pleasant land and brown and not so pleasant land.

 

I can understand where Whitey G is coming from. He is an older gentleman and I am sure that he can remember Hedge End being upgraded from "one horse" to "a town". However, there's still plenty of room to build, and though I'm not necessarily advocating the futuristic thingies I sometimes do in other threads, I do feel that there's a lot of wriggle room in terms of architectural design, as other cities around the world (Tokyo included) show.

[Sour Mash]

Is it any surprise there is a shortage of affordable housing in this country if we continue to see mass immigrtion year after year?

[View From The Top]

Is it any surprise there is a shortage of affordable housing in this country if we continue to see mass immigrtion year after year?

 

Lets not forget house prices that force many into the private rented sector. This is especially true in the S/SE.

[bridge too far]

Lets not forget house prices that force many into the private rented sector. This is especially true in the S/SE.

 

My dad was a house builder and he always used to say that the average craftsman (plumber, sparkie, bricklayer) wage was reflected in the average house price in the local area i.e. 3 times the average wage.

 

Those days are long gone.

[Wade Garrett]

There was something on South Today a few weeks ago about a young mother and her child who lived in a disgracefully damp sh*thole of a place in Reading. She was on housing benefit and the landlord was receiving £800 per month.

 

I sort of know where the OP is coming from. Private rent funded by the taxpayer seems extraordinarily high.

[Whitey Grandad]

I can understand where Whitey G is coming from. He is an older gentleman and I am sure that he can remember Hedge End being upgraded from "one horse" to "a town". However, there's still plenty of room to build, and though I'm not necessarily advocating the futuristic thingies I sometimes do in other threads, I do feel that there's a lot of wriggle room in terms of architectural design, as other cities around the world (Tokyo included) show.

 

I have a book here that my mum (aged 94) gave me. It's called 'Highways and Byways in Middlesex' published in 1909. It describes '...wide stretching market gardens and pasture land. In woodland and meadow, in quiet lanes and flowery fields, there is yet much to appeal...'. Middlesex has now been concreted over to satisfy the demands of a mass migration and is a collection of boroughs of Greater London. It should essential reading to all would-be planners.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I have a book here that my mum (aged 94) gave me. It's called 'Highways and Byways in Middlesex' published in 1909. It describes '...wide stretching market gardens and pasture land. In woodland and meadow, in quiet lanes and flowery fields, there is yet much to appeal...'. Middlesex has now been concreted over to satisfy the demands of a mass migration and is a collection of boroughs of Greater London. It should essential reading to all would-be planners.

 

I grew up in Ruislip, Middlesex and it isn't concreted over. The amount of green there when you consider you are but 30/40 mins from Central on the tube is quite staggering.

 

They've got a lido and everything

[buctootim]

I have a book here that my mum (aged 94) gave me. It's called 'Highways and Byways in Middlesex' published in 1909. It describes '...wide stretching market gardens and pasture land. In woodland and meadow, in quiet lanes and flowery fields, there is yet much to appeal...'. Middlesex has now been concreted over to satisfy the demands of a mass migration and is a collection of boroughs of Greater London. It should essential reading to all would-be planners.

 

Do you think your Chandlers Ford house was built on brownfield? Do you think your mum would have lived to 94 and still required housing in in 1909? Do you have three or four brothers and sisters as was common in the 30s and 40s? Thats where most of the housing growth came from.

[bridge too far]

A lot of the concreting over was due to our insatiable demand for wider, faster roads

 

I'm a regular visitor to the Southampton Memories and Places facebook group and every time a photo is posted of, say, Bitterne in the 1900s loads of people say 'I wish it was like this now' not realising they they probably wouldn't sacrifice their cars to get back to a rural idyll.

[Whitey Grandad]

Do you think your Chandlers Ford house was built on brownfield? Do you think your mum would have lived to 94 and still required housing in in 1909? Do you have three or four brothers and sisters as was common in the 30s and 40s? Thats where most of the housing growth came from.

 

Not in recent decades it wasn't. What's the actual population of the UK now? 70 million? 80 million?. Many millions if these are recent immigrants of all sorts. We can't build over every scrap of ground, we have to call a halt somewhere.