Private rents unaffordable for families in most English boroughs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/oct/1...P=FBCNETTXT9038

Shelter reveals that families are being priced out of the 'out-of-control' rental market in 55% of English local authorities

 

Families have been priced out of rental property in the majority of local authorities in England, according to the homeless charity Shelter.

The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability.

 

Shelter said research showed that 38% of families with children who were renting privately had cut down on food to pay their rent.

 

Although renting has traditionally been regarded as a cheaper alternative to home ownership, the credit crunch and high house prices have forced many potential homebuyers to remain as tenants.

 

At the same time, growing numbers of people who would normally qualify for social housing have been pushed into the private sector by an acute shortage of local authority and housing association property. The number of tenants renting privately has increased by nearly one million in the past five years.

 

The increased demand has pushed up rents, particularly in London boroughs, which are the most expensive in England. At £1,360, an average rent for a two-bedroom home in the capital is almost two-and-a-half times the average in the rest of the country (£568). The least affordable local authority area outside London is Oxford, where typical rents account for 55% of average earnings.

 

Tenants on benefits in these areas are already having problems finding properties to rent within the new local housing allowance limits, implemented in April for new tenants and from the beginning of next year for those in existing tenancies.

 

Shelter said tenants in many rural areas were also bearing the brunt of high rents and low earnings.

 

It found it is cheaper to rent in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham than in north Devon, north Dorset or Herefordshire. In Yorkshire, properties in Bradford and Sheffield are more affordable to rent than in the rural areas of Ryedale and Richmondshire.

 

Shelter's analysis showed that in England 8% of local authorities were extremely unaffordable to rent in, with a median rent of 50% or more of median full-time take-home pay; 21% were very unaffordable with a median rent equivalent of 40% to 49% of median full-time take-home pay; and 29% were fairly unaffordable with the median rent equivalent to 35% to 39% of the median full-time take-home pay.

 

Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: "With huge differences in affordability across the country, there are now worrying signs that families are likely to be displaced by our out-of-control rental market.

 

"We have become depressingly familiar with first-time buyers being priced out of the housing market, but the impact of unaffordable rents is more dramatic. With no cheaper alternative, ordinary people are forced to cut their spending on essentials like food and heating, or uproot and move away from jobs, schools and families."

 

Robb said it was time for the government to urgently consider how private renting could become a stable, affordable option for families "and not a heavy financial burden that makes parents choose between buying food for their children and paying the rent."

 

Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, said the lack of affordable housing to rent or buy was one of the most pressing issues facing rural communities.

 

"The countryside has seen its population grow at twice the rate of urban areas, which has driven up prices, forcing families to make sacrifices to meet spiralling rental costs and pricing young families out of the communities in which they have grown up," she said.

 

"If we want our rural communities to flourish then the government needs to urgently review the rental market in rural areas to enable rural communities to meet their housing needs."

 

Melissa Brown, a part-time yoga teacher, and her husband David*, a college lecturer, found it impossible to rent a decent affordable property when their landlord decided to sell their existing home.

 

The couple, who live in Brighton with their three children, had been renting a three-bedroom terrace house for £1,250 a month for two-and-a-half years but last January were told they had to move out because the landlord wanted to sell up.

 

It took them six months to find somewhere that was still close enough to their children's school and they ended up moving in September into a three-bedroom house for £1,550 a month.

 

The house is in a poor state of repair with damp and needs decorating and other work, but Melissa said that most of the properties they looked at was "eye-wateringly bad".

 

"Most of the rented houses around here are not suitable for families because the lounges have been turned into bedrooms so landlords can put students in there and make more money. Even groups of professionals are living in shared houses with no lounge," she said. "We've been renting for years and it's never been as bad as this. It's all driven by greed."

 

She added: "We did ask about repairs to this house and the landlord is paying for paint, but she has been told she could rent the house out to students for £1,650 a month and already thinks she's doing us a favour."

 

Their couple's household income is about £2,000 a month and they are already really struggling to make ends meet.

 

The family is planning to use the loft area as an extra bedroom for a lodger to raise money. Melissa said: "The landlord doesn't mind how we raise the rent, so we are considering becoming landlords ourselves. If you can't beat them join them."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, sorry, but this is the inevitable consequence of an artificial Housing Price Bubble throughout the 90s and 00s, coupled with the Thatcherite bollocks of "Right To Buy" from the late 1980s which started all this crap and totally depleted the amount of affordable social housing stock... Private Landlords have been charging ever more outrageous rents for the past 20 years while the prices of property have been sky-rocketing over this same period... Just compare our property spikes to the constant and stable property market in Germany for example, where standards of living are higher and first-time buyers find it a hell of a lot easier to get on the property ladder....

 

And now the moron Tories who started this "Property Boom" (or should I say BUBBLE) are making the poorest and most vulnerable in society suffer by capping Housing Benefit while doing absolutely FECK ALL about the situation regarding rip-off rents in the private sector, and even those who are working are being squeezed by pay freezes, rises in VAT, the insistence that they have to pay more into pension schemes and real terms decreases in the value of wages..... Yeah, let's just see if this doesn't make tens of thousands of families homeless in the next few years..... <_<

 

..And on the back of this.....

 

Housing benefit cut survives legal challenge by child poverty charity

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct...P=FBCNETTXT9038

High court throws out challenge by Child Poverty Action Group, which said allowance cap amounted to 'social cleansing'

 

Child poverty campaigners have failed in a high court bid to overturn the government's cap on housing benefit, which they believe will result in the "social cleansing" of expensive areas of the UK.

 

A judicial review brought by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) challenged the legality of national caps imposed on the amount of local housing allowance (LHA) for accommodation of a given size.

 

The caps mean that LHA weekly rates cannot exceed £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for two bedrooms, £340 for three bedrooms and £400 for four bedrooms.

 

Lawyers for CPAG argued the secretary of state for work and pensions, Ian Duncan Smith, had acted outside powers conferred by the 1996 Housing Act, when read with the 1992 Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, and failed to comply with his duties under equality legislation.

 

Referring to a report from the New Policy Institute that showed that large families were roughly twice as likely to be ethnic minority households, Martin Westgate QC said the caps would have a disproportionate impact on them.

 

However, Mr Justice Supperstone dismissed the case, saying it was clear Duncan Smith was well aware of his equality duties, paid specific regard to them and had carried out two equality impact assessments before reaching a decision.

 

Supperstone did not accept that the minister should have concluded that the measures were "likely" to impact on ethnic minority groups disproportionately. Rather, he was entitled on the basis of the information available to conclude that they "may" have such an impact.

 

The ruling said: "I am satisfied that the information gathered and considered by the defendant was adequate for the purposes of performing his statutory duty."

 

Supperstone commented that the weight to be given to the countervailing factors was a matter for the minister and it could not be argued that the regard he paid to them was unreasonable or perverse. The measures were implemented in light of what the government's lawyers described as "the strong socio-economic imperatives in play", he added.

 

In July, Supperstone was told that changes brought in earlier this year, which CPAG likened to "social cleansing", could force thousands of poorer people out of accommodation in expensive areas, particularly in central London.

 

Ministers say that, without reform, expenditure on housing benefit would reach £24.7bn by 2014/15 and that the new measures, amounting to £2.4bn in savings, are necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AND WHO'S FAULT IS IT THAT RENTS ARE SO EXPENSIVE ANYWAY?????? :angry: :angry: :angry: £2.4 billion in savings?? Which is a TENTH of what Corporate Tax Avoidance is costing the country..... PRIORITIES.......

 

Absolutely disgusting ruling... Dirty politics at play here more than actual law or justice....

How many people actually pay the full private rent though? I bet not many as though on higher incomes can afford a mortgage and those on lower incomes, even if working, can get some help with rent.

How many people actually pay the full private rent though? I bet not many as though on higher incomes can afford a mortgage and those on lower incomes, even if working, can get some help with rent.

But people who are working shouldn't need to rely on benefits just to have somewhere to live. It just means that taxpayers are paying money to private landlords. If other businesses set their prices too high, the state doesn't bail them out so why should landlords be any different?

I just think the important thing to note in that first article is this

 

The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability.

 

There are so many people who have become landlords and they will only rent out to people on DSS as they know the rent will be paid. Where does that leave a working family on low income?

 

Sometimes when I watch Homes Under The Hammer (I only watch two times a week - I do work the other days) I want to throw a brick through the telly!

 

Kath

Edited October 13, 201113 yr by Sheila Blige

I just think the important thing to note in that first article is this

 

The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability.

 

There are so many people who have become landlords and they will only rent out to people on DSS as they know the rent will be paid. Where does that leave a working family on low income?

 

Sometimes when I watch Homes Under The Hammer (I only watch two times a week - I do work the other days) I want to throw a brick through the telly!

 

Kath

I agree- this is the point. As someone who works in social housing let us not forget that it was conceived and set up to provide homes for those on low incomes who were working. I know this is more or less the forum that just knocks everything the government does, well the government now that it is a tory led one, but one of the main factors in this change (from housing low income to those on pure benefits) was the change in Homelessness legislature under the Labour government in the 1970s. There was a very good programme about this topic this year on the BBC the history of the estate or something similar which examined social housing and how it changed etc where this was pointed out. We should bear in mind, in the interest of balance, that Shelter have a very clear agenda of their own (and I work with Shelter on some of my cases- they are far from impartial polically either)....

 

There you go i'm prepaired to shot down in flames but hey ho!

I agree- this is the point. As someone who works in social housing let us not forget that it was conceived and set up to provide homes for those on low incomes who were working. I know this is more or less the forum that just knocks everything the government does, well the government now that it is a tory led one, but one of the main factors in this change (from housing low income to those on pure benefits) was the change in Homelessness legislature under the Labour government in the 1970s. There was a very good programme about this topic this year on the BBC the history of the estate or something similar which examined social housing and how it changed etc where this was pointed out. We should bear in mind, in the interest of balance, that Shelter have a very clear agenda of their own (and I work with Shelter on some of my cases- they are far from impartial polically either)....

 

There you go i'm prepaired to shot down in flames but hey ho!

 

Yeah, damn right Shelter have an agenda, they actually give a shite about the Homeless and ordinary working people who are struggling to afford rents... Pretty good "agenda" if you ask me.. Certainly better than the fukkin' Tory agenda to create tens of thousands of homeless working class families.... I mean what do YOU suggest should be done with people who are on benefits, we should just not bother to give them Social Housing..?

 

And, by the way, I was "knocking" PLENTY that the "new Labour" government were getting up to. Just for balance's sake.... -_-

I just think the important thing to note in that first article is this

 

The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability.

 

There are so many people who have become landlords and they will only rent out to people on DSS as they know the rent will be paid. Where does that leave a working family on low income?

 

Sometimes when I watch Homes Under The Hammer (I only watch two times a week - I do work the other days) I want to throw a brick through the telly!

 

Kath

 

Funny, I know plenty who WONT rent to people who are on DSS.... Seriously.. Look at Gumtree sometime, you'll see LOADS of private sector Landlords who will stipulate "No DSS"... The place where I am just now, the Landlord wont even consider you if you're on benefits, and the same for the previous two places I've rented in London....

 

Yeah, damn right Shelter have an agenda, they actually give a shite about the Homeless and ordinary working people who are struggling to afford rents... Pretty good "agenda" if you ask me.. Certainly better than the fukkin' Tory agenda to create tens of thousands of homeless working class families.... I mean what do YOU suggest should be done with people who are on benefits, we should just not bother to give them Social Housing..?

 

And, by the way, I was "knocking" PLENTY that the "new Labour" government were getting up to. Just for balance's sake.... -_-

In regards to Shelter I don;t doubt they have good intentions but keeping tenants in properties where that tenant has acrued thousands of pounds of arrears is hardly doing them a favour in the long run, and these are not private renters I'm on about, these are social tenants who have in a lot of instances just not been bothered to provide HB with details of X or Y, and have consistantly broken agreements to repay these arrears at some £3.40 a week. It's hardly teaching them fiscal responsibility and these people aren't children, it's a question of personal responsibility. I agree with you Governments should be doing more to assist low income families but in order to provide that help you have to take it from somewhere else surely?

 

You could equally read "the right to buy" as giving SIGNIFICANT numbers of working class people the opportunity to own a property that they would not otherwise have. My parents for example (who incidentally are both long term Labour supporters- being Scottish of course you had little option in those days) bought their first house back in 1981 and my mother even conceeds that without that break they would never have been able to buy it, so it's not as cut and dry as saying it was a terrible thing.

 

As for what I would propose to do with social housing, I actually think we shoudl have it, but it a scarce resource that is PAID for by ALL so ALL must have access to it, therefore I think tenure in social housing has to be limited (be that 5 years or 10 years) to create turn around and to halt dependancy culture

In regards to Shelter I don;t doubt they have good intentions but keeping tenants in properties where that tenant has acrued thousands of pounds of arrears is hardly doing them a favour in the long run, and these are not private renters I'm on about, these are social tenants who have in a lot of instances just not been bothered to provide HB with details of X or Y, and have consistantly broken agreements to repay these arrears at some £3.40 a week. It's hardly teaching them fiscal responsibility and these people aren't children, it's a question of personal responsibility. I agree with you Governments should be doing more to assist low income families but in order to provide that help you have to take it from somewhere else surely?

 

You could equally read "the right to buy" as giving SIGNIFICANT numbers of working class people the opportunity to own a property that they would not otherwise have. My parents for example (who incidentally are both long term Labour supporters- being Scottish of course you had little option in those days) bought their first house back in 1981 and my mother even conceeds that without that break they would never have been able to buy it, so it's not as cut and dry as saying it was a terrible thing.

 

As for what I would propose to do with social housing, I actually think we shoudl have it, but it a scarce resource that is PAID for by ALL so ALL must have access to it, therefore I think tenure in social housing has to be limited (be that 5 years or 10 years) to create turn around and to halt dependancy culture

What was terrible about the right to buy was the massive discount people got and, even worse, the fact that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds to build replacement stock.

What was terrible about the right to buy was the massive discount people got and, even worse, the fact that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds to build replacement stock.

No doubt it was ideologically driven I don't think anyone could argue that- then again no more or less ideologically driven than the state choosing to build them all in the 40s post WWII.

No doubt it was ideologically driven I don't think anyone could argue that- then again no more or less ideologically driven than the state choosing to build them all in the 40s post WWII.

I don't think that was ideologically driven in the same way. There was a massive shortage of housing and a statist Labour party decided that the state was the best provider. I don't think it was done in a vote-catching exercise in the same way as right to buy.

What was terrible about the right to buy was the massive discount people got and, even worse, the fact that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds to build replacement stock.

 

Precisely... If Thatcher had allowed councils to use the proceeds to build replacement housing, then it may no have been so bad...

 

But, Gezza, I am totally ideologically opposed to people buying Social Housing stock... It's a principle, and I'm not going to apologise for that, if they wanted to buy houses so badly, there were plenty of Barratt and Wimpey homes out there as I recall....

 

And you cannot possibly compare the noble intentions of the Labour Government of the POST WAR when people were homeless and the country was utterly wrecked after six years of destruction and Blitzkrieg warfare which had totally FLATTENED entire cities in this country, and NEEDED Social housing to be built.....

 

CONTEXT is everything.... -_-

I don't think that was ideologically driven in the same way. There was a massive shortage of housing and a statist Labour party decided that the state was the best provider. I don't think it was done in a vote-catching exercise in the same way as right to buy.

 

Precisely, it was "vote-catching" as opposed to necessity.....

Precisely... If Thatcher had allowed councils to use the proceeds to build replacement housing, then it may no have been so bad...

 

But, Gezza, I am totally ideologically opposed to people buying Social Housing stock... It's a principle, and I'm not going to apologise for that, if they wanted to buy houses so badly, there were plenty of Barratt and Wimpey homes out there as I recall....

 

And you cannot possibly compare the noble intentions of the Labour Government of the POST WAR when people were homeless and the country was utterly wrecked after six years of destruction and Blitzkrieg warfare which had totally FLATTENED entire cities in this country, and NEEDED Social housing to be built.....

 

CONTEXT is everything.... -_-

No one asks you to apologise for anything this is merely an exchange of opinion, in any eventuality we're both adult enough to deal with differences. The Atlee government COULD have, for example, given subsides to private builders to build homes post war and created houses that way but it chose that way for ideological purposes, if people had the state as landlord and Labour government had given them that property I think it was a vote winner by the back door, if the decision to build them was ideological then the subsequent refusal by Thatcher to let them build more was equally ideological, governments of any political hue rarely do anything that does not advantage themselves.

 

I don't dispute the need for housing post war i'm saying that there were options. As for intentions being "noble" or otherwise well I certainly wasn't there so I can't assume or comment on that.

 

Thatcher obviously believed that owning your property would increase the pride you had in it, and you'd have a motivation to maintain it and improve it, i think that that is certainly a valid point, also the money slushing about the economy in terms of mortgages etc is greater and the state isn;t responsible for improving homes etc so has a smaller bill to pay, however this is getting off the point slightly so apologies for that.

 

As for Barratt and Wimpey homes the mortgage market was so heavily regulated until the mid 80s that many people could still not have got a mortgage without the discount so it was in many respects a case of their FIRST opportunity, though I don't den there were also those who saw the opportunity to get a cheap house and grabbed it!

No one asks you to apologise for anything this is merely an exchange of opinion, in any eventuality we're both adult enough to deal with differences. The Atlee government COULD have, for example, given subsides to private builders to build homes post war and created houses that way but it chose that way for ideological purposes, if people had the state as landlord and Labour government had given them that property I think it was a vote winner by the back door, if the decision to build them was ideological then the subsequent refusal by Thatcher to let them build more was equally ideological, governments of any political hue rarely do anything that does not advantage themselves.

 

I don't dispute the need for housing post war i'm saying that there were options. As for intentions being "noble" or otherwise well I certainly wasn't there so I can't assume or comment on that.

 

Thatcher obviously believed that owning your property would increase the pride you had in it, and you'd have a motivation to maintain it and improve it, i think that that is certainly a valid point, also the money slushing about the economy in terms of mortgages etc is greater and the state isn;t responsible for improving homes etc so has a smaller bill to pay, however this is getting off the point slightly so apologies for that.

 

As for Barratt and Wimpey homes the mortgage market was so heavily regulated until the mid 80s that many people could still not have got a mortgage without the discount so it was in many respects a case of their FIRST opportunity, though I don't den there were also those who saw the opportunity to get a cheap house and grabbed it!

I really do not believe that Attlee's Cabinet discussed whether providing new homes would be a vote winner. Nor do I believe that they even gave it a moment's thought in private. They were faced with the fact that many homes had been destroyed and many of the homes still standing were woefully inadequate. As a party with broadly socialist principles, they decided that the state should provide new homes.

 

Thatcher's right to buy, OTOH, was a calculated attempt to win and keep votes. People often accused Blair of being obsessed with winning the next election. That's a fair criticism but he was just following the example set by his predecessor but one.

 

As for the mortgage market, that had been largely deregulated by the mid 80s.

I really do not believe that Attlee's Cabinet discussed whether providing new homes would be a vote winner. Nor do I believe that they even gave it a moment's thought in private. They were faced with the fact that many homes had been destroyed and many of the homes still standing were woefully inadequate. As a party with broadly socialist principles, they decided that the state should provide new homes.

 

Thatcher's right to buy, OTOH, was a calculated attempt to win and keep votes. People often accused Blair of being obsessed with winning the next election. That's a fair criticism but he was just following the example set by his predecessor but one.

 

As for the mortgage market, that had been largely deregulated by the mid 80s.

I never really see politicians, of any colour, being altruistic but we'll agree to disagree on that one! :)

I never really see politicians, of any colour, being altruistic but we'll agree to disagree on that one! :)

In 21st century Britain that may be largely true with a few exceptions (mostly - for that very reason - confined to the backbenches). However, things were different in the 1940s.

 

Politicians have always had to strike a balance between what they think is right and what they think will be popular. It goes with the job. However, for a whole host of reasons, that balance has changed over the years.

No one asks you to apologise for anything this is merely an exchange of opinion, in any eventuality we're both adult enough to deal with differences. The Atlee government COULD have, for example, given subsides to private builders to build homes post war and created houses that way but it chose that way for ideological purposes, if people had the state as landlord and Labour government had given them that property I think it was a vote winner by the back door, if the decision to build them was ideological then the subsequent refusal by Thatcher to let them build more was equally ideological, governments of any political hue rarely do anything that does not advantage themselves.

 

I don't dispute the need for housing post war i'm saying that there were options. As for intentions being "noble" or otherwise well I certainly wasn't there so I can't assume or comment on that.

 

Thatcher obviously believed that owning your property would increase the pride you had in it, and you'd have a motivation to maintain it and improve it, i think that that is certainly a valid point, also the money slushing about the economy in terms of mortgages etc is greater and the state isn;t responsible for improving homes etc so has a smaller bill to pay, however this is getting off the point slightly so apologies for that.

 

As for Barratt and Wimpey homes the mortgage market was so heavily regulated until the mid 80s that many people could still not have got a mortgage without the discount so it was in many respects a case of their FIRST opportunity, though I don't den there were also those who saw the opportunity to get a cheap house and grabbed it!

 

..And when we just let anyone buy a home WITHOUT the tight regulations, we got sub-prime lending (with the likes of Northern Rock offerering 105% mortgages and the like, oh, and it just so happens that they were one of the banks we had to bail out..) and a massive property bubble (although not as bad as the one on the US) and now these days, first-time buyers have absolutely no chance at all of getting on the property ladder because they're priced out... Frankly, I prefer the time when mortgage lending was regulated better....

 

I really do not believe that Attlee's Cabinet discussed whether providing new homes would be a vote winner. Nor do I believe that they even gave it a moment's thought in private. They were faced with the fact that many homes had been destroyed and many of the homes still standing were woefully inadequate. As a party with broadly socialist principles, they decided that the state should provide new homes.

 

Thatcher's right to buy, OTOH, was a calculated attempt to win and keep votes. People often accused Blair of being obsessed with winning the next election. That's a fair criticism but he was just following the example set by his predecessor but one.

 

As for the mortgage market, that had been largely deregulated by the mid 80s.

 

 

Spot on... The intentions of Attlee and Bevan were entirely honourable.. Because they were honourable men. Which is more than you can say for anyone who's been in power since the 1980s, really..... -_-