« | Home | »

Capped

Tags: | |

When I started working as a housing officer in Westminster in 2006, I finished my first week of visits feeling relieved. There were few signs of antisocial behaviour, no gangs of youths intimidating residents in dark corridors, no evidence of overwhelming deprivation. Which isn’t to say that the tenants’ lives were easy: most were living on low incomes, some had mental or physical health problems, others had learning difficulties, some were addicted to drugs or alcohol, others were simply struggling to bring up their children in small flats with poor sound insulation and tired neighbours complaining about the noise. But they were, for the most part, getting by. And with tenancy for life, low rents and housing benefit, as long as they kept to the terms of their tenancy agreement they had a secure home in an area where they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford to live.

That security has now gone. The changes to housing benefit and the terms of social housing tenancies will only apply to new claimants and tenants, but they’ll have an effect on existing claimants and tenants too. One family I saw fairly often were a couple with three children living in a three-bedroom flat, at the housing association rent of around £100 a week. The downstairs neighbour complained repeatedly about the noise from their two-year-old running about in the evenings. The complaints turned into threats, and culminated in the neighbour physically attacking the father. If the family tried to move to a new social housing tenancy under the new rules, they wouldn’t be able to stay in Westminster (where social housing is already scarce anyway). Social landlords will be able to set rents at up to 80 per cent of the market value. For a three-bedroom flat in the same area, that would come to around £430 per week. Housing benefit will be capped at £400 per week.

A lot of the tenants I got to know best were single men and women living in one-bedroom flats, many of them unemployed, for a wide variety of reasons, from lack of qualifications to mental health problems. Iain Duncan-Smith has told them to get on the bus (never mind the increases in public transport costs) and find work. What if they find a job that’s more than a few bus rides away? (Finding any job at all in the current climate is unlikely, but still.) Assuming they are lucky enough to find a council or housing association flat in the new place, once they move not only will they be paying a lot more rent, but they will lose their security of tenure. This means they could be forced to move again in five years if their new landlords consider that their ‘circumstances have changed’ and they no longer deserve social housing. If, in the meantime, they lose their job and start claiming housing benefit again, the cap could mean they’ll have to move out, or wait to be evicted – so they’ll be not only unemployed, but homeless too. And the government says that the current social housing system traps people in poverty.

When Aneurin Bevan told the House of Commons in 1949 what he hoped council housing would achieve, he spoke of ‘the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer’ all living on the same street. Never mind the same street: a lot of the tenants I worked with (many of them unemployed, many more of them working for low pay in casual or temporary jobs) will no longer be able to afford to live even in the same borough as Westminster’s professionals, bankers and trust-fund heirs – unless, that is, they’re living on the streets.

Comments on “Capped”

  1. Geoff Roberts says:

    How many people are living on the streets in Westminster right now?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement