Sam Lister the policy and practise officer of the CIH, is highly critical of Blackpool Council’s plans to reduce the amount of housing benefit, saying that it will further compound the housing crisis.

Blackpool council has, as far as we are aware, are one of the first, if not the first council to contact the Treasury, to be allowed to reduce the Housing Benefit for its residents.

Sam Lister says that   “tenants should not pay for the sins of their landlords”.

It seems its reasoning behind the plan would be that  cutting down housing benefits, it would reduce the number of people “emigrating” to the Fylde Coast, forcing landlords to upgrade their properties.

According to Blackpool Council, large amounts of guest house have been turned into HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupations) and bedsits, as tourist numbers are dwindling, they feel that some of them are sub-standard.

Monthly rents for homes have dropped as have tourists and the majority of renters are on benefits. The council’s move also coincides with the introduction of “Universal Credit” across the Authority.

The CIH found out that in the early months of 2015, Blackpool council made the unprecedented step of requesting control of being able to reduce Housing Benefits in their area.....by up to 30% ! Apparently bringing this into action will make landlords improve their properties.

At the same time the Council’s conviction is that this will also encourage a better type of tenant, as those with extremely low levels of benefits will be forced to leave.

 

The DWP applied plain common sense to the request and kicked the plan into touch, as councils already had “wide-ranging powers to tackle substandard housing”.

Lister agrees that councils do have existing powers to take on rented homes’ standards, however many authorities cry out for more.

He questions the councils morals and principles of trying to penalise vulnerable people on where they are allowed to live, simply because of some landlords, (small minority again) have not kept their properties in a good state.

Lister squarely puts the blame because of the housing shortage and said:

“The link between the quality of accommodation and rent levels is now extremely weak. It’s determined by location and levels of demand – so a one-bedroom flat in Kensington is more expensive than a family home in Grimsby, for example. The entire system of housing benefit over the past 30 years has been based on the assumption that housing benefit will cover a “reasonable” market rent. As it’s the market that determines that level, you won’t change it by reducing the amount of housing benefit people receive but by building more homes.

“…In our work with the Resolution Foundation we have suggested that targeting the tax breaks that landlords currently enjoy to reward those who sign up for a national accreditation scheme could be combined with more effective regulation. But we also need to focus on making housing more affordable, which would have the happy side effect of making it less likely that landlords would be able to charge exorbitant rents for poor-quality homes.”

Richard Merrick says: “Thank goodness the DWP has the foresight of mind to stop this idea in its tracks. Once again landlords are being blamed for attracting lower levels of tenants; they seem to have forgotten the economic or business climate in their own particular area that affects social demographics.

“Other seaside towns will be experiencing this problem, as package holidays make sense to most cash strapped households. I cannot understand why landlords are being blamed for the level of tenants, it is nonsense.

“ Some people may feel, that the council sound as if they want to operate a form of social cleansing....in the name of the improvement of PRS standards. This is a first for landlords, that they are now being blamed for social demographics. ”