Early action being taken to tackle homelessness in Richmond (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)
Contact us: Got a photo? Text 'SLPICS' to 80360. Got a story? Call the newsdesk: 020 8744 4260
Early action being taken to tackle homelessness in Richmond
3:02pm Wednesday 8th February 2012 in Richmond News By Christine Fleming
A points system for benefits claimants was just one of the things being looked at by Richmond Council in light of changes to national housing and welfare policy.
A housing task group was set up by the council and produced a report addressing how issues of homelessness may need to be dealt with in future, as a consequence of UK-wide cuts.
This was given to councillors at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, January 24, and distributed to the health, housing and adult service overview and scrutiny committee on Tuesday, January 31.
Task group chairman, Councillor Lisa Blakemore, wrote in the report: “Homelessness is not a single entity.
“We hope this report helps to clarify what it is, how it has been seen in the past, and how this may change in the future as well as addressing how changes may impact on Richmond residents and how we can help them.”
One thing the report suggests is that the council should seek early notification of how changes to benefits will occur under the universal benefit system so they can prepare for any impact it may have on people living in the borough.
The report also said systems should be put in place ensuring councillors were aware of the national housing benefits changes and were able to assist affected constituents, as well as ensuring frontline service staff were able to signpost residents to appropriate advice services such as citizens advice.
Benefits available to UK residents are set to change this year after the coalition Government won seven key votes in the Commons on Wednesday, February 1, including one allowing a £26,000 annual limit on total household benefits, including child benefit.
Richmond Council has started to develop a homelessness strategy for 2012-16.
The strategy will examine how the council could work with colleges and schools to look at youth homelessness and how preventative measures could be taken.
The council will also look to work with other boroughs to increase the availability of bed and breakfast and temporary accommodation to deal with an expected increase in homelessness this year.
Benefits points dependant on community contribution, levels of housing debt the benefit claimant has and engagement of the community about the importance of affordable housing will also be looked at.
Comments(23)
Twickenham Bob
says...
4:21pm Wed 8 Feb 12
Which makes the lack of affordable housing at Twickenham Station all the more shamefull.
goldie_luv
says...
7:38am Thu 9 Feb 12
I have an idea about the 'preventive measures' that could be taken to stop homelesness- stop the cuts! They're ridiculous and we shouldn't stand for it. I'm genuinely embarrased to live in this Tory-run borough (as soon as I can I'll be back to my ancestral pile of Bermondsey!) And the worse thing is that as I write this I'm looking out my window at one of the borough's tory councillors' brand new Bentley- his fourth car. The age of austerity, eh? Only for the working-class people. Stock-broking coucillors are apparently unaffected. I'd like to see him try live without gas and leccy for weeks on end and juggle several jobs to keep the eviction notices at bay.
Twickenham resident
says...
1:16pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The Lib Dems made it their Policy to give priority to social rented housing for large families as they reckoned there wasn't the demand in the Borough for accommodation for single people or couples. I have heard that the large families are coming from outside the Borough - not sure if this is fact though.
Not sure why working families should be made homeless by the cuts in benefits to those who aren't working?
Millions of working people and families live on £26000 and pay their rent and travel expenses out of it.... You only have to look at the job websites to see that a huge number of employers only pay the minimum wage or around £10 an hour for skilled workers.
Travelling into London at peak times wipes out two hours pay at the minimum wage and whilst wages remain so low and the cost of living and transport so high, what hope is there or incentive for many people to work anyway....?
KewResident
says...
2:56pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The social system in this country has deviated so far from its original purpose that the creators would be disgusted were they still around. I don't understand logic behind a system that puts some on benefits ahead of the very people who fund the benefits system! The cap is a level way of stopping the abuse that is rife at the moment.
Why should people getting help be any better off than those who fund the system? All of my friends have to move to areas they can afford, as is the way of life. If that means moving outside of London and commuting, so be it. Why should people on benefits be housed in more expensive areas when working taxpayers can't? It's unfair and the losers are the ones living in the real, sustainable world.
I am so glad the Tories are cleaning up some of messes that Labour left! The ridiculous amount of lending in this country is unsustainable. You cannot allow people to get to an unsustainable level of comfort on benefits without having pain when those benefits are removed. And that is what we are seeing now. Complaints due to an "unfair" levelling of the benefits and housing system.
It's life, not an unsustainable dream bubble... get used to it!
KewResident
says...
3:05pm Thu 9 Feb 12
KewResident wrote:My post above should say borrowing not lending... there isn't a ridiculous amount of lending in this country at the moment ;)
@Twickenham Bob: The social system in this country has deviated so far from its original purpose that the creators would be disgusted were they still around. I don't understand logic behind a system that puts some on benefits ahead of the very people who fund the benefits system! The cap is a level way of stopping the abuse that is rife at the moment. Why should people getting help be any better off than those who fund the system? All of my friends have to move to areas they can afford, as is the way of life. If that means moving outside of London and commuting, so be it. Why should people on benefits be housed in more expensive areas when working taxpayers can't? It's unfair and the losers are the ones living in the real, sustainable world. I am so glad the Tories are cleaning up some of messes that Labour left! The ridiculous amount of lending in this country is unsustainable. You cannot allow people to get to an unsustainable level of comfort on benefits without having pain when those benefits are removed. And that is what we are seeing now. Complaints due to an "unfair" levelling of the benefits and housing system. It's life, not an unsustainable dream bubble... get used to it!
Twickenham resident
says...
9:43pm Thu 9 Feb 12
KewResident wrote:Kew Resident makes a good and fair point "Why should people getting help be any better off than those who fund the system? All of my friends have to move to areas they can afford, as is the way of life. If that means moving outside of London and commuting, so be it. Why should people on benefits be housed in more expensive areas when working taxpayers can't? It's unfair and the losers are the ones living in the real, sustainable world."
KewResident wrote:My post above should say borrowing not lending... there isn't a ridiculous amount of lending in this country at the moment ;)
@Twickenham Bob: The social system in this country has deviated so far from its original purpose that the creators would be disgusted were they still around. I don't understand logic behind a system that puts some on benefits ahead of the very people who fund the benefits system! The cap is a level way of stopping the abuse that is rife at the moment. Why should people getting help be any better off than those who fund the system? All of my friends have to move to areas they can afford, as is the way of life. If that means moving outside of London and commuting, so be it. Why should people on benefits be housed in more expensive areas when working taxpayers can't? It's unfair and the losers are the ones living in the real, sustainable world. I am so glad the Tories are cleaning up some of messes that Labour left! The ridiculous amount of lending in this country is unsustainable. You cannot allow people to get to an unsustainable level of comfort on benefits without having pain when those benefits are removed. And that is what we are seeing now. Complaints due to an "unfair" levelling of the benefits and housing system. It's life, not an unsustainable dream bubble... get used to it!
Planning is skewered to ensure that social rented houses are built in prime locations and conservation area locations - ironically which many working people can't afford to move to. These well equipped houses include free lifetime membership of car clubs and many other benefits.
If that was the other way round, wouldn't that be seen as divisive?!
EdwinaWaugh
says...
10:32am Sat 11 Feb 12
1:16pm Thu 9 Feb 12
The Lib Dems made it their Policy to give priority to social rented housing for large families as they reckoned there wasn't the demand in the Borough for accommodation for single people or couples. I have heard that the large families are coming from outside the Borough - not sure if this is fact though.
====================
==
It is indeed a fact. They are coming a long way from the Borough, in airplanes!
Twickenham Bob
says...
2:33pm Sun 12 Feb 12
Many in receipt of benefits also fell into hard times after years of work. Private insurance only covers very limited medical conditions.
There will also be great injustices - families in the same circumstances, some who are placed in council houses will get all their Child Benefit, whilst thoes placed in the Private sector will have some of their child benefit stopped and they will be forces to choose between paying the rent or feeding their children in some circumstances. Faced with a stark choice like that I can see crime rocketing.
Lets not forget that hundreds of thousands of Children in the UK go to bed at night without an evening meal! These changes will bring more of this.
The reason benefits are so high is that house prices are kept artificially high, something that Savers pay for though receiving interest below RPI.
Twickenham Bob
says...
2:51pm Mon 13 Feb 12
But its even more pronounced in this borough with an average man and wife who are employed earning £81,106 per year. Based on 'median income' which is judged to be the best measure as extreems have the least influence using this method. This is more than three times the proposed benefit cap.
The link below is the borough's profile on the National Statistics website.
https://www.nomisweb
.co.uk/reports/lmp/l
a/2038431890/report.
aspx?pc=tw2%206hh#va
cs
KewResident
says...
5:48pm Mon 13 Feb 12
The average annual salary across the country is £26000. The Tories are trying to implement a cap based on the country average, not a city or area average. People are expected to move to areas they can afford - as are working taxpayers. That is only fair.
Again, I ask you how it makes sense to have people on benefits living in areas that most working taxpayers cannot afford? You are basically saying that if someone on benefits is placed next door to Buckingham Palace, they should earn the area average... the Queen's salary. Those receiving benefits are receiving HELP from taxpayers. Help that is supposed to be temporary in most cases and not enable people to live better than the average working person.
Ultimately, the benefits system needs to be affordable and sustainable yet under Labour it bloated into an unsustainable mess. The Tories are only trying to correct that mess.
EdwinaWaugh
says...
7:47pm Mon 13 Feb 12
Twickenham Bob
says...
11:16am Tue 14 Feb 12
During the 1980 & 1990s speakers at Conservative party Conferences were always guaranteed to get a standing ovation if they denounced single mothers for society’s ills. David Cameron has been keen to stress that the Conservative Party has changed but its actions shows it has not. The Nasty Party is alive and gleefully putting the boot in.
The benefit cap is a hammer-blow to single mothers in London. This will cause unprecedented suffering to London’s poor children. There education will be damaged, and many will be moved into even more unfit housing, suffering from cold, damp, and an even poorer diet. Remember, there are wards in London that has more dire poverty than anywhere else in Europe. A fact that shames this Nation.
The average income for families across London is much higher than the benefit cap. Across London its £63,351 which is 2.4 times the cap. West London in general has high rents (Richmond has the highest rents in outer London) and thus it will be extremely difficult to find cheaper accommodation, even in neighbouring boroughs which are also pricey. Just repeating the mantra about National Average Income – is mendacious as paints a completely false picture of the reality in London (they only place it will actually affect people in any real numbers).
Landlords are unlikely to reduce rents as they have financed their purchase on the basis of rent multiples, thus they won’t be able to refinance if they accept lower rents. Plus there is a high demand for housing in London as there is no economic policy for the regions since the 1970s and thus we are too reliant upon the City of London.
The social cost of the families effected – and the vast majority will be single mothers – will be horrendous. Kids will be wrenched out of school, likely to have a lasting impact on their achievement. The mothers will lose their support networks, will find it difficult to hold on to their jobs, look after their children.
The Conservatives are also using their usual divide and rule trick saying ‘taxpayers’ shouldn’t food the bill for those who don’t work. But this is also a misuse of statistics as most who will be affected actually work, or are those who are not expected to work like the ill or the disabled.
Once you are socially cleansed out London, the chances are you will not be able to afford the commute to their low paid job. Thus plunging them into unemployment, which will difficult for them to escape from as low rent areas are low rent for a reason – no jobs!
All in all – it’s a nasty measure – and one that will cause huge suffering. It’s all to do with finding scape goats to protect the Conservative Party member’s interests – and nothing to do with serving the country.
This suffering could be avoided if we went back to the old Rates system - Rather than the Council Tax / Poll Tax system that lets the rich off paying their fair share.
KewResident
says...
12:32pm Tue 14 Feb 12
As I mentioned before, people have to move to areas they can afford to live in. It's rather simple and life for those on benefits should be equal or worse than taxpayers... not better! My friends commute because they cannot afford to live closer to where they work. Life isn't fair... get used to it!
You talk as though there are endless mountains of money to pay for everyone suffering hardships to live wherever their hearts desire. There isn't! The simple fact is almost every country in Europe is now used to an unrealistic and unsustainable level of social benefits based on debt. Greece is a prime example. Social systems have to fall in line with reality and the current benefits system is not realistic or sustainable.
Have you ever thought that the social systems just make it easier for people to give up on contributing because they have no motivation. Who needs to work when you can be housed in prime locations, earning more than you can working. It is wrong and unfair on taxpayers and, at the end of the day, taxpayers call the shots as we foot the bill. People are tired of reading about immigrants living in 5 bedroom houses in prime locations having never paid a penny in tax. Or terrorists living on benefits for 20 years while planning to destroy this country. Or virtual slums where single mothers are popping out more and more troubled youngsters to only repeat the cycle. It's disgraceful and not conducive to aspiration, hard work and progress. A change is desperately needed and useless Labour / airy fairy LibDems aren't going to do a thing. The Tories aren't perfect but the best of a sad bunch and seem to be always fixing the mess left by the previous government.
And on your last point, people in this country already pay higher tax than most other Western countries. How much more should we be taxed to foot the enormous, ever-increasing benefits bill?
Twickenham resident
says...
1:22pm Tue 14 Feb 12
I wonder if readers have been watching the series on Bristol social workers? Last night's programme - yet another single parent drugged up to the eyeballs but wanting to keep her second baby - the first having been placed elsewhere. Drugs continued to come first and guess what - the programme ended with her expecting yet another baby....
Is it really fair to keep bringing children into the world when you are a drug addict, you chain smoke, you can't parent, can't even provide a bed for, can't read to, nurture, provide food for.....?
KewResident
says...
2:01pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Some people tend to think more money and assistance will help the situation whereas I believe the benefits can become a crutch and demotivator. And not only that but currently there isn't even enough money to pay for the systems in place.
There are people who really need the help and it seems those people will end up losing out because others abuse the system. This is a wider problem in other areas such as the human rights bill, squatting, etc. It seems as though Labour tipped the balance in favour of the work-shy, immigrants and criminals. The systems in place need to work for the majority of the tax paying, working population. Not for a minority of selfish, lazy, criminals and immigrants.
bandit63
says...
4:55pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Kew - you seem to be saying that if you lose your job through no fault of your own, become injured or seriously ill, are born with a handicap etc. then you shouldn't get anything and then be kicked off to Orkney Islands and be forgotten about. I agree that there are some lazy you know what's and the system is to all encompassing (claiming benefits and you have 2 cars??). However think on this.
You are a low paid person with a family living in London. You have wokred hard, have a couple of kids and a partner. Your salary just about covers your expenses including rent etc. You live in the area where your kids are settled in school and your family and freinds are as a support group. You lost your job and are having trouble finding one despite the efforts you are putting in to find one. The rent for the house you live in is average for the area (but above the limit for the governemnt). Are you seriously saying that this person should move hundred's of miles away just because their rent is too high, thereby losing the support network, destablising their kids education etc., even though the person is trying their best and has done in the past?
I'm sorry if that rambled on a bit but that is the majority of people on benefits, not the unacceptable (ok but probably sizeable) minority who fall into what you are talking about. The problem is with the reforms is that it's the honest one's who need help who are going to get hit harder than the lazy good for nothings
TrevorC
says...
7:02pm Tue 14 Feb 12
Like others, I fear that to solve one problem the scales will be too far tilted the other way and create other problems, of which good people (that have worked but been made redundant and struggling to get back into employment), and their families, will suffer more than anyone.
If only the same vigour were applied to capping salaries and bonuses at the top, which has been rewarding failure and not success. The same people responsible for the hard working on modest incomes, being laid off and out of work, leading to the loss of their homes.
EdwinaWaugh
says...
8:32pm Tue 14 Feb 12
KewResident
says...
9:36pm Tue 14 Feb 12
I'm not saying that at all. I agree that the safety net should be there to protect people against hardships that you mentioned. But the safety net should be for those who have contributed to it and have valid issues. It should also be temporary and never a permanent solution, unless someone has a serious and permanent disability.
What you are saying sounds great but my point still remains... is it affordable. It's all very well saying in an ideal world everyone would live like kings but we don't live in an ideal world, do we? And we don't all live like kings. Where does the money come from to elevate people to levels they could not afford to be on naturally? If someone is living in an area they cannot afford then yes, they should move. Many people have to do that every day, and not just to different areas in the same country but to other countries. It's life. The previous government gave people the false hope that they can live anywhere, not work and do as they like with no repercussions. People seem to have stopped taking responsibility for their lives and real life is all about responsibility. The ideal bubble that saves us all from suffering doesn't exist. Just as world hunger will always exist, greed will always exist and so people's lives and fortunes will differ. It's human nature. We aren't all the same and the government shouldn't try to create artifical sameness when it doesn't exist. The benefits system is currently unaffordable no matter how nice it sounds and how much some people think it should stay as it is.
TrevorC
says...
11:09pm Tue 14 Feb 12
On the other hand I see thinly disguised enthusiasm for social cleansing and segregation, which is unattractive and offputting.
My other reservation is that the transition period for those who have become unemployed will only be discretionary and as yet for an unknown period. This uncertainty will add what may be intolerable stress to what is already a stressful situation.
The discretion could lead to many cases of unfairness and inconsistency and on housing benefit it will also depend on the line taken by the local authority you live in. Some may be more benign, others may be harsh.
This may also contribute to a form of social cleansing and segregation. Kew Resident and others may cheer that but it would be shortsighted to do so.
bandit63
says...
12:20pm Wed 15 Feb 12
Poeple who were struggling but doing ok who then hit bad luck not of their own making, and are making an effort to get through it, should be supported. Poeple who don't make an effort or take the p**s, are a different matter (like the people at the St.Paul's"camp" who got benefits).
I speak from personal experience. A few years ago I lost my job (early 90's when there was a downturn)and received unemployment beneift and housing allowance. I managed to stay in my own 2 bed flat due to the help I got. I made over 300 applications for work, and finally got temporary work which led to a full time job (took 18 months). If I hadn't received help, I would have lost my flat and be deemed "homeless". Instead, staying in my home helped me to stay on the staright and narrow, keep my firends / family near me for support and persevere with the job hunting. I have been contributing ever since through taxes etc. I doubt very mcuh this would have been the case if I'd had to move potentially hundreds of miles away.
Saying that, it gets right up nose and annoys me intensley when you hear stories of people on benefits having more than the average working Joe, foriegners receiving my hard earned taxes for doing sweet "f a", have a "it's my right" attutude to social housing / benfits / free travel etc instead of being grateful someone is helping them out (don't get me started on this - could write a book on what my wife has come across in her line of work).
I guess what I'm saying, is that you can make the system affordable by concentrating on people with a genuine need, making the whole process simpler ( if you are out of work, potentially 3 government departments get involved!!), restriciting entitlements to benefits and free healthcare to citizens of this country, and pushing people who abuse the system to the bottom of the pile (and they receive the minimum of anything) but if they are trying to get out of the spiral, rewarding them and helping them as thy get out of the situation they are in.
Taking the middle ground is the way to go, not the liberal attitude governments have taken before.
KewResident
says...
2:20pm Wed 15 Feb 12
I'm not cheering on social cleansing and I think it's rather hysterical to think the government has a secret agenda to implement social cleansing! What would be the point of engineering social cleansing and segregation?
Bandit63:
I wasn't saying that people on benefits live like kings. I was saying that, in an ideal world, every person would be wealthy and live like kings. But we all have different lives, luck, fortunes, etc.
I totally agree that assistance should be there for those who really need it. And I also agree that a middle ground is the way to go and not a liberal attitude. There is no endless pot of money for benefits so the current government have a difficult task in trying to reduce debt. Any area they look at will be criticsed and I feel it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Twickenham Bob says...
4:01pm Wed 8 Feb 12
1) The conservatives are trying to corrupt the welfare state, and reintroduce Victorian moral values of the deserving and not deserving poor. Shame on the Tories.
2) Points systems discarnate on grounds of ethnicity, age, physical ability et al. If someone is caring for elderly parents they can be as 'engaged with the community'. This also puts a charity shop worker living off benefits ahead of someone working full time to make ends meet.
3) The national Tory policy of benefit caps is gerrymandering on a gigantic scale, with the purpose of ‘socially cleansing’ the poor out of London, in the hope that Tories can win more seats.
4) The Richmond Tories are setting a trap for those most affected by the cuts. They will be responsible for filling the shortfall (remember they are legally contracted to pay rents at a certain level) and if they can’t meet it and fall into arrears – the council is now saying they go down the list for re-0housing. How very wicked and nasty.
It’s clear that many hundreds of working families will homeless in this borough, and that children will be the main victims.