READ THIS IF YOU LIVE IN COUNCIL HOUSING AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS OVER £40K. YOU COULD BE FORCED TO PAY LONDON MARKET RATE

This is a new bill that is being proposed by the Tories in their latest punishing deal on housing for hard working Londoners.

Contrary to what the party continuously told us during the 2015 elections “we want to reward hard work” it would seem that with this bill tagged “pay to stay”, what the Conservatives want to do is penalize hard work. Whether the household has 1 working adult earning £40,000 and over or 2 adults jointly earning that amount, the government proposes to scrap council rates which averages £600 in London and impose the market value of £1,500. For people living outside London, the cap is to be set at £30,000.

Bizarrely, the difference rather than going to the council will instead go to the government treasury.

Many caught up in this net are families with young children already paying exhorbitant nursery and childcare expenses alongside other bills.

According to the London Tenants Federation, a family with an income of £40,000 paying an average market rent in London will be £11,963 worse off than if earning just less than £40,000. The chancellor, George Osborne, estimates that pay to stay will save the government £250m a year and affect 10% of social housing tenants.

Affected families will either have to fork out over £10,000 extra in rent even if their pay comes to just £41,000 or opt to take up lower paid employment or stop working altogether to qualify for lower social housing rates.

However, Tory mayoral Candidate Zac Goldsmith said: “I’m not going to tell you… that £40,000 joint earnings for a couple is a high salary. In part of the world it is. In London it ain’t.

In a recent interview, he said although he supports the principle of the new Pay to Stay policy, the £40,000 London threshold “is not a high income in the London context”.

A statement released by an aide of the Tory top hitter said “Zac believes it is important that Pay to Stay was “set at the right level for London”.

“As mayor, Zac would want to ensure the level and effect of Pay to Stay was kept carefully under review by the government,” the statement added.

Mr Goldsmith’s comments suggest if elected as Conservative mayor of London, he would be on a collision course with government over one of its key social housing policies.

This policy is driven not by savings (a paltry £250m in the first year) but by pure ideology. There’s nothing to lose politically when the nasty party picks on less well off-says a lot about our shitty society, doesn’t it?.
I understand that there’s to be a taper or tapers to avoid a cliff edge if a tenant’s income goes beyond the threshold of £30K outside London, £40k inside London. I guess this is better than not having a taper or tapers at all but my real fear is that the regulations regarding Pay to Stay is to be at the discretion of the Minister so in theory next year he can change the goalposts without having to obtain the authority of parliament. Scary stuff.
In the Government’s October Consultation Paper it states that the incomes of the tenant or joint tenants and their partner(s) will be assessed for P2S and that if several people live in the property only the two highest incomes will be assessed.
I find this definition quite confusing. In it, there is no direct mention of non- dependent residents (siblings, working children, lodgers). One could assume, therefore, that several people could mean only joint tenants and their partners (joint tenants do not have to be partnered), which can total up to four persons in the property.
I guess there’s no point about trying to establish/worry about the definition of the incomes affected by PTS as Brendan Lewis is likely to change the P2S regulations once this Bill becomes law. It beggars belief how this Bill was introduced in the first place considering it has a right wing think tank written all over it.
I resent paying more rent because my rent is not a subsidy as the Government always asserts-it’s what rent levels should really be. Besides my rent over the years has matched any mortgage. And I find it immoral that less well off people are being forced to reduce a deficit that wealthier people caused, namely the bankers. Angry!

You must log in to post a comment.

J Palmer says:

February 24, 2016 at 10:57

This policy is driven not by savings (a paltry £250m in the first year) but by pure ideology. There’s nothing to lose politically when the nasty party picks on less well off-says a lot about our shitty society, doesn’t it?.
I understand that there’s to be a taper or tapers to avoid a cliff edge if a tenant’s income goes beyond the threshold of £30K outside London, £40k inside London. I guess this is better than not having a taper or tapers at all but my real fear is that the regulations regarding Pay to Stay is to be at the discretion of the Minister so in theory next year he can change the goalposts without having to obtain the authority of parliament. Scary stuff.
In the Government’s October Consultation Paper it states that the incomes of the tenant or joint tenants and their partner(s) will be assessed for P2S and that if several people live in the property only the two highest incomes will be assessed.
I find this definition quite confusing. In it, there is no direct mention of non- dependent residents (siblings, working children, lodgers). One could assume, therefore, that several people could mean only joint tenants and their partners (joint tenants do not have to be partnered), which can total up to four persons in the property.
I guess there’s no point about trying to establish/worry about the definition of the incomes affected by PTS as Brendan Lewis is likely to change the P2S regulations once this Bill becomes law. It beggars belief how this Bill was introduced in the first place considering it has a right wing think tank written all over it.
I resent paying more rent because my rent is not a subsidy as the Government always asserts-it’s what rent levels should really be. Besides my rent over the years has matched any mortgage. And I find it immoral that less well off people are being forced to reduce a deficit that wealthier people caused, namely the bankers. Angry!

Loading...

Log in to Reply