Who really benefits from the benefit cap?

Welfare benefits are always a contentious topic, and with all the various changes going on lately its a hot topic too.

As a housing professional based in Greater London, the housing benefit cap is of particular interest to me. Much noise has been made in recent times about the fact that families are being forced to move out of the capital and into accommodation further afield. ‘Not only are they losing their accommodation’ the critics cry ‘but also their support networks and school places’.

Again as a housing professional I can empathise with this point of view. I’ve worked with families who genuinely worked hard to support their children, to pay as much as they could afford for their housing, and who took control of their own lives and simply expected the state to help them along the way due to circumstances beyond their control. I’ve seen 9 people crammed into a well looked after two bed home, making the best of what they’ve got and quietly and calmly asking for the support to find somewhere more suitable for their family need. But I’ve also worked with the families who believe that getting whatever they want and milking the state for everything they can get is their right. They expect everything done for them, nothing is ever their fault, and if they can get something for nothing, then they will.

Equally, whilst I am at this point a homeowner (along with the bank of course!), I have previously lived in house shares, been a private tenant, and been a homeless sofa surfer myself. I’ve had years in my life where I’ve moved three or four times, and I’ve lived in properties that, given the choice, might not have been my number one preferred option.

And so I’m torn. Whilst I think in some respects that it might be a bit unfair to expect a family to uproot from their established community links and move to a different, cheaper Borough, another part of me wonders why the people affected by this benefit cap should receive different treatment from a non-housing benefit tenant who can no longer afford their rent, or a homeowner who can’t pay the mortgage on their existing property. Yes, moving is disruptive, and of course it’s often not what people WANT to do, but the facts are simple – if you can’t afford to live where you’re living, then you need to move to somewhere you can afford – however you pay for the cost of living in your home.

I also think it disguises another major issue – the regulation of the private rental sector. Or, should I say, the non-regulation. Since other than abiding by the basic legal requirements for sanitation, minimum notice periods and fire fighting equipment, landlords are pretty free to do as they please. The housing benefit cap only affects those living in private rental properties, as those living in social rental properties are paying affordable rents which are below the housing benefit cap level.

If rent regulation were in place to prevent landlords from charging ridiculously high rental levels for shabby two bed damp riddled flats, purely because of their location and the fact that demand outstrips supply, then the furore around the housing benefit cap might be a whole lot less. Equally, if rental levels were regulated, then buy-to-let would be whole lot less lucrative, a much less pleasing prospect, and as a result there might even be more properties on the market for families to buy at a reasonable cost, or for Housing Associations and Councils to take on and let for affordable rents. In fact, it’s ironic to think that many of the properties which are now let to families who are affected by the housing benefit cap were once council houses let to families at affordable rent, which were purchased under the right to buy introduced by the previous Conservative government and are now being used as money making machines by unscrupulous landlords.

So, while I don’t necessarily think that the housing benefit cap is universally bad, I DO think the government need to start rethinking the way they are dealing with housing, and making sure that the system that they introduce is the fairest for all, be they in receipt of benefits or not.