London Boroughs pay tenants to move to Southend (From Echo)

But we don't want these scumbags here - we have enough home-grown without getting imports!

a thriving trade in benefit claimants. nice

Why don't southend council do the same. But don't stick to England, there are plenty of cheaper places. For 300 a month there are some great properties to rent in Eastern Europe.

Credit where credit is due, its not a bad idea by Hackney council.

The likes of Martin Terry and other no marks on Southend council need to start thinking out side the box in this manor for a range of issues including housing.

"London Boroughs pay tenants to move to Southend
12:19pm Monday 17th December 2012 in News
LONDON borough councils are offering hundreds of pounds to get their tenants to pack up and move out to other areas ahead of looming benefits cuts.

South Essex councils say they are furious they could have to bear the burden of thousands of London tenants descending on already overburdened areas due to the cash incentive schemes.

It comes after the Government announced it would put a £21,000 limit on the amount of housing benefit people can claim from next April.

It will be especially difficult for people in London to find homes which come under the limit. An average two-bedroom flat in a London borough costs £1,930 but in Essex the figure drops to £938.

In the countdown to the capped benefits, councils such as Hackney, are offering tenants at least £500 to move to other areas where rents are lower, including south Essex.

Some authorities are even offering a choice of seaside our country locations.

Furious local councils say initiatives like Hackney’s Fresh Start Scheme are set to put a huge strain on services in Southend, Basildon, Rochford and Castle Point and could push up council tax."

I fail to see why council taxes should increase. They will only be moving into properties that are already available and would be taken by first time buyers or such like, if anything, going by this argument, council taxes should decreased due to the increased revenue.

howironic wrote:
"London Boroughs pay tenants to move to Southend
12:19pm Monday 17th December 2012 in News
LONDON borough councils are offering hundreds of pounds to get their tenants to pack up and move out to other areas ahead of looming benefits cuts.

South Essex councils say they are furious they could have to bear the burden of thousands of London tenants descending on already overburdened areas due to the cash incentive schemes.

It comes after the Government announced it would put a £21,000 limit on the amount of housing benefit people can claim from next April.

It will be especially difficult for people in London to find homes which come under the limit. An average two-bedroom flat in a London borough costs £1,930 but in Essex the figure drops to £938.

In the countdown to the capped benefits, councils such as Hackney, are offering tenants at least £500 to move to other areas where rents are lower, including south Essex.

Some authorities are even offering a choice of seaside our country locations.

Furious local councils say initiatives like Hackney’s Fresh Start Scheme are set to put a huge strain on services in Southend, Basildon, Rochford and Castle Point and could push up council tax."

I fail to see why council taxes should increase. They will only be moving into properties that are already available and would be taken by first time buyers or such like, if anything, going by this argument, council taxes should decreased due to the increased revenue.

An article from the Guardian newspaper

A number of London councils are planning to move housing benefit claimants outside the capital as cuts shrink the number of properties affordable to people on welfare, prompting fears that a policy to export poor residents of the capital will strengthen "divisive rightwing extremism" in northern towns.

Tory-led councils such as Hillingdon, Croydon and Westminster have admitted either placing claimants outside the capital or said they were preparing to do so. Adverts have been placed in local newspapers in Berkshire asking for landlords to become part of a "three to five years guaranteed local authority scheme".

A political storm erupted over the policy to ship out poor households when it emerged that Labour-run Newham council was planning to move 500 families who relied on housing benefit some 160 miles away, to Stoke-on-Trent.

Newham council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says rent rises linked to the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has caused rents to rocket in east London.

As part of its welfare reforms, the government has introduced caps on housing benefit of £250 a week for a one-bedroom flat and £400 for a four-bedroom property. With the government housing benefit cuts starting in January, many councils are wrestling with rising numbers of people finding they cannot afford central London accommodation.

A proposal sent to Westminster council by one of its private providers, the Smart Housing Group (SHG), suggested a path of rehousing "150 people within the next 12 or so months" to perhaps Derby and Nottingham "and ideally with an option for to increase this number over time to perhaps closer to 500 properties".

Westminster confirmed this was "one of the options" it was looking at in conjunction with two boroughs with which it shared services – Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea. It stressed that a decision had yet to be made.

A spokesman for Kensington and Chelsea said: "Unfortunately we are having to consider placing people who approach the council as homeless outside of London. Private rented accommodation in the is some of the most expensive in the country and so it is inevitable that changes to the local housing allowance will have a greater impact here than in other parts of the capital.

"We have written to all the families affected by the cap on housing benefit to offer them advice and assistance, which has included advising them to look further afield if they wish to access more affordable accommodation. Many will have to make the choice as to whether to move if they cannot find suitable affordable accommodation in London."

Labour-controlled Ealing council in west London said it had "not yet had to move any families out of the borough due to the benefit caps. In 2011/12, we placed just a couple of households outside of Ealing though this was by mutual consent. We have recently made offers of out-of-borough private sector accommodation to a small number of families, mainly in Buckinghamshire.

The council added: "It is not possible to accurately predict the number of other families we will need place outside of Ealing, because this will depend on how many landlords are prepared to drop rents to reflect the new LHA rates. However we expect the gap will be too great for many landlords – particularly with the borough's larger family-sized homes."

Others admitted they had tried and failed to place families outside the local area. Labour-run Waltham Forest, in north-east London, confirmed it had sent a small number of families to accommodation in Luton just over a year ago, and that the council had also tried to house other people in Kent but the plan fell through.

With a waiting list of more than 20,000, the borough was "crammed to capacity". A council spokesman said: "We just haven't got the properties in the borough to meet the need." The effects of the housing benefit cap were only just being felt and were expected to make matters worse, he added.

Newham said the gap between market rents and the housing allowance was too big following the central government cap on housing benefit payments. Since January, councils have been writing to claimants telling them of shortfalls in rent that they will have to make up. The Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that Newham must have at least 1,500 families affected by welfare cuts immediately.

Newham, one of the most economically deprived local authorities in the UK, which legally must house claimants, said it had had to look "further afield for an alternative supply" of affordable housing.

The Labour-controlled local authority, which will host 2012 Olympics events, wrote to the Brighter Futures housing association in Stoke, offering it the "opportunity" to lease homes to the council.

Gill Brown, chief executive of Brighter Futures, wrote to local MPs warning of the consequences if "London boroughs are allowed to export their most vulnerable and challenging families to cities like Stoke-on-Trent".

She likened it to the experiences of 10 years ago, when a Home Office dispersal programme moved thousands of refugees into privately owned properties in north Staffordshire.

"The result was huge unplanned pressure on local services, the collapse of already vulnerable neighbourhoods and the rise of divisive rightwing extremism," she said.

A Labour MP warned that Newham's move was the "tip of the iceberg". Karen Buck, the Labour MP who was passed the Newham letter, said it showed that ministers were wrong when they claimed no one would need to move as landlords would lower rents to accommodate welfare cuts.

She said there was increasing evidence that local authorities were not able to meet their responsibilities. "We see homelessness rising, rents rising and this is a big problem for a government which claimed that none of this would happen."

Conservative ministers were incensed by the charges. Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said councils would not be allowed to "export their poor".

He said that rules his department would issue would make "locality a principal linkage". He added: "If somebody is working or has children at school we will not allow councils to send people out of the area."

Earlier, he accused Newham of overstating the problem and "playing politics".

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, called the story nonsense and said there were "thousands of houses" within five miles of Newham which fell within the cap.

However housing experts said signs indicated that more than 60% of private landlords would not take tenants on benefits.

Shelter's chief executive, Campbell Robb, said: "This is the terrifying reality of our housing crisis today – hundreds of families potentially forced to move halfway across the country, uprooted from schools, support networks and employment opportunities.

"Most worryingly, this is only the thin end of the wedge, as further reductions in the housing safety net start to bite over the coming months.

"The dangerous cocktail of cuts to housing benefit and spiralling rents is making finding a decent home increasingly unaffordable for families across the country. Those unable or unwilling to move away from their local area may be forced to overcrowd or accept a home in appalling conditions to make ends meet."

So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit.

And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse.

Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

yes we are in crisis point, the government has to face up to the fact they are going to have to build more housing for the growing population. The fact that they are building unaffordable homes on green belt land makes me laugh, who are going to live in these places? People from London who will sell up their pad get something double the size own here in Essex whilst shipping the locals out.

So basically all the asylum seekers and unemployed people living in the housing estates in the city are being bribed to burdon themselves on the councils round here, nice, i think i will buy that stab vest after all. Nigel farage help us!

SpiffSpaffington1984 wrote:
So basically all the asylum seekers and unemployed people living in the housing estates in the city are being bribed to burdon themselves on the councils round here, nice, i think i will buy that stab vest after all. Nigel farage help us!

You got it one, or about 20.000 ! just wait till 2013, if you thought the housing was short now...

This could put pressure on library services-----------L
OL.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit. And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Never quote statistics without there provenance,
Possibly the knock on from this will those that work and want to live in london will now be able to afford to do so, as vast numbers of what were "subsidised" houses will be available to buy if landlords can't fleece the taxpayer anymore.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit.

And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse.

Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

If they are working then they will struggle to find the £3,000 for a season ticket to London.

It was obvious this would happen. Locals councils should have already negotiated with London Boroughs and the government and demanded extra subsidies for the cost of these people moving down here or insisted they remained the responsibility of the borough they came from. This needs tgo cover increased costs of their education, health, social services, fire dept., police dept., ambulances dept. interpreters etc., etc. Or they should refuse to shoulder the costs of anybody who moves here after after a certain date e.g. 1st January, 2013

notinwestcliffanymor
e wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit. And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Never quote statistics without there provenance,
Possibly the knock on from this will those that work and want to live in london will now be able to afford to do so, as vast numbers of what were "subsidised" houses will be available to buy if landlords can't fleece the taxpayer anymore.

You're right, it isn't 85% of Housing Benefit claimants in work, it's 93% of Housing Benefit claimants in work:

http://www.bshf.org/
published-informatio
n/publication.cfm?th
ePubID=5E017604-15C5
-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC
2A

If you think people will magically be able to buy houses in London where 'affordable' property prices don't exist, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

notinwestcliffanymor

e wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit. And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Never quote statistics without there provenance,
Possibly the knock on from this will those that work and want to live in london will now be able to afford to do so, as vast numbers of what were "subsidised" houses will be available to buy if landlords can't fleece the taxpayer anymore.

You're right, it isn't 85% of Housing Benefit claimants in work, it's 93% of Housing Benefit claimants in work:

http://www.bshf.org/

published-informatio

n/publication.cfm?th

ePubID=5E017604-15C5

-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC

2A

If you think people will magically be able to buy houses in London where 'affordable' property prices don't exist, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

When all these people move out, supply and demand would suggest a decrease in property prices in London as landlords will no longer be able to get the yields previously obtainable. The flip side of this is that rents, and therefore property prices, in Southend should increase as there will be increased demand.

Nebs wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

notinwestcliffanymor


e wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit. And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Never quote statistics without there provenance,
Possibly the knock on from this will those that work and want to live in london will now be able to afford to do so, as vast numbers of what were "subsidised" houses will be available to buy if landlords can't fleece the taxpayer anymore.

You're right, it isn't 85% of Housing Benefit claimants in work, it's 93% of Housing Benefit claimants in work:

http://www.bshf.org/


published-informatio


n/publication.cfm?th


ePubID=5E017604-15C5


-F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC


2A

If you think people will magically be able to buy houses in London where 'affordable' property prices don't exist, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

When all these people move out, supply and demand would suggest a decrease in property prices in London as landlords will no longer be able to get the yields previously obtainable. The flip side of this is that rents, and therefore property prices, in Southend should increase as there will be increased demand.

That didn't happen in Paris. That's why the centre of Paris is now populated by the wealthy, and Paris is surrounded by poor slums and suburbs where those who were forced out live.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

notinwestcliffanymor e wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: So predictable to see cries of 'scum' and 'scroungers'. 85% of housing benefit claimants are in full time employment. The problem is rents are too high forcing the low-paid into the position of having to claim Housing Benefit. And yet the government still refuse to cap rents and build social housing. They prefer handing billions in housing benefits straight to unscrupulous private landlords thus increasing the drain on the public purse. Building social housing + capped rents = reduced numbers of housing benefit claimants and reduced cost.

Never quote statistics without there provenance, Possibly the knock on from this will those that work and want to live in london will now be able to afford to do so, as vast numbers of what were "subsidised" houses will be available to buy if landlords can't fleece the taxpayer anymore.

You're right, it isn't 85% of Housing Benefit claimants in work, it's 93% of Housing Benefit claimants in work: http://www.bshf.org/ published-informatio n/publication.cfm?th ePubID=5E017604-15C5 -F4C0-99F1DFE5F12DBC 2A If you think people will magically be able to buy houses in London where 'affordable' property prices don't exist, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Analysis of figures from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) indicates that:

The number of Housing Benefit claimants reached a new high of 4.95 million in December 2011

In-work households account for almost all (93 per cent) of the increase in the number of claimants in 2010 and 2011
In December 2011 almost one in four households who rented their accommodation and were in employment received Housing Benefit
.
.
.
.your numbers seem to say that the 93% represents the increased claiments during one year, NOT the total claiments overall which seems to be 25%

You live where you can afford to live not where you fancy at the taxpayers (me don't know about you) expence, we should be looking to move a lot of them to hull and places like that.

From anecdotal evidence, it seems that the bulk of those who have moved to this area with help from London councils are not in employment, although this may well be changing as the cuts in housing benefit begin to hit people hard. This is similar to what happened here, & elsewhere, in the recession of the late 70s/early 80s when many moved into B&B or bedsit accomodation.
Yes, we do need more social & affordable housing, as well as, in my opinion, statutory rent control (say no private rents to be more than 2 times the comparable social housing rate, with an appeals process for "luxury" or "prestige" properties). Part of the reason rents, & by extension property prices in some areas, are so high is because of the previous willingness of the authorities to pay whatever landlords thought they could get away with.
Mind you, according to at least one of my local councillors, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has moved to Southend from elsewhere whilst claiming housing or council tax benefit.

One simple solution...
Cap the amount landlords can charge for rent. There are too many greedy, fat cat landlords raking in what amounts to easy money.

emcee wrote:
One simple solution...
Cap the amount landlords can charge for rent. There are too many greedy, fat cat landlords raking in what amounts to easy money.

If it is that easy then why isn't everyone, yourself included, doing it.

The big problem with having tenants claiming housing benefit is that it is up to the tenant to pay you. If he/she decides to spend that money - as it is deemed his/her money by the housing benefit people - then the landlord loses out. Long gone are the days when housing benefit got paid direct to the landlord, which is why there is an upsurge in 'slum' landlords, and the long term, knock on effect is that a lot of people will not rent to anyone claiming benefits.

The answer is - if you have not lived in the borough for 12 months you get no housing or housing benefit from here. We have enough waiting.

That's ok - as long as they don't pay for them to move to Leigh.

perini wrote:
The big problem with having tenants claiming housing benefit is that it is up to the tenant to pay you. If he/she decides to spend that money - as it is deemed his/her money by the housing benefit people - then the landlord loses out. Long gone are the days when housing benefit got paid direct to the landlord, which is why there is an upsurge in 'slum' landlords, and the long term, knock on effect is that a lot of people will not rent to anyone claiming benefits.

You are almost right the authority will pay a landlord direct for particular tenants, ie peados, registered junkies and non english speakers to name a few that is why you get slum landlords.

Nebs wrote:

emcee wrote:
One simple solution...
Cap the amount landlords can charge for rent. There are too many greedy, fat cat landlords raking in what amounts to easy money.

If it is that easy then why isn't everyone, yourself included, doing it.

Legislation could be put in place where landlords cannot charge more than, say, 5% of the property value, per year.
On a £150,000 flat that is £7,500 a year. This is quite ample for a property valued at that as landlords will rarely spend more than an average of 10% of that rent on maintenance a year. That way, landlords that let their property deteriorate will find the value of the property fall and, thus, the rent they can charge will also fall.
There are too many landlords that are charging extreme amounts or rent for mediocre or bad properties.
Whether you buy or rent you should be able to make the place you live a home, not just a shelter.
Over a lot of Europe renting a property is more "normal" over having a mortgage. These Eropean tenants are usually not only afforded a lot more protection and rights but the rent they have to pay is a lot more controlled. This makes renting a lot more desirable and in a lot of cases preferential over buying a property.
The trouble with this country is that too many landlords are buying up all the cheap properties, leaving them delapidated and charging exhorbitant rents, all in order to make a quick buck. I have never seen a professional landlord who is struggleing for money. It is probably one of the only businesses that will not be affected during hard times and it's high income is, more or less, guaranteed.

emcee wrote:

Nebs wrote:

emcee wrote:
One simple solution...
Cap the amount landlords can charge for rent. There are too many greedy, fat cat landlords raking in what amounts to easy money.

If it is that easy then why isn't everyone, yourself included, doing it.

Legislation could be put in place where landlords cannot charge more than, say, 5% of the property value, per year.
On a £150,000 flat that is £7,500 a year. This is quite ample for a property valued at that as landlords will rarely spend more than an average of 10% of that rent on maintenance a year. That way, landlords that let their property deteriorate will find the value of the property fall and, thus, the rent they can charge will also fall.
There are too many landlords that are charging extreme amounts or rent for mediocre or bad properties.
Whether you buy or rent you should be able to make the place you live a home, not just a shelter.
Over a lot of Europe renting a property is more "normal" over having a mortgage. These Eropean tenants are usually not only afforded a lot more protection and rights but the rent they have to pay is a lot more controlled. This makes renting a lot more desirable and in a lot of cases preferential over buying a property.
The trouble with this country is that too many landlords are buying up all the cheap properties, leaving them delapidated and charging exhorbitant rents, all in order to make a quick buck. I have never seen a professional landlord who is struggleing for money. It is probably one of the only businesses that will not be affected during hard times and it's high income is, more or less, guaranteed.

If you are going to cap anything then cap the amount of rent a tenant is allowed to receive without paying it over to the landlord.

Remember London isn't an English city anymore. It's an immigrants city and the London councils want to move them out of London. This sleight of hand Tory tactic is obvious. I will make this forecast - watch gang culture increase, watch crime increase, watch social problems increase. watch local schools struggle even more. Doctors warning of a TB epidemic (mainly in London) with the new strain becoming resistant to the latest drugs. Soon to be available on your doorstep. We need to concrete over our once green land because of uncontrolled immigration. Government ministers are saying so. Now another forecast which will impact on everyone. Watch people flood in from Bulgaria and Romania next year. The government forecast 13,000 Poles and we got over 500,00. Little wonder they're not making predictions now. Large families joining waiting lists - wonder who'll get priority? God help this once English country. English/British people - soon to be a minority in a town near you.

The government should do a deal with Spain and Greece and start sending the underclass out there.
Loads of cheap housing ..in fact so much housing we would be doing them a favour and of course plenty of heat..so cheaper fuel bills for them ..cheaper council tax...need I go on!!!!!!!!!!!!.
In fact I think our Government should encourage all us Brits to relocate to the Med countries-start to rebalance broken europe..clearly the UK is slowly becoming a natural reservoir what with all the rain we get so lets take advantage of warmth,fresh veg etc

Can't be bothered to read all the comments so if I've double covered accept my apologies.

The scots have been send ther riff-raff down here for years and years

oh and by the way you wont see a great influx in the Cotswolds

Carnabackable wrote:

howironic wrote:
"London Boroughs pay tenants to move to Southend
12:19pm Monday 17th December 2012 in News
LONDON borough councils are offering hundreds of pounds to get their tenants to pack up and move out to other areas ahead of looming benefits cuts.

South Essex councils say they are furious they could have to bear the burden of thousands of London tenants descending on already overburdened areas due to the cash incentive schemes.

It comes after the Government announced it would put a £21,000 limit on the amount of housing benefit people can claim from next April.

It will be especially difficult for people in London to find homes which come under the limit. An average two-bedroom flat in a London borough costs £1,930 but in Essex the figure drops to £938.

In the countdown to the capped benefits, councils such as Hackney, are offering tenants at least £500 to move to other areas where rents are lower, including south Essex.

Some authorities are even offering a choice of seaside our country locations.

Furious local councils say initiatives like Hackney’s Fresh Start Scheme are set to put a huge strain on services in Southend, Basildon, Rochford and Castle Point and could push up council tax."

I fail to see why council taxes should increase. They will only be moving into properties that are already available and would be taken by first time buyers or such like, if anything, going by this argument, council taxes should decreased due to the increased revenue.

An article from the Guardian newspaper

A number of London councils are planning to move housing benefit claimants outside the capital as cuts shrink the number of properties affordable to people on welfare, prompting fears that a policy to export poor residents of the capital will strengthen "divisive rightwing extremism" in northern towns.

Tory-led councils such as Hillingdon, Croydon and Westminster have admitted either placing claimants outside the capital or said they were preparing to do so. Adverts have been placed in local newspapers in Berkshire asking for landlords to become part of a "three to five years guaranteed local authority scheme".

A political storm erupted over the policy to ship out poor households when it emerged that Labour-run Newham council was planning to move 500 families who relied on housing benefit some 160 miles away, to Stoke-on-Trent.

Newham council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says rent rises linked to the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has caused rents to rocket in east London.

As part of its welfare reforms, the government has introduced caps on housing benefit of £250 a week for a one-bedroom flat and £400 for a four-bedroom property. With the government housing benefit cuts starting in January, many councils are wrestling with rising numbers of people finding they cannot afford central London accommodation.

A proposal sent to Westminster council by one of its private providers, the Smart Housing Group (SHG), suggested a path of rehousing "150 people within the next 12 or so months" to perhaps Derby and Nottingham "and ideally with an option for to increase this number over time to perhaps closer to 500 properties".

Westminster confirmed this was "one of the options" it was looking at in conjunction with two boroughs with which it shared services – Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea. It stressed that a decision had yet to be made.

A spokesman for Kensington and Chelsea said: "Unfortunately we are having to consider placing people who approach the council as homeless outside of London. Private rented accommodation in the is some of the most expensive in the country and so it is inevitable that changes to the local housing allowance will have a greater impact here than in other parts of the capital.

"We have written to all the families affected by the cap on housing benefit to offer them advice and assistance, which has included advising them to look further afield if they wish to access more affordable accommodation. Many will have to make the choice as to whether to move if they cannot find suitable affordable accommodation in London."

Labour-controlled Ealing council in west London said it had "not yet had to move any families out of the borough due to the benefit caps. In 2011/12, we placed just a couple of households outside of Ealing though this was by mutual consent. We have recently made offers of out-of-borough private sector accommodation to a small number of families, mainly in Buckinghamshire.

The council added: "It is not possible to accurately predict the number of other families we will need place outside of Ealing, because this will depend on how many landlords are prepared to drop rents to reflect the new LHA rates. However we expect the gap will be too great for many landlords – particularly with the borough's larger family-sized homes."

Others admitted they had tried and failed to place families outside the local area. Labour-run Waltham Forest, in north-east London, confirmed it had sent a small number of families to accommodation in Luton just over a year ago, and that the council had also tried to house other people in Kent but the plan fell through.

With a waiting list of more than 20,000, the borough was "crammed to capacity". A council spokesman said: "We just haven't got the properties in the borough to meet the need." The effects of the housing benefit cap were only just being felt and were expected to make matters worse, he added.

Newham said the gap between market rents and the housing allowance was too big following the central government cap on housing benefit payments. Since January, councils have been writing to claimants telling them of shortfalls in rent that they will have to make up. The Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that Newham must have at least 1,500 families affected by welfare cuts immediately.

Newham, one of the most economically deprived local authorities in the UK, which legally must house claimants, said it had had to look "further afield for an alternative supply" of affordable housing.

The Labour-controlled local authority, which will host 2012 Olympics events, wrote to the Brighter Futures housing association in Stoke, offering it the "opportunity" to lease homes to the council.

Gill Brown, chief executive of Brighter Futures, wrote to local MPs warning of the consequences if "London boroughs are allowed to export their most vulnerable and challenging families to cities like Stoke-on-Trent".

She likened it to the experiences of 10 years ago, when a Home Office dispersal programme moved thousands of refugees into privately owned properties in north Staffordshire.

"The result was huge unplanned pressure on local services, the collapse of already vulnerable neighbourhoods and the rise of divisive rightwing extremism," she said.

A Labour MP warned that Newham's move was the "tip of the iceberg". Karen Buck, the Labour MP who was passed the Newham letter, said it showed that ministers were wrong when they claimed no one would need to move as landlords would lower rents to accommodate welfare cuts.

She said there was increasing evidence that local authorities were not able to meet their responsibilities. "We see homelessness rising, rents rising and this is a big problem for a government which claimed that none of this would happen."

Conservative ministers were incensed by the charges. Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said councils would not be allowed to "export their poor".

He said that rules his department would issue would make "locality a principal linkage". He added: "If somebody is working or has children at school we will not allow councils to send people out of the area."

Earlier, he accused Newham of overstating the problem and "playing politics".

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, called the story nonsense and said there were "thousands of houses" within five miles of Newham which fell within the cap.

However housing experts said signs indicated that more than 60% of private landlords would not take tenants on benefits.

Shelter's chief executive, Campbell Robb, said: "This is the terrifying reality of our housing crisis today – hundreds of families potentially forced to move halfway across the country, uprooted from schools, support networks and employment opportunities.

"Most worryingly, this is only the thin end of the wedge, as further reductions in the housing safety net start to bite over the coming months.

"The dangerous cocktail of cuts to housing benefit and spiralling rents is making finding a decent home increasingly unaffordable for families across the country. Those unable or unwilling to move away from their local area may be forced to overcrowd or accept a home in appalling conditions to make ends meet."

All our local Councils need now to stand up and be counted and refuse to take London borough tenants into our area. What about our own children wanting property to live in, what a disgrace. I dont believe the councils will be alone and I am sure all us residents need to respond. We do have enough scum living in our areas without more coming in and bring all our services to a stand still.

SANDRA PETERS wrote:

Carnabackable wrote:

howironic wrote:
"London Boroughs pay tenants to move to Southend
12:19pm Monday 17th December 2012 in News
LONDON borough councils are offering hundreds of pounds to get their tenants to pack up and move out to other areas ahead of looming benefits cuts.

South Essex councils say they are furious they could have to bear the burden of thousands of London tenants descending on already overburdened areas due to the cash incentive schemes.

It comes after the Government announced it would put a £21,000 limit on the amount of housing benefit people can claim from next April.

It will be especially difficult for people in London to find homes which come under the limit. An average two-bedroom flat in a London borough costs £1,930 but in Essex the figure drops to £938.

In the countdown to the capped benefits, councils such as Hackney, are offering tenants at least £500 to move to other areas where rents are lower, including south Essex.

Some authorities are even offering a choice of seaside our country locations.

Furious local councils say initiatives like Hackney’s Fresh Start Scheme are set to put a huge strain on services in Southend, Basildon, Rochford and Castle Point and could push up council tax."

I fail to see why council taxes should increase. They will only be moving into properties that are already available and would be taken by first time buyers or such like, if anything, going by this argument, council taxes should decreased due to the increased revenue.

An article from the Guardian newspaper

A number of London councils are planning to move housing benefit claimants outside the capital as cuts shrink the number of properties affordable to people on welfare, prompting fears that a policy to export poor residents of the capital will strengthen "divisive rightwing extremism" in northern towns.

Tory-led councils such as Hillingdon, Croydon and Westminster have admitted either placing claimants outside the capital or said they were preparing to do so. Adverts have been placed in local newspapers in Berkshire asking for landlords to become part of a "three to five years guaranteed local authority scheme".

A political storm erupted over the policy to ship out poor households when it emerged that Labour-run Newham council was planning to move 500 families who relied on housing benefit some 160 miles away, to Stoke-on-Trent.

Newham council says it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation. It says rent rises linked to the Olympics and the demand for housing from young professionals has caused rents to rocket in east London.

As part of its welfare reforms, the government has introduced caps on housing benefit of £250 a week for a one-bedroom flat and £400 for a four-bedroom property. With the government housing benefit cuts starting in January, many councils are wrestling with rising numbers of people finding they cannot afford central London accommodation.

A proposal sent to Westminster council by one of its private providers, the Smart Housing Group (SHG), suggested a path of rehousing "150 people within the next 12 or so months" to perhaps Derby and Nottingham "and ideally with an option for to increase this number over time to perhaps closer to 500 properties".

Westminster confirmed this was "one of the options" it was looking at in conjunction with two boroughs with which it shared services – Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea. It stressed that a decision had yet to be made.

A spokesman for Kensington and Chelsea said: "Unfortunately we are having to consider placing people who approach the council as homeless outside of London. Private rented accommodation in the is some of the most expensive in the country and so it is inevitable that changes to the local housing allowance will have a greater impact here than in other parts of the capital.

"We have written to all the families affected by the cap on housing benefit to offer them advice and assistance, which has included advising them to look further afield if they wish to access more affordable accommodation. Many will have to make the choice as to whether to move if they cannot find suitable affordable accommodation in London."

Labour-controlled Ealing council in west London said it had "not yet had to move any families out of the borough due to the benefit caps. In 2011/12, we placed just a couple of households outside of Ealing though this was by mutual consent. We have recently made offers of out-of-borough private sector accommodation to a small number of families, mainly in Buckinghamshire.

The council added: "It is not possible to accurately predict the number of other families we will need place outside of Ealing, because this will depend on how many landlords are prepared to drop rents to reflect the new LHA rates. However we expect the gap will be too great for many landlords – particularly with the borough's larger family-sized homes."

Others admitted they had tried and failed to place families outside the local area. Labour-run Waltham Forest, in north-east London, confirmed it had sent a small number of families to accommodation in Luton just over a year ago, and that the council had also tried to house other people in Kent but the plan fell through.

With a waiting list of more than 20,000, the borough was "crammed to capacity". A council spokesman said: "We just haven't got the properties in the borough to meet the need." The effects of the housing benefit cap were only just being felt and were expected to make matters worse, he added.

Newham said the gap between market rents and the housing allowance was too big following the central government cap on housing benefit payments. Since January, councils have been writing to claimants telling them of shortfalls in rent that they will have to make up. The Chartered Institute of Housing estimates that Newham must have at least 1,500 families affected by welfare cuts immediately.

Newham, one of the most economically deprived local authorities in the UK, which legally must house claimants, said it had had to look "further afield for an alternative supply" of affordable housing.

The Labour-controlled local authority, which will host 2012 Olympics events, wrote to the Brighter Futures housing association in Stoke, offering it the "opportunity" to lease homes to the council.

Gill Brown, chief executive of Brighter Futures, wrote to local MPs warning of the consequences if "London boroughs are allowed to export their most vulnerable and challenging families to cities like Stoke-on-Trent".

She likened it to the experiences of 10 years ago, when a Home Office dispersal programme moved thousands of refugees into privately owned properties in north Staffordshire.

"The result was huge unplanned pressure on local services, the collapse of already vulnerable neighbourhoods and the rise of divisive rightwing extremism," she said.

A Labour MP warned that Newham's move was the "tip of the iceberg". Karen Buck, the Labour MP who was passed the Newham letter, said it showed that ministers were wrong when they claimed no one would need to move as landlords would lower rents to accommodate welfare cuts.

She said there was increasing evidence that local authorities were not able to meet their responsibilities. "We see homelessness rising, rents rising and this is a big problem for a government which claimed that none of this would happen."

Conservative ministers were incensed by the charges. Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said councils would not be allowed to "export their poor".

He said that rules his department would issue would make "locality a principal linkage". He added: "If somebody is working or has children at school we will not allow councils to send people out of the area."

Earlier, he accused Newham of overstating the problem and "playing politics".

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, called the story nonsense and said there were "thousands of houses" within five miles of Newham which fell within the cap.

However housing experts said signs indicated that more than 60% of private landlords would not take tenants on benefits.

Shelter's chief executive, Campbell Robb, said: "This is the terrifying reality of our housing crisis today – hundreds of families potentially forced to move halfway across the country, uprooted from schools, support networks and employment opportunities.

"Most worryingly, this is only the thin end of the wedge, as further reductions in the housing safety net start to bite over the coming months.

"The dangerous cocktail of cuts to housing benefit and spiralling rents is making finding a decent home increasingly unaffordable for families across the country. Those unable or unwilling to move away from their local area may be forced to overcrowd or accept a home in appalling conditions to make ends meet."

All our local Councils need now to stand up and be counted and refuse to take London borough tenants into our area. What about our own children wanting property to live in, what a disgrace. I dont believe the councils will be alone and I am sure all us residents need to respond. We do have enough scum living in our areas without more coming in and bring all our services to a stand still.

Now that locals are already on the housing list and should be housed first makes real sense. How do you lower the numbers on the housing list by bringing in more? I know, let's build more homes in an already overpopulated area. This is the politics, because that is what this really is, of stupidity.

This is nothing new, London councils have been doing this for over 40yrs.