Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”

In the UK we already have an epidemic of homelessness, if this policy is allowed to go through parliament the numbers of homeless people will increase drastically and child poverty will spiral out of control.

The definition of sheltered housing is that there should be a warden at the facility

The LHA rates are very low, often £200 lower than the the cheapest properties in the area forcing families to downsize their living space in order to find accommodation. At least have the LHA to reflect the cheapest properties... but it doesn't even do that... so a family with 2 children of the same sex entitled to a a 2 bed property are forced into a one bed property. This can't be fair and just considering that it was this Government who introduced the right to buy thus destroying all social housing stock!

As part of our homelessness campaign,we would like to raise awareness of the homeless and what the government are not doing to help. Hopefully this campaign will help people understand the issue of homelessness and see what the government can do to prevent it. The government classify that there're around 20 homeless people in Birmingham but in actual fact their are 892 people. Homelessness is not a small concern. One of the news headlines, back in 2010, had said that one-in-three Britons will have been touched by homelessness.This is shocking,in fact,this should've shocked us into action. If something is not done about this,more of us will be living on the streets. Without a shelter. Without our everyday necessities. The government is for the people, not just those who have made the best decisions and made no mistakes. Our country has enough resources that none of its citizens should be without a home.It's quite shameful, that in a country, as wealthy as ours, we have citizens living on the streets. The true measure of a society is how it treats it's most vulnerable members. Therefore, the government should be doing much more than it is for the homeless population.They need help and understanding, and they need it from their government. Homelessness is your problem whether you recognize it or not. Everyday more and more people lose a job, unable to pay bills, and eventually end up losing their home. I have seen families live in cars and work while trying to survive. This is the harsh reality.

Homelessness is not a crime and affects people from all walks of life and criminalising it is criminal in itself - targeting those with nothing to pay nonsensical fines. It is our duty to care for people who have fallen on harder times and affording Cheshire Police more powers to simply move the 'problem' on beggars belief. Simply having provisions for the homeless who fit the 'ideal' criteria of a privatised 'care' provider (Richmond Court) is not good enough and will disperse the rough sleepers leaving our most vulnerable even further out of reach of help and causing more issues with them, residents and businesses alike.

having been a victim of this type of breaking and entering, here in the manchester area, I find Irwell Valley refusing to accept responsibility for the weakness of protection to the property and refusing to change the locks https://youtu.be/FqhhXyROxQM

In order to balance out the loss of social and affordable housing the right to buy scheme will entail. Tenants of at least 4 years should have the right to buy their rented home at a discount the same as a council or housing association tenant. This will have the effect of preventing foreign specualtors buying up London housing and forcing both rental and property prices up.

These flats are two bedroom properties that were part of the conditions of planning, they have been empty for nearly ten years as it seems there was never a completion date built into the contract, I have been on BM radio with Adrian Goldberg, written to my MP Steve McCabe these are supposed to be affordable flats that 22 families are being denied. Housing homeless families at affordable rents is vital to our society

The government's proposals to force councils to sell of remaining social housing stock will, in combination with the lowering of the welfare cap to £23,000, make London an uninhabitable city for many. This will only get worse over the next five years and lead to unprecedented levels of social cleansing from the capital. The amendment would force the government to empower London's Mayor in seeking to redress this balance, and provide additional social homes for people in one of the world's greatest cities. The Thatcherite campaign of council stock depletion would, over time, be reversed. Though it focuses on London, social housing is an issue everywhere, and we believe this would be a start. Stop the social cleansing of London. Your signature can be a part of that.

There are many people forced into renting in the private sector by local councils because they don't have enough social housing to provide them with a secure, affordable home, now Mr Cameron wants to cut housing benefit which is sure to hit these people the hardest, force them back into the homeless system which then again puts pressure on local councils to provide social housing which there just simply isn't enough of! So what then? Local slums? Stuck in B & B's? Ot back into tge unaffordable private sector? Its a un thought through situation and utterly rediculous

Firstly to ensure that those thrown out on the scrap heap of unemployed because the MOD wish to reduce pension rights for veterans. Next to Keep them off the streets. Thirdly to reduce the chance of becoming a statistic and finally for helping veterans to have something else other than low paid security work. The disused barrack and homes and ex married quarters could be maintained and used for training or veterans to enable them to take up work and also then mean that providing a charity set up as Barrack homes for Ex Service Personnel could result in less veterans finishing up in prison or homeless on the streets. Why? because often, families have moved on and it is so difficult to adapt to civilian life. How do I know? I am a veteran and it took me over 5 years to come to terms with having nowhere and no one