Will 144,000 social households alone be affected by reduced benefit cap? That’s the landlords figures!!

Today Inside Housing had an article which saw three Northern landlords give their own estimates of how the reduced overall benefit cap will affect them.

When we extrapolate this it sees just in social housing alone, the reduced benefit cap affecting 144,000 households.

If we use the initial DWP projections of 46% of all benefit capped households being in social housing then that means a further 169,000 private rented sector households will be hit making this 313,000 households in total.

Note well these are not my figures but independently derived figures from 3 social landlords so let’s look at the relevant part of the Inside Housing article.



At first I was puzzled at the variance of these 3 social landlords figures showing a 367% increase by New Charter and the 1000% increase for SYHA and the surely way off increase of 2500% by Coast and Country.

YET when we put the estimated figures as a percentage of all stock these three social landlords manage we see New Charter estimate 4.1% of their stock will be affected (c. 13500); 3.6% of Coast and Country (c.10000) and 3.1% of SYHA’s 3600 stock.

They are broadly in line and give an average of 3.6% of all housing stock they manage.

There are 4 million social housing properties and 3.6% of that is 144,000 properties and so these three Northern social landlords who all operate in low rent areas and have little if any AR units to skew the figures give cause to suggest that 3.6% or 144,000 SRS households may be affected by the reduced benefit cap.

The percentage of social housing properties of all benefit capped households has always been 46% and 54% in the private rented sector which is where the 169,000 households in the PRS to be affected comes from to make an overall affected number of 313,000 households each of whom will include at least 3 children giving a million children being affected.

A few weeks ago the National Housing Federation said it would be 90,000 additional households affected with 40,000 being in social housing and a figure of 37,000 from memory also appeared in Inside Housing.  The same figures were quoted in the Guardian recently and came from the National Housing Federation too and interestingly the Inside Housing article today says that the NHF is now consulting with its members.

Yes the same NHF who said the benefit cap would only affect 40,000 or about 1% of social housing stock yet 3 of its members above who all one assumes did their own internal considerations independently of one another average out at 3.6%.

All housing associations who believed the NHF figure and I quoted that figure in my many rants at the NHF now will be thinking oh dear, perhaps the real figures is 3.6 times higher and gives us all 3.6 times or 360% of the arrears and operational difficulties such as the PR aspect of evicting children to the OMG this AR model is as toxic as hell all need to rethink

As I said earlier today I only ever asked you THINK about the benefit cap housing people. Not a lot really, do you think you may be able to try that now?  You know the quicker you get your heads out of your backsides and open your minds the quicker I can drop this tone which is annoying the hell out of me never mind you!

After all this is only your CORE business model that is affected here by the reduction in the overall HOUSING BENEFIT cap policy but hey if you want to go ahead and develop more and more new units while your core implodes ….

7 thoughts on “Will 144,000 social households alone be affected by reduced benefit cap? That’s the landlords figures!!

  1. I think within your argument you have detailed the covernments response, a simple and easily used “sound bite” and figure… one that will be replicated and used, ad nauseam, in the press releases and politically biased pro-covernment papers and TV… “it only affects 3.6% of benefit scroungers who can quite easily avoid it by working, which will set them free of the OHBC” and the vast majority of people won’t get the reference, just as they failed to get the very same reference when lord Fraud also used it in reference to the bedroom tax – that working would set them free, of its imposition.

    3.6%, its tiny, a small percentage of feckless scroungers, nothing to worry about, they should put their children up for adoption and help the hard working childless couples, that will teach them to breed like rabbits so they can claim more benefits… and the solution is to only give CB for two children (according to the typical DM reader), that way they will not hit the cap, ‘problema fixatam’ as the Romans would say.

    1. Jonathan – The figures show it will affect 3.6% of social tenants this being 144,000 SRS households each with a minimum 3 children = 500,000 children …in social housing alone

      The % split of benefit capped households has always been 46% in SRS to 54% in PRS – so PRS will (all things being equal) have 169,000 households affected making 313,000 in total and with 1 million children affected in total

      313k HB claimants out of 4.884 million thus becomes 6.4% of all tenants claiming HB not 3.6% and I am sure the 1 million children aspect will more than counter the ‘mere’ 3.6% issue you posit

      Delve deeper and we see of the 4.884m HB claimant count that only 3.6m are of working age and so the 313k percentage becomes 8.7% of all working age HB claimants or one in every 11.5 working age claimants

Please leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s