Some Greenwich council tenants in temporary accommodation could see their rents treble as the town hall attempts to balance its housing budget.
The increase affects people living in 147 homes that are held by the housing department as temporary accommodation.
Those living in three-bedroom homes could be hit the hardest, with rents going up from £134.98 to £440 a week, a £305/week jump, in the parts of the borough closest to central London.
In the rest of the borough, three-bedroom homes that are charged at £114.74/week will go up to £354/week.
Even those in one-bedroom homes or bedsits will see their rents more than double, from £94.71 to £232 or £127.32 to £293, depending on whether they count as “inner” or “outer” southeast London. “Inner” southeast London is roughly west of the A102 and Kidbrooke Park Road.
The new figures are based on the local housing allowance, a maximum figure used to work out housing benefit.
Budget documents for the year ahead said that most tenants in temporary accommodation would not be affected because they receive housing benefits, but the senior council officer in charge of housing insisted last week that anyone who comes off benefits would be helped to find a new home.
Councillors on the overview and scrutiny panel, who met last week to go through the council’s plans for £33 million of cuts, said they wanted to see detailed plans of what the council would do to help tenants.
Elizabeth Ige, a Woolwich Common councillor, raised fears that people who go off benefits and start work would find themselves with unaffordable bills.
“These rents are really, really high,” she said. “What proactive support will be given to them?”
Jamie Carswell, the director of housing and safer communities, said: “Because we know we are able to put the rent up to local housing allowance levels, would target people who are able to claim that level of benefit and do.
“You’re right, people do get into work and that’s to be encouraged. If you start work, there’s not a cliff edge for universal credit. If you’re in partial receipt of any kind of housing benefit, it’s still entirely covered [up to local housing allowance level].
“Even though the rent level is above our social rent, but it’s well beneath market rent. We would definitely be engaging and talking to people in temporary accommodation and talking to them if their needs change and potentially move them as well.
“People are in temporary accommodation for three to six years. So that’s just the reality of our temporary accommodation and how long [our waiting list is], particularly for family accommodation.”
Similar increases have already been imposed this month on people living in another 550 homes used as temporary accommodation that are not held by the housing department.
Other tenants will face a rent rise of 7.7 per cent, which follows a 7 per cent rise last year. Council housing has its own separate budget from the rest of the town hall, so rents cannot be subsidised. Greenwich’s rents have long been the lowest in London are expected to remain so, even after the rise, with other councils also imposing increases.
Councillors on the overview and scrutiny panel raised concerns that a hardship fund set up for council tenants, which was due to be £180,000 in the coming year, was not enough.
At the following night’s council meeting, both Labour and Conservative councillors united to almost double the fund to £350,000.
Matt Hartley, the leader of Greenwich’s Conservative opposition, said there had been a sharp rise in rent arrears following last year’s rent increase.
“Given all that, we need to do all we can to make sure the hardship fund gives the maximum possible support to vulnerable tenants,” he said in a motion that was backed by Labour councillors.
Overall, the council has a waiting list of 28,000 households, with about 1,900 in temporary accommodation. About 240 are living in hotel rooms, which it admits is causing “extreme financial pressure”. Greenwich plans to allocate 50 more council homes as temporary housing to get them out of the hotel rooms and save money.
Comments are closed.