Will housing benefit cuts force kids out of Hammersmith and Fulham?

deep contempt emanated from Tory flagship Hammersmith and Fulham Council in the past when they provide evidence that the government cuts to local housing allowance and other benefits to significantly reduce the number of households in the city their worst-off will be able to pay rent to private owners. Councillor Lucy In February Ivimy, cabinet member for housing, then described as "alarmist" and "seriously flawed" a study by the Cambridge Centre for Housing Research and Planning, who found that in five years only six % of areas of the city are offered private sector rents that households can afford the plaintiff, against 40% today.

I am not aware of any public response from the Council or one of its members at a prior impact assessment (pdf) prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions after the LHA changes that have just been announced by George Osborne in his emergency budget in June 2010. It is estimated that 100 percent of the plaintiff in a house in 1860, two, three, four and five bedroom homes would be two "lose-lose theory" (see Table 3, page 9, second column). Maybe they thought it was too "alarmist" and "deeply flawed", but not to speak.

However, a detailed analysis by the municipality itself from the effects of the reform of its residents LHA was hard to find - it is a great contrast to the near Westminster. Fortunately, the answer to a request for access to information by the Labour MP Andy Slaughter Hammersmith revealed that a department of the town hall was at least thought about thought. The Department of Children's Services, Slaughter said that 884 primary and 332 secondary school students are "potentially" be affected by changes in benefits. These figures represent respectively 10% and 5% of the municipality.

Slaughter also asked if there would be "a change in the provision of education" in the city due to changes in LHA - in other words, schools that local authorities recently closed because there were fewer children to these schools for education. The Department does not believe, and said, ". If there is a large movement of young children, this has the potential to reduce the exceptionally high demand, we now have and have been projected demand for the type of receipt of the "bulge" the future "

Slaughter said this shows that the Council "enjoying the expulsion of thousands of families driven cuts in housing allowances." Tory Councillor Andrew Johnson, a member of the firm's current home, said that the slaughter is, yes, "scaremongering".

• I can detect some readers
• waiting for an indication of the training school facilities in West London for free at the time, with dark accusations of criticism that it is essentially a benefit paid by the taxpayers of the middle class schools Fulham drain close to local students with the hope and unity? If so, mention is made. I am more interested, however, the complete answer to the charge of the slaughter, Andrew Johnson as shown in the Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle:

We work hard to ensure that families are not forced to leave the city because of the coverage of benefits. However, we must take into account that in a city like ours, with high property values, many owners of the cargo of high-income families in housing benefit, and when we do not choose respect the law by public money.

This is not good for taxpayers and the forces of rising prices for everyone trying to rent in the private market, many are fighting for working families who do not claim housing benefit. Although we have over 1,000 children living in property in the benefits exceed the proposed limit, there is no reason to assume that these families must leave the city. Local landowners have responded well to efforts to persuade them to have to reduce their rents.

There is confidence for you. I hope to see evidence of Hammersmith and Fulham free from defects deeper than warranted.

Find best price for : --George----Fulham----Hammersmith----Tory--