Letter to Editor: Not using “Dumping” a smokescreen for Labour Government copying Tory Cuts
Politics / Wed 5th Mar 2025 at 08:12am
Dear Editor,
YourHarlow’s article of March 2 citing the demand of Labour Group Leader, Councillor James Griggs, to have the word “dumping” excluded from the Council Leader’s future comments regarding London tenants relocated to Harlow overlooks the Labour government’s continuation of previous Tory governments cuts to housing benefit.

The reason why London councils “dump” tenants to areas beyond the M25 is an economic issue rather than one of removing “undesirables” from inner London. The Local Government Association (LGA), a lobbying organisation for all local authorities, published a report last December exposing the ludicrously low reimbursement rates by the Department for Work and Pensions for temporary accommodation through the mechanism of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA).

The LHA was originally designed to cover the cheapest 30% of rental properties and councils would receive a reimbursement of a large majority paid out to landlords. However, the LGA report cited an example of how a flat in Islington at a monthly rent of £1450 would end up costing Islington Council £5,198.40 over a 12 month period due to poor reimbursement rates.
The LGA explained the situation thus:
“the local authority can generally reclaim up to 90 per cent of the January 2011 LHA rates, which were set based on the rental costs at that time. These rates are now outdated and do not accurately reflect current market conditions.”
Past Tory governments in a number of years chose to freeze LHA and in other years failed to increase in line with escalating private rents, so it is rather strange that our Labour government has chosen tofreeze LHA rates for 2025–26 at the 2024–25 level.
These already abysmal reimbursement rates are driving inner city councils to place people out of their area into places like Harlow. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) ‘Tackling Homelessness’ report of January 24 this year exposed the increasing use of this appalling practice:
“Over the period 2018–19 to 2023–24, the number of households placed out of area increased by 42%. As at June 2024, around 39,000 households were placed out of area.”
However, the PAC reserved its greatest condemnation for our Labour government over LHA rates:
“We are not convinced that, in setting Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) has given due consideration to the impact on homelessness. Reforms to welfare benefits since 2011, including periodically capping and freezing LHA rates, have reduced the income households can derive from benefits in real terms. Some 45% of households now face a shortfall between the LHA they receive and the rent they pay. DWP states that it makes decisions about
LHA rates in the context of other benefits and has decided to freeze LHA rates for 2025–26 at the 2024–25 level.
“Separately, local authorities pay for temporary accommodation and reclaim the costs from DWP. Given that funding is essentially based on the 2011 LHA rate, it has not kept up with local authorities’ rising temporary accommodation costs. In 2022–23, local authorities in England experienced a subsidy loss of £204.5 million, compared with £41.4 million in 2012–13 (both expressed in 2022–23 prices).”
The Committee also expressed its concerns over bed and breakfast accommodation:
“It is unacceptable that B&B accommodation is being used routinely to house people rather than as a last resort.”
Given all this criticism from a parliamentary committee, one would have thought councillor Griggs would have highlighted his government’s continued use of Tory government policy of freezing Local Housing Allowance rather than the use of one word by our Tory council leader Dan Swords?
I believe the real reason is to throw up a smokescreen and divert the public’s attention from the Labour government’s continuation of Tory cuts. This is just another example of Harlow Labour Group failing to represent the interests of the most vulnerable in our society and proves they are a long way from the founding principles of the Labour Party.
Regards
David Forman
In the 50's 60's Harlow was defined as an overflow town for London and welcomed new tenants of which my parents were one. Today we call it dumping. Harlow is expanding and therefore has room for more residents, however in the 50' 60's you had to have a job in Harlow to be entitled to move here.
If Labour does not believe London council's are dumping in Harlow, I wonder what they make of todays Guardian (8th March 2025) and titled "London councils buy £140m of property to move homeless people out of city" It mentions Harlow by name. Some of the article "Waltham Forest and Bromley councils, via companies they jointly own with the housing and social care company Mears Group, have collectively spent almost £80m buying more than 500 homes in areas including Harlow and Thurrock in Essex and Maidstone in Kent since 2017. Both councils use these properties to discharge their homelessness duties and permanently rehouse people out of London." As well as "Housing Gateway, a company wholly owned by Enfield council, spent £13m in 2018 buying Greenway House, a converted office block on the outskirts of Harlow with 83 flats that are used as temporary accommodation." What say you councillor Griggs? Straight from the Labour leaning Guardian.
Whats the betting that the majority of persons moved out of these boroughs and sent to Harlow, were given no choice in the matter, I bet the majority given real choice would have preferred to stay within the boroughs they grew up in, but told by these boroughs, moving here was the best option for them, that if they didnt, the chances of actually getting a home would be nil, I bet if you ask all these individuals whether they feel they had been dumped here, would most probably say yes.
3 Comments for Letter to Editor: Not using “Dumping” a smokescreen for Labour Government copying Tory Cuts: