Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Legal question?

Recommended Posts

Take a look at Rightmove. That "real world" enough for you?

 

Over 250 properties of 1 and 2 bedrooms available to rent for under £600 a month in Warrington RIGHT NOW. 150 of them are under £500 a month. And 50 of them are under £400. Prices for all pockets there.

 

PLUS currently available social and council housing properties - another 40 properties according to the CHOOSEaHOME website.

 

PLUS mutual swaps between tenant families who are currently crammed into flats and tenant couples who are now rattling around homes which are too big for them. Impossible to know how many of them there are, but I'm willing to bet there are just as many families is small properties as couples or single people in larger ones.

 

Nowhere appropriate for people to move to corporal? Take your head out of your a**e and take a look around you! The world continues to refuse to conform to your preconceptions based on your political dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

250 properties, how many people in Warrington are caught in the bedroom tax debacle, Even the PM has said their is not enough social housing for people to move into. Before pumping the Tory dogma best to check what the Pm has said.

 

Their is not enough social housing nationally for people to down size inky. FACT, Your own party have actually come clean on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike you, I don't have a Party line to toe corporal. I'll criticise or support ANYONE based solely on the validity of the ideas and polices they are espousing.

 

And while there may not be enough EMPTY social and council housing for everyone who will want to downsize to move into, there has been nothing said about the numbers of potential housing swaps - small households into smaller properties and larger households into larger properties - which is PRECISELY what these changes are aimed at achieving.

 

So, I've found you over 300 smaller, available, cheap, rental properties in Warrington right now. Answer your own question, how many households in Warrington housed in properties larger than they need am I currently paying for? If it's many more than the 300 who I've proved could move immediately - plus probably the same again who could easily find a house swap with someone who needs somewhere bigger - then it's no wonder that the council is always pleading poverty!

 

If you have no idea of the exact size of the "problem" locally, then how do you even know that there is one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I've said I agree in principle with the intention of the idea - that the available housing should be occupied to the numbers appropriate to it, thus reducing under/over occupancy - the penalty for under occupancy (IE a reduction in HB) appears draconian and won't necessarilly reduce the overall HB bill, as downsizing to the private sector could actually result in a higher HB requirement due to high rents.  We simply require more (Council) Social Housing, initially for singles or couples, in order to allow transfers and release family sized properties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inky, I have only been talking at a national level, As your beloved leader was when he admitted their was not enough social housing for people to down size into, glad to see you have caught up, and  you now agree their isn't.

 

Obs, I agree more social housing is the answer, The problem is the private sector will not rise to the challenge, when they can make more money selling bigger housing and maximise their profits. So that leaves the councils or the government to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been watching a rerun of "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin" and that last post from Obs sounded just exactly like one of the "management speak" lines from that highly amusing series. Just saying.  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The management of private companies have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to maximise profits for their shareholders. Just saying.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could point out where you agree or disagree with my comment Asp - your Reg Perrin (who's he btw?) reply frankly means nothing.  Which is why private companies are incapable of providing "social" housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have commented on your post Obs if I could understand half of it. I'm amazed that you have never heard of Reginald Perrin though. Didn't you watch TV in the 70s ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 The problem is the private sector will not rise to the challenge, when they can make more money selling bigger housing and maximise their profits.

 

Private sector companies are there to make profits... they have to make profits to survive.... they are not like the NHS or the MOD where they just get money thrown at them from nowhere.... it has to be earned and if making big houses for private people to buy makes them the most money; that is what they will do. If they made more money building council houses they would do that instead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Baz, so the private sector cannot be relied upon to build the houses we need. Which leaves the councils or the government. Neither of which are doing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the problem if there might not be enough "social" housing for everyone who wants them. A quick look at Rightmove proves that there is enough spare capacity in the private sector to take up the slack.

 

And before the corporal jumps in, yes private sector rents - and therefore Housing Benefit claims do indeed tend to be higher than for social housing BUT everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

Golden Gates Housing were GIVEN FOR FREE over 8,500 council owned properties when they were set up - valuable assets that previously belonged to the council tax payers of Warrington. Their own annual report from last year shows that they took in around £34 million in rents and spent 34% on improvements to the existing stock, 24% on repairs and maintenance, 39% on management, office space, and corporate costs!, 2% on loan interest, 1 % on bad debts.

 

NOWHERE IS THERE ANY PROVISION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THEIR AGEING HOUSING STOCK!

 

So sooner or later they are going to be coming cap in hand to the taxpayer - either locally or nationally - for the funds to replace 8,500 houses. Call it £100,000 per property on average and that's a bill of £850 million which is most certainly heading our way. An average of well over £10,000 to be paid by each and every household in Warrington.

 

Private sector landlords include the initial cost of purchasing their properties - or provision for their replacement - in the rents they charge. So higher rents, but no extra bill of £10,000 per council tax payer in the future.

 

Social housing isn't looking quite such good value for money now, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they haven't actually built ANY new properties.

 

They BOUGHT a small number of bungalows a year or two back - but that is all they have done to either increase or replace the stock they were given.

 

In order to replace their existing housing stock (which was far from new when they were given it!) over, let's say, the next 30 years Golden Gates would need to be spending or setting aside around £30 million (in today's money) each and every year for new builds. Their TOTAL rent receipts are around £34 million a year, and they spend all of that on running themselves and maintaining the existing stock.

 

So to avoid the financial cliff of a housing stock which becomes completely unfit for purpose and no money to replace it, Golden Gates would need to almost DOUBLE their rents. That would take them well above the rental costs of the private sector where replacement costs are already factored in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, GGs properties are well maintained and renovated as required, so should last a while yet.  Before we start waxing lyrically about the "private sector", prior to WW2 we basically relied on "the private sector" for shelter, hence the urban slums which the Luftwaffe demolished, giving rise to the concept of affordable rented Council Housing; affordable because it was supported by the tax-payer and "profit" wasn't a consideration. There was a blip in the 50s or 60s, with the Rachman scandal, which disclosed the nature of "private sector" slum landlords; but the bulk of the great unwashed could be housed, thus reducing demand pressures on housing generally, making market prices generally cheaper.  For those that wished and could afford to buy, there were fairly sound checks on their capacity to afford a mortgage in the first place, which while limiting the possibly of many to ever afford a mortgage; ensured we avoided the the recent financial crash and toxic debt, which started in the US sub-prime market.  And as we know, the taxpayer finished up footing the bill for that fiasco, by baling out the "private sector Banks!  So either way, the taxpayer pays the bill, which then opens up the debate as to who should be paying the most tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I've seen, GGs properties are well maintained and renovated as required, so should last a while yet. 

 

So just kick the problem down the road and make the HUGE cost of eventual replacement yet another bill for the next generation to inherit?

 

There is ABSOLUTELY NO provision for replacement of properties in GG's spending plans, and houses - especially those built in the 60's and 70's - have a very definitely finite lifespan, so the financial cliff WILL be reached sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest corporal, I'm not even a little bit surprised that you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with even the basic facts of a situation before spouting off about it. Not doing your research exposes you to fewer inconvenient truths, doesn't it.

 

Try reading GG's published accounts and other documents - available online on their website.

 

No spend on replacement new builds last year. Nothing in the budget plans for any significant number of replacement new builds in the future.

 

The whole GG (and other social landlord) setup is nothing more than medium term financial smoke and mirrors perpetrated on us by the last government. Guaranteed continued low rents were offered to (predominantly Labour voting) tenants in return for their voting to take the housing out of democratic control (only the tenants got to vote - not the council tax payers who actually OWNED the properties), nearly 40% of rental incomes is being spent on managers (who are almost exclusively labour voting ex-public sector staff) salaries and pensions under the heading of "corporate costs", and the true capital costs of maintaining a quality housing stock in the long term is just foisted upon future taxpayers.

 

To be fair, there will be other social landlords who hit the cliff before GG. Many of the city centre ones have large numbers of properties in high rises where concrete cancer has already set in. Within 10 years or so those buildings will become structurally unsafe and will have to come down - but there isn't and won't be any money set aside to rebuild them or re-house the tenants.

 

No matter what sort of building you're talking about, ALL buildings have a finite lifespan and ALL will need knocking down and replacing sooner or later. Failure to budget for this cost is financial suicide.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

inky I read their web site, the accounts are just for one year, and proves they did not build any in the financial year, you asked me a question, I answered it.

 

 

Their web site days they build houses

 

Do you know if they have ever built any or are you going to hide behind on years financial accounting?

 

I can't actually believe your carrying on with this when all parties have conceded their is not enough social housing.

 

Why don't you look at there Aims and objectives on there published accounts, especially what it says about building houses

 

http://www.gght.org.uk/tenantserviceslive/documents/3_Reports/Final%20Annual%20Accounts%202011-12.pdf

 

Page 11 looks good

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looking around the Town, it would appear that a hell of a lot of private properties are older than the Ex -Council stock, so presumably they'll be demolished first?!  As for "replacement", first you require a Gov committed to building social housing on the scale required; which won't be happening with any of the main political Paries I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Found this 

 

 

Work to reduce under occupation
Evaluate opportunities to buy back properties Evaluate options of converting flats to houses Evaluate shared ownership opportunities
Account for the wider housing strategy
Work with partners to manage properties
Identify opportunities for new build properties 

 

Link here

GGHT Corporate Plan 2011-2013 - Golden Gates Housing Trust

 

OVER TO YOU inky

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest Stinky , I'm not even a little bit surprised that you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with even the basic facts of a situation before spouting off about it. Not doing your research exposes you to fewer inconvenient truths, doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...