Council Housing?

[observer]

Seems tenancies for life are out, and short term tenancies are in - and if you earn a decent wage you'll be evicted. Errm, hang on a minute, isn't this Government trying to encourage folk into work from benefit dependency, hardly an incentive if it could result in losing your home.

[silverlady54]

But isn't the intention to put those on low pay ahead of those on benefits anyway?

 

Social housing should be for those workers who can't afford to rent privately and if their financial circumstances improve, it is right that they should move on to make way for others needing the accommodation.

[wolfie]

And who is to decide at what point a persons financial circumstances have improved.

[silverlady54]

Presumably those who decide that someone is eligible for the house in the first place!

[wolfie]

Well that could have been done 40 years ago. The person or persons who probably worked for a local council may well now be dead. So are you saying that a local housing authority should now have the power to check on bank accounts to see if the incomings are now significantly higher than they were assumed to be 40 years ago, taking into consideration inflation?

[Sue Durnim]

I may have got this information wrong, but, some social housing assoc's (Sutton Housing Trust/Golden Gates?) give a certain percentage of monies as a deposit etc, to people who want to leave their rented property to buy?

[wolfie]

The problem is that the supply of rental homes is not increasing at a fast enough rate to meet the levels of demand and mortgages are practically impossible to get.

So where are these people who are now considered too rich to live in a council/housing authority house expected to go?

[Sue Durnim]

The problem is that the supply of rental homes is not increasing at a fast enough rate to meet the levels of demand and mortgages are practically impossible to get.

So where are these people who are now considered too rich to live in a council/housing authority house expected to go?

 

I would expect if housing associations do give a certain amount of money (correct me if I am wrong) to people who rent, then this combined with a modest amount of savings, can be put towards a mortgage, and with the house prices beginning to decline yet further, it would be a good idea time to buy and the way private rents are increasing, people would be better off having a mortage?

[Wingnut]

Sue says:

 

I may have got this information wrong, but, some social housing assoc's (Sutton Housing Trust/Golden Gates?) give a certain percentage of monies as a deposit etc, to people who want to leave their rented property to buy?

 

Sue, you are not wrong.

The last time I heard, it was ?6000 . And if any of the tenants get a conviction for drugs etc, they are supposed to be made to leave the property from the Houseing Association. Yeah Right.

[inky pete]

I think it's only right to expect someone to plan on moving out of social housing as and when their circumstances improve. I know people earning ?35K a year who still have lifetime tennancies on council houses.

 

New cars and 2 foreign holidays a year for them, and who can blame them?

 

Moving these people out free's up council houses for housing benefit tennents (who we're all paying for anyway) and means that the private rental sector will tend to to become more competetive as a greater proportion of private tennets will be looking for better value for money since they're paying the rent out of their own money.

 

Since housing benefit levels are based on the average rents charged in a particular area, this in turn lowers the benefit bill even further.

[wolfie]

This would break up communities faster than Maggie did when she shut the mines. Council estates would become nothing more than transit camps. Gypsies would have more rights. New tenants would have no pride in their homes knowing that they will eventually be kicked out.

[Lt Kije]

I agree with Wolfie, It would rip the soul out of estates.

[Wingnut]

Being a home owner,

 

If I want a new kitchen, I have to work harder and go and buy one, or eat off the floor.

 

If I want central heating, I have to work harder and go and buy it, or go cold.

 

If I want double glazing, I have to work harder and go and buy it or get colder still.

 

Tell the council tennats to come and rip the lining out of me wallet while they're at why don't yer?

[Lt Kije]

Put yourself on the list for a council house wingy

[Wingnut]

I do sit back and wonder at times mate, if I would have been better off doing that in the first place.

[Lt Kije]

I agree with you on that, when things go wrong in are house it's normally expensive, would be nice sometimes just to pick up the phone and get it sorted without worrying about the bill

[Wingnut]

Especially when the council house tennants are haveing such a hard time of it, tring to keep cool and sunning it up in Majorka on our hard earned money, bless em.

 

If the worst things came to the worst, and the earth became a barren and desolate place. The last three things to survive would be Carrion Crows, Rats, and Council house tennants.

[observer]

Anyone remember the antics of "Rachman"? A memory of private sector slum landlords charging inflated rents; and before that working class folk living in multi-occupancy slums. Hence the advent of "Council Housing" to provide a "responsible" landlord for the vast majority of young folk who will never be able to afford a mortgage. Council Housing is not "cheap" in itself, merely "cheaper" and hopefully more responsive to it's landlord obligations than the private sector - so it's purpose isn't to cater solely for the poor, but to cater for people - who either can't afford to buy or who prefer to pay rent (dead money) for something they will never own. It would appear that this move is intended to drive folk into the arms of the private sector and fill a few wallets, rather than a planned attack on homelessness. The problem is, that there isn't enough "Council Housing", and folk are encouraged into the belief that they can afford a mortgage, which they soon discover they can't, thus defaulting on it and creating the toxic debt that has sparked the so called credit crunch. The more "social" housing we have, the less the demand pressure on the housing market = less house price inflation.

[Lt Kije]

I would agree with your last post Obs

[Sue Durnim]

Being a home owner,

 

If I want a new kitchen, I have to work harder and go and buy one, or eat off the floor.

If I want central heating, I have to work harder and go and buy it, or go cold.

If I want double glazing, I have to work harder and go and buy it or get colder still.

Tell the council tennats to come and rip the lining out of me wallet while they're at why don't yer?

 

Wingnut, it's not only council landlords who by law have to keep the house in a state of fit for purpose, eg keeping the property in a habitable condition and replace old for new, fixture and fittings, gas appliances etc, private landlords also have to do it.

[observer]

But many don't; either through their own ignorance or design, or the ignorance and fear of tenants to complain.

[inky pete]

Obs, you have a very Dickensian view of private landlords.

 

The vast majority these days are business people who are fully aware that at the end of the day their customers have a choice. They know that they will maximise their return on their very substantial investment by providing a decent quality home which people will want to live in. It costs a lot of money in lost rental income, post-departure cleaning, marketing, legal and agents fees, to find new tenants - just as it costs much more to find new customers than to retain existing ones in any business.

 

Private landlords know that once they've found decent tenants then it is very much in their interests to keep up with the repairs, keep the place nice, and hang on to those tenants for as long as possible.

 

The difference is that if a private landlord finds they have tenants who are constantly not looking after or even damaging the property, then they can as a last resort simply choose not to renew the tenancy when it expires. Council tenants-for-life face no such sanction - and many of them know it only too well.

 

Pitching Housing Benefit at a level equivalent to the 50th percentile (median) of private rentals in the area has had the effect of dragging rents upwards - since any Housing Benefit tenant can automatically afford any of the properties in the lower 50% of the private rental stock, courtesy of the taxpayer. The upper 50%, of course, includes all of the luxury properties which are forever beyond the means of all but the very high earners. So in effect, any Housing benefit tenant has their pick of well over half of the the "normal" private rental homes in an area.

 

It is this effect, luxury property rentals dragging up the value of the 50th percentile, which has lead to housing benefit claims well in excess of the proposed ?1600 per month cap in certain areas.

[Peter T]

There is a charter now, to protect private tenants.

[Wingnut]

Never a truer word spoken Inky.

Private tennants wrecking the place and doing a moonlight flit are a very expencive comodity to the private landlord who have no means of tracking them down.

[inky pete]

They are, but then council tenants who damage and don't take care of the property they've been given - and then expect the council to come and sort all their mess and repairs out on a regular basis - will end up costing even more. But it's only the taxpayer picking up the tab, so it's all alright.

 

A fixed term tenancy - just as in the private sector - would at least give a council the opportunity to take a nice house off someone who was abusing it and re-house them somewhere more appropriate.