Government's Mortgage Rescue

WTF?_2

carolt wrote: »

So explain to me how we got to that situation again?

Why we sold off all our social housing so we could spend enough money to house the homeless all in luxury houses (if we bought them houses instead and were paying £700/week on mortgage payments, you could get somewhere pretty nice, even at current prices!), but gave it all to B & B owners instead?

Sorry, I'm no financial genius, but that is clearly a shocking misuse of public funds.

Bloody Maggie.

Labour have had plenty of time to change it but they have been happy to go along with it and turn to BTL to meet demand for rented accomodation.


That's all very well when there's lots of money around and relatively few people are needing services - but when the economy is imploding, people are getting repossessed and tax revenues are falling it is a total disaster.

Gordon Brown and Tony Bliar were a joke. Right place at the right time - until now.

moanymoany

I think people who have found themselves caught out by the current situation should be helped - better than than on the street or in B&B with children.

What is the benefit of throwing people out of a house and having to house them and their family - while the house sits empty and unsellable.

Children need a proper home, to deprive them of that is a BIG mistake.

chrisandanne

moanymoany wrote: »

I think people who have found themselves caught out by the current situation should be helped - better than than on the street or in B&B with children.

What is the benefit of throwing people out of a house and having to house them and their family - while the house sits empty and unsellable.

Children need a proper home, to deprive them of that is a BIG mistake.

That's my point too. Especially when it costs the tax payer MORE to do that.

Also the OP explained on another thread that his situation was caused by his partners illness and his drop in wages and that he was a teacher and a tax payer who had worked and planned and done his best to provide a home for his family.

That's why I considered Zammo's response harsh.

Also there for the grace of God and all that. A x

lynzpower

chrisandanne wrote: »

quote=dopester;14242733]Is that really how much it costs? It was only back in 1997 I got myself a nice clean room, with own key access, double bed, television, well-heated, for £12.50 a night, and cleaned each morning, for a week whilst visiting London. And that included a hearty cooked breakfast in the morning as the woman owned the cafe below. Found it from Loot.

How times change. There is no possible justification in £400 a week.

I wasn't sure dopester of how much it costs to put a family out of their home and into a homeless hostel. So today I rang a friend who works as a social worker in the mental health sector and this is what she told me :-

Local councils have a duty to re home anyone with children who become homeless...they (the local authority) run the hostels and charge the government per person, the fees vary, but a 'normal' charge would be c £40 per person per night and half of that for a child, so in the case of the OP it would cost £100 per night = £700 per week !!!!.

She also told me that this can be more in London where there is more demand and less supply. And also London has a dearth of social housing which is not the case in all areas, which causes hostel prices to be higher.

Also on top of the £700. This type of re- housing of families causes, health, mental health and social problems which then have to be addressed at more cost to the tax payer. The hostel places are also available to people with health or mental health problems who find themselves homeless which includes drug users and alcoholics which can make them very grim places to be. They are not available to healthy single people with no children who for whatever reason find themselves homeless. A x[/quote]


Thank you! This was definately my experience when I was working as a social worker.

The hostels the authority I used to oplace in ( central london) were utterly squalid.

The mindset of this "system" is bull*** - one family I worked with as a social worker - child was being abused by stepdad, mum & duager lived in stepdads flat as they gave up thier own place to start a fmaily together all living together ( doing the right thing, not living between properties etc) Disaster strikes, so mum advised by me to get kid away from monster asap. Mum therefore gets placed in hostel, who should move in the next bedroom but known paedophile who tries to befreind vulmerable mum. All to the tune of 700 per week, and if she wasnt up for eating the bowl if lidl cornflakes to be passed off as "breakfast" she had to pay a 20 quid top up out of her own housing beneift.

Laissez faire- leave alone, the whole system is an expensive, dangerous scandal.

carolt

That's shocking - why if this is known about by all those who work in the sector, is something not done about it?

How terrible for the individuals - and what an awful waste of public funds to boot. Not at all happy my tax pounds are being used to house vulnerable families in grotty hostels next to paedophiles!

Any campaigns around to build LOTS more social housing?

Can I start one?

neverdespairgirl

carolt wrote: »

Wouldn't it be cheaper to put them all up in 4 star hotels? I've stayed in plenty of lovely family rooms all round the UK for less than £100/night - how on earth do they justify that tremendous waste of taxpayer's money?

I smell corruption or at best complete ineptitude here.

I agree. OH, Isaac and I stayed in a room in a lovely hotel in Penzance last Tuesday, for one night, and it cost £52 for the night, including breakfast for us all. And that's without any type of discount for a longer stay!

chewmylegoff

carolt wrote: »

So explain to me how we got to that situation again?

Why we sold off all our social housing so we could spend enough money to house the homeless all in luxury houses (if we bought them houses instead and were paying £700/week on mortgage payments, you could get somewhere pretty nice, even at current prices!), but gave it all to B & B owners instead?

Sorry, I'm no financial genius, but that is clearly a shocking misuse of public funds.

Bloody Maggie.

i'm no expert on the sell off of social housing but it was my impression that it was under a "right to buy" scheme. i.e. those already living in social housing were able to buy their house after a certain time period for a price less than market value. i may be wrong in this but it is my understanding.

so, if the social housing was sold to the people who live in the social housing, how does that equate to this policy being responsible for having to pay stupid amounts to house families now?

unless the plan would have been to put two families in each social housing unit, the maths doesn't stack up, as the people who bought their council houses would still be living in social housing if they hadn't bought them.

in my view the problem is a broad brush failure to build enough housing of all types rather than attributable to the right to buy policy.

carolt

Certainly true - they should have built more. But what about people who moved out of council accom- those who chose to, died or moved into care etc? Instead of their properties just going back into the pool to go to the next person on the list, those who'd bought at a discount usually sold at a premium. Leaving cash for them or their heirs, but nothing for the taxpayer who'd funded the discount, or the people waiting patiently on the council list still to be housed.

So yes - whilst right to buy is only part of the problem, it certainly was part of the problem - we have far less council accom or reasonably priced accom than we usd to, at a time when we need much more.

chewmylegoff

carolt wrote: »

those who'd bought at a discount usually sold at a premium.

yes, and made money out of it, and bought another house. but without all that they would still be in the social housing in the first place[/quote]

Leaving cash for them or their heirs,

to splurge on housing possibly:

but nothing for the taxpayer who'd funded the discount, or the people waiting patiently on the council list still to be housed.

true, although the price at which the house was sold to the person was probably less than the cost to build the house in the first place, inflation adjusted etc.

So yes - whilst right to buy is only part of the problem, it certainly was part of the problem - we have far less council accom or reasonably priced accom than we usd to, at a time when we need much more.

agree part of the problem. agree we have less council accomodation. think real problem is disparity between housing stock increase and population increase.

l0ul0u

Zammo wrote: »

Cut out the middle man, just find the nearest hard working tax payer and take his wallet. After all, it is his duty to bail you out for your own financial stupidity.

narrow, small minded little person??, i dont think you have any idea what is going on in peoples lifes to lead them to ask for assistance from the country they have paid into. I have 5 children, i worked 40-50 hours a week as did my husband, we have a 130,000 mortgage. My husband had an affair and left me, i cannot afford to work (job centre told me i will be £50 a week worse off), i have to upkeep my £950 mortgage a month with only £500 assistance from the government, i have been left with all the debt(that we were able to pay confortably before he left), i am left with £90 per week to clothe and feed 5 children, if i worked how would i manage on £40 per week??.
i did not ask him to have an affair, as many other people did not ask to lose their job.
i am sure with all your wisdom you could answer me as to what your lord o mighty would like me to do??