Council homes for life ‘to be scrapped’

Jonbvn

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5120047.ece

Interesting article in the Times regarding gov't proposals for council rented accommodation. The key point I read is this:

If a tenant’s financial position improved he or she would be encouraged to take an equity share or to move to the private sector.

So people who improve themselves get higher rents or are forced into "right to buy"?

How about they consider something a little more radical like building more homes!

flissh

Well, I have to say I am not totally against this. I had a council house many moons ago. As soon as I could afford to, I bought a house of my own.

My daughter and grandson now have a LA flat, and it is miserable to want a bigger property. she is unable to persuade any one to swap from their two/three bed with garden to her flat without.

My father lived for many years alone in a large three bed house he steadfastly refused to move from, despite us all offering to help.

Old_Git

dont think it wiill come to much to be honest .
a lot off spin and not much else .

SingleSue

I'm in two minds about it to be honest....

You can see where they are coming from (unusual with this goverment) where too many people are still living in their council house despite earning way more than the average salary, which in turn prevents someone else getting a home who may need it more but on the other hand, it does seem a little eekkk especially where it says that they have to be working or at least looking for a job...what about those who are unable to work due to reasons other than illness? Would they work something into it that excludes them from the equation?

Oh and for some others, it would be a greenlight to never better themselves, never to get off their bottoms and work (the permanent jobless who don't want to work know all the ways around the 'actively seeking work' clause).

Something needs to be done but what that something is, I have no idea to be honest.

For the record, I am a social housing tenant.

airhostess

Maybe the govt should spend it's time structuring a stable economy where savers are rewarded, not penalised, (so people are encouraged to save for a deposit) and the majority can actually afford to buy their own home. This means having the FSA actually do its job properly and crack down on banks who are irresponsible lenders.

Then change the benefits systems to be structured toward making it harder for the permanent jobless who don't want to work to claim benefits and rewarding/helping those who leave council housing and become more independent.
Instead of a cash handout to council tenants on leaving their council home, this could be in the form of a particularly good mortgage deal for those wanting to buy, or even just introduction to a list of inspected GOOD local landlords with a proven track record of happy tenants. Anything that could help and support council house tenants move out when they are ready with maximum help & protection would be good. These people need more support than most (in the form of help & guidance, NOT necessarily money.)

But I still believe that the primary problem remains in education. My parents live in a council house, and whilst they both work, the thought of them moving out into the private sector terrifies me. They are completely clueless about finances and are completely unable to see further that next month, let alone the long term future. All of this could be avoided if they had been taught managing finances in school.

And nothing has changed - children these days still don't get any financial education and worse still, they see their parents MEWing/sticking it all on a credit card etc - things that my parent's parents certainly didn't do...

I really believe if children are educated properly on this then that should cut the amount of young people falling out of schools and straight into a council house right away.

So my answer would be:

1. Educate children properly
2. Stop benefits from being abused
3. Develop a stable economy in which lending is properly monitored
3. Give council tenants more help (NOT in the form of cash incentives) to move out.

though my thinking is the government will just skip all thought process and go straight to

1. Boot out all council tenants who have been in a council house for longer than 5 years

:mad: :mad: :mad:

airhostess

Just wanted to add - I don't mean to imply that all council tenants are clueless - for some, house prices really are the only problem - in which case, step 3. would be all that was needed for these people to move...

going2die_rich

If people "improve themselves" the council homes should just be taken off them. They should be told you have X months to find else where and then someones coming to throw you out.

The mentality of some people to expect taxpayers to fund nice homes for life is beyond me. Council homes are meant to be there for those that can't get anything else thats reasonable for their needs. It's their for as long as they require that help, not once you are in you can stay for life regardless of your circumstances.

Equity Share is a rubbish idea, they just need to be moved on to either private sector or buying their own. I don't agree with people being allowed to buy council homes when they are sold for knocked down prices, therefore at a cost to the taxpayer.

Microstar_2

Catwoman1975 wrote: »

If a drug dealer on every street and a damp, shabby interior is your idea of nice, I wouldn't like to see nasty!

I pay my rent in full for not much less that I would pay a lovely 3 bed modern home on a nice estate. Who is funding me exactly? My HA provides an inferior standard of accomodation in comparision for what is available in the private market.

Why are you still there then?

Catwoman1975

Microstar wrote: »

Why are you still there then?

Because it is secure. No other reason. I do not want to be forced to move home every 6 months on the whim of a landlord

StevieJ

Jonbvn wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5120047.ece

Interesting article in the Times regarding gov't proposals for council rented accommodation. The key point I read is this:

If a tenant’s financial position improved he or she would be encouraged to take an equity share or to move to the private sector.

So people who improve themselves get higher rents or are forced into "right to buy"?

How about they consider something a little more radical like building more homes!

Mmm Big Brother at it again?

bubblesmoney

apart from incentives and training to get people into jobs and off benefits (for those who are able to work taking into consideration physical/mental/social circumstances which might allow them to work), there should also be disincentives for people who can work but dont work.

anyway the gravy train will soon end whether the govt or people like it or not as the coffers are empty and the govt can borrow only for a bit longer to fund an unaffordable lifestyle. everyone wants the moon and wants someone else to pay for it. too bad money doesnt grow on trees.

from my info contracts are already issued or in the process of being issued to companys whose job is to assess whether people on incapacity / disability benefits can work and if they cant work then assess them as to what sort of alternative work they will be able to do. the assessment doesnt have choice of incapacity benefit taker regarding jobs in mind, if they cant do their present occupation then they will be assessed as to what other occupations they can do based on the physical skills etc and if they can do other forms of work but wont then they wont get incapacity benefits for much longer. it will be taken out of GPs hands and these companies get incentives based on targets fr getting people out of incapacity / disability benefits as far as i can tell. so the days of running to their gp and getting longterm / lifetime incapacity to work paperwork to avail benefits are soon to be over for good. and about time too.

council homes should not be for life, they should be reassessed periodically and the onus on proof should be on the claimant and not the otherway around. if people cant afford homes in expensive areas then they should move to areas that they can afford. i remember someone who couldnt afford a home in devon by the beach but his wife and 3 kids wanted to live by the beach and sun and hence he was renting there and living away from his family slogging all the hours he could get work for and living 8h away in scotland and visiting family only once in a few weeks all because the family 'wanted to live in wonderful devon by the beach' and didnt want to move elsewhere where they could easily afford a property. but anyway atleast that person worked and paid for his house unlike a few others who choose to live in areas they cant afford to live in and expect other people to fund their houses there instead. even i might prefer to live in london for other good opportunities available there if the house prices were lesser there, but i dont because i can live elsewhere where the house prices are more sensible. if i lived in london my expenses for a similar house would be a lot more and i would be slogging my butt off to be able to afford it, so i make a compromise with the quality of living / opportunities available by choosing to live in a village with lesser facilities but cheaper prices and commuting to work.