Council homes for life ‘to be scrapped’

robin_banks

bubblesmoney wrote: »

come on give me a break. i have friends in london who rent at those prices in walthamstow for 3b (large bedrooms) with BIG garden and 2 reception rooms nearfor 1100 and u r telling me 2b flats cost the same???

knew another person who lived in a studio flat between hangerlane and park royal almost on top of the station and was paying 500£ but this was a couple of years ago and i dont know the present rate there.

fully furnished (50" plasma screen, home theatre, leather sofas, projector etc)extremely large house with very very large garden with numerous trees was just this month rented by my friend for 1400£ between croydon mainline and another metro station (cant remember the name)

It will of course vary according to location but in the main you will struggle to get a 2 bed flat for less than £1000 a month, of course there'll be SOME flats etc that are cheaper. I know full well as you move out into the 'burbs that your money will go further though some of this is offset by travel and let's not forget a loss of your own time, i.e. a zone 3 travelcard is £110 a month, you're not gauranteed to live near a station/tube, those flats that are nearer will invariably be more expensive.

Christ, people paid £500 a month two years to live in a bedsit Hangyerself Lane ?

justme111

airhostess wrote: »

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.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Untill people's bums are wiped nobody will bother to learn wiping themselves whatever quantity of bum wiping classes you introduce.

longers

Evening people.

I don't post much but please don't start shouting at me. I'm not a troll (still not completely sure what that means) and, I'm not looking for an argument.

Anyway, my story. I do live in 2 bed HA flat, with the missus and 2 ever growing boys (my 12 year old is 5 foot 11, with size 12 feet!). Before the boys were born, we did have the chance to buy, as you could get a 3 bed terrace house in an area like Sutton (it's Surrey but basically Greater London), for around £60K. Plus we would have got a £16K incentive from the HA. However we didn't. Why? Just because we preferred holidays and socialising (OK, going down the pub) and, didn't want the burden of a mortgage. We did this on our incomes and were quite happy.

Now I'm not going to go into how much that house could be worth now, blah blah blah, etc, etc. We chose qualilty of life over home ownership and with hindsight, we're glad we did as the memories we have from those times will last forever.

Now I will be the first to admit that we could do with more space. However buying for us in our part of London (smack bang in the middle of SE & SW London postcodes), is not an option. The house next but 1 from ours sold for £850K in December 2007. Ours is a flat, but they do still go (went) for £300K. Even if we could raise the deposit for a decent mortgage rate, that would be around £75K for a 25% deposit, for a property which I've already said is too small. Obviously moving somewhere cheaper would be the thing to do. However while if we were childless there would be no excuse, our children are in very good local schools (the yougest in a Catholic primary and the eldest is in a Grammer, no idea where he gets his brains from) and, getting there is very convenient for him. Plus the childminder for our youngest (yes, we do both work, never claimed benefits ever, not that I judge anyone who does without knowing their circumstances), lives across the road (and she and her husband brought up 3 children in a 2 bed council flat).

We do earn more than the national average wage, although probably average or just below for London. If we were told we had to move it would be devastating for us. I'm all for social housing be available for those most in need however, with the property increases in the last 10 years married to our strangely incomphrehensible obsesssion with home ownership, people in social housing will keep hold of it unless that can buy and maintain the same standard of living. Why would I swop a secure tenancy, for a private Landlords with an AST which could see me out on my ear after 6 months? Since being in this particular flat, I have decorated top to bottom 3 times (in five years), tiled the bathroom and Kitchen, put up a garden shed, bought a power washer to keet the patio area and front garden clean, regularly washed the windows etc. I know some tenants don't maintain their rented properties but many do.

Now I do understand that there is a down side. Social housing for life will, to some people, equal never working for life, as to obtain a wage which will maintain their standard of living without housing benefit, council tax paid, free school dinners for the kids, job seekers/incapacity benefit etc, is never going to happen. I would therefore not have a problem with those people being, in some way, forced into gainful employment. But how do you police that?

If this issue were to be taken on seriously, I believe it would bring to the fore a serious discussion on the benefit culture that has been maintained by successive governments. Welfare dependancy has now become a lifestyle choice for some, and with many people who bought into home ownership now facing repossession, for many through no fault of their own, and with the safety net of social housing not available to them due to the stock being sold off or rented to the undeserving or even, being taken up by people like myself who simply decided not to buy because we didn't want to/felt we couldn't afford it, people will start to fel resentful to those in social housing, the rumblings of which I have already read on here.

What do you guys think, am I selfish?

Old_Git

Shelter say " a council house is for Christmas not for life "

neverdespairgirl

longers wrote: »

What do you guys think, am I selfish?

Personally?

No, I don't think that. I understand why long-term renting privately is very iffy for some people with children (we're lucky with our LL).

I also understand the problems of buying in London.

I do think, though, that more should be done about the size of accommodation.

The trouble, as it seems to me, is that a person's social housing is frozen forever, to all intents and purposes, at the time they get it.

So if you get a 2 bed place, as a couple with a child, then have another 3 children, moving to a bigger place takes years and years.

Similarly, there are a lot of older people who needed, say, 3-4 beds at one time, but now live there as a couple, or on their own.

I think that the size of social housing should be reviewed every, say, 5 years. And people should not be overhoused, when there is such pressure on social housing.

People required to downsize (and I think they should be required) should, in my view, be given quite a choice of places to move to, and help with moving costs, etc. But they shouldn't be allowed to take up 3 bed houses on their own, when families are crammed into tiny flats.

carolt

longers wrote: »

Evening people.

I don't post much but please don't start shouting at me. I'm not a troll (still not completely sure what that means) and, I'm not looking for an argument.

Anyway, my story. I do live in 2 bed HA flat, with the missus and 2 ever growing boys (my 12 year old is 5 foot 11, with size 12 feet!). Before the boys were born, we did have the chance to buy, as you could get a 3 bed terrace house in an area like Sutton (it's Surrey but basically Greater London), for around £60K. Plus we would have got a £16K incentive from the HA. However we didn't. Why? Just because we preferred holidays and socialising (OK, going down the pub) and, didn't want the burden of a mortgage. We did this on our incomes and were quite happy.

Now I'm not going to go into how much that house could be worth now, blah blah blah, etc, etc. We chose qualilty of life over home ownership and with hindsight, we're glad we did as the memories we have from those times will last forever.

Now I will be the first to admit that we could do with more space. However buying for us in our part of London (smack bang in the middle of SE & SW London postcodes), is not an option. The house next but 1 from ours sold for £850K in December 2007. Ours is a flat, but they do still go (went) for £300K. Even if we could raise the deposit for a decent mortgage rate, that would be around £75K for a 25% deposit, for a property which I've already said is too small. Obviously moving somewhere cheaper would be the thing to do. However while if we were childless there would be no excuse, our children are in very good local schools (the yougest in a Catholic primary and the eldest is in a Grammer, no idea where he gets his brains from) and, getting there is very convenient for him. Plus the childminder for our youngest (yes, we do both work, never claimed benefits ever, not that I judge anyone who does without knowing their circumstances), lives across the road (and she and her husband brought up 3 children in a 2 bed council flat).

We do earn more than the national average wage, although probably average or just below for London. If we were told we had to move it would be devastating for us. I'm all for social housing be available for those most in need however, with the property increases in the last 10 years married to our strangely incomphrehensible obsesssion with home ownership, people in social housing will keep hold of it unless that can buy and maintain the same standard of living. Why would I swop a secure tenancy, for a private Landlords with an AST which could see me out on my ear after 6 months? Since being in this particular flat, I have decorated top to bottom 3 times (in five years), tiled the bathroom and Kitchen, put up a garden shed, bought a power washer to keet the patio area and front garden clean, regularly washed the windows etc. I know some tenants don't maintain their rented properties but many do.

Now I do understand that there is a down side. Social housing for life will, to some people, equal never working for life, as to obtain a wage which will maintain their standard of living without housing benefit, council tax paid, free school dinners for the kids, job seekers/incapacity benefit etc, is never going to happen. I would therefore not have a problem with those people being, in some way, forced into gainful employment. But how do you police that?

If this issue were to be taken on seriously, I believe it would bring to the fore a serious discussion on the benefit culture that has been maintained by successive governments. Welfare dependancy has now become a lifestyle choice for some, and with many people who bought into home ownership now facing repossession, for many through no fault of their own, and with the safety net of social housing not available to them due to the stock being sold off or rented to the undeserving or even, being taken up by people like myself who simply decided not to buy because we didn't want to/felt we couldn't afford it, people will start to fel resentful to those in social housing, the rumblings of which I have already read on here.

What do you guys think, am I selfish?

No, but you are lucky - you got to have that choice - few people these days have the choice of either of the options you had - can't afford to buy, and can't get the social housing.

Not sure you count as that 'deserving', but equally, far more deserving than a benefit scrounger who's never worked.

So don't beat yourself up about it.

bambam101

Idiophreak wrote: »

I hate to say it, the only way I can really see to make people move on from council housing when their situations improves is to *really* make them not want to be there. Allow one bedroom per two people, no satellite dishes, don't allow decorating, smoking etc, stick them in the middle of nowhere with an hours' bus ride to town...just generally make living there miserable for those that (for whatever reason) have to do so...Private renting will pretty soon become a more appealing idea...

It's either that, or take a *very* close look at the occupants' finances every month and charge rent on a sliding scale...so once you earn above average, you start to pay more for the place than you do on the open market. Even then you have problems with forcing people to work cashinhand, dodgy dealing etc. It's a tough problem to solve.

:rotfl: , glad your not the Housing Minster, you'd turn the country into North korea! And your idea to stick people in the middle of nowhere - do you know how much rural property prices are!

neas

Seriously the council should start a 10 year sell off of all council houses back to the private market.

They shoukd build 70's style council flats... undesirable locations.... built shoddily to house the masses... people shouldnt even be allowed a house... just a flat in a 500 occupant flat building.

Go to poland and see how brilliant a life people on the dole have it here,.... even the hard workers live in grey towering flats...

Flats should be cheap as chips to make, bare essentials....no lift nothing... solve the obesity crisis at least in this sample of population.

JayScottGreenspan

neas wrote: »

Seriously the council should start a 10 year sell off of all council houses back to the private market.

They shoukd build 70's style council flats... undesirable locations.... built shoddily to house the masses... people shouldnt even be allowed a house... just a flat in a 500 occupant flat building.

Go to poland and see how brilliant a life people on the dole have it here,.... even the hard workers live in grey towering flats...

Flats should be cheap as chips to make, bare essentials....no lift nothing... solve the obesity crisis at least in this sample of population.

Might cost the govt more in the long run. Think of the crime.

Consider a working family. Put them in a nice little terrace and the kids might stand a chance. Put them in the grottiest sink tower block and they could end up costing you more in benefits and crime.

As for those who choose not to work, there's got to be a better way to target them specifically, without inflciting misery on everyone else too.

Sidneysaves

It all depends on your council house experience. I left a very cheap council flat because the place was getting trashed outside and in communal areas. My neighbours were drinking and drugging it, loads of domestics going on and the final straw was one of my neighbours playing music at full blast all through the night. Local kids chucking stones at cars and tripping you up when you go past is not a fun environment. The local police presence were usually to be seen outside the chippy trying to wedge themselves out of their cars to get another takeaway. I know people who were brought up around there and it was a good area back then and they are great people. Now a few people are ruining it for everyone. I wouldn't want anyone turfed out of their home if it's a nice, safe environment and they are happy there, just so the government can court popularity.

This whole mess is because we've let the country be mismanaged. New houses, education, clean streets and decent services cost money. All any of them care about is trying to get relected. Tax cuts all round!:beer: