Birmingham council says new build flats not good enough for council tennants.

Lotus-eater

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed. Some of the residents of the newbuild flats actually have a job.

Can't have that "work ethic" corrupting the benefits addicts now can we.

I mean, if that happened, who would vote for you at the next election?

:rotfl: I could say that with a wink and a laugh, when you say it, it says alot about your attitude.

lostinrates

The blocks can be physically closer together, I suppose.

g_attrill

I think he meant the blocks.

Considering in many areas they are knocking down blocks of flats to replace them with regular housing it seems sensible to not go and buy flats, no matter how cheap they are.

Also for those people living in the blocks, they probably got a lucky escape. I wouldn't want to live in a nice block only to have the council house a few apalling tenants there and turn it into a slum block.

michaels

There is also the possibility that whilst those who own or rent privately would find the flats acceptable as they would be careful with the fixtures and fabric and conscious of their neighbours with regard to noise the same might not be true of all council tenants hence council properties needing to be of a higher standard...

Lotus-eater

lostinrates wrote: »

The blocks can be physically closer together, I suppose.

For one moment I thought you were talking about using less mortar..... which isn't unheard of
Get it now though.
I lived in a flat in another countries populous capital, they built theirs well apart, with gardens and parking in between, it wasn't that bad a place to live tbh (apart from the sound proofing was terrible, I now know how lots of different cultures sound when doing ALL everyday things).
I dread to think what the latest blocks here look like in places like Brum. Maybe someone could link to a nice photo.

sjaypink

Really2 wrote: »

I bet they will still pay housing benefit for one even though they are not good enough for people lucky enough to have a council house.

You got to love the councils morals.

its got nothing to do with morals. they have not just chosen to say 'nah thanks, dont think we'll buy them, they look too small', the decision will have been made on assessment of survey etc

its all down to eu policy on minimum standards for social-provided homes, theres no way around it

as for paying hb if you were to privtely rent one, well yes, thats policy again- they have a duty to pay rent, for those unable to meet housing costs, to private landlords up to the local 'fair rent' amount

Really2

sjaypink wrote: »

its got nothing to do with morals. they have not just chosen to say 'nah thanks, dont think we'll buy them, they look too small', the decision will have been made on assessment of survey etc

its all down to eu policy on minimum standards for social-provided homes, theres no way around it

That's my point, the council still rent them (via housing benefit). EG they are good enough for people they can not home in a council house on benefits. But not a current council tenant on benefits.

I have no problem with them not buying them but if they are not fit for purpose they should not let anyone on housing benefit rent one either as they are just supporting the current situation.

I don't think they would have surveyed them either as far as I know no councils are looking to increase housing stocks (apart form the 2,000 labour said they are going to build lol.).
Most council housing stocks have been passed to HA's.


I suppose my point is what is the difference to a council tenant on benefits and another person on benefits (EG on housing benefit).

I understand their obligations, just seems a bit wrong that one as more rights than another to a decent size living accomodation.

Harry_Powell

sjaypink wrote: »

its got nothing to do with morals. they have not just chosen to say 'nah thanks, dont think we'll buy them, they look too small', the decision will have been made on assessment of survey etc

its all down to eu policy on minimum standards for social-provided homes, theres no way around it

Agree. Private tenants or buyers can make a choice on whether an apartment is too small or too poor quality and walk away, whereas council tenants have little or no say in where they are placed and have to go through a lengthy process if they want to move. Council tenants also have secured tenancy and so will dwell in a property longer than private tenants would. It all adds up to making sure any property the council buys is fit for purpose. As a council tax payer I would also want to make sure that if my council had to purchase property, it at least spentthe money wisely on decent stock that won't be a financial black hole maintenance and administrative wise for the next 40 years.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The council have said the apartments are too close together, poorly built and not good enough for council tennants.

I don't understand the "not good enough for council tenants" comment.
Surely those that are being provided with housing would be happy for a clean dry place to live.

On the poorly built comment, I was surprised and shocked to recently here that some expensive new build flats had clauses in the small print them stating things like " only 10 persons allowed in the kitchen at any one time".
Apparently this is because the flooring wasn't structurally sound for too much weight.

Who would want to buy a property that includes these kinds of clauses?

Read the small print in every contract, boring as it may seem.

sjaypink

Really2 wrote: »

That's my point, the council still rent them (via housing benefit). EG they are good enough for people they can not home in a council house on benefits. But not a current council tenant on benefits.

I have no problem with them not buying them but if they are not fit for purpose they should not let anyone on housing benefit rent one either as they are just supporting the current situation.

I don't think they would have surveyed them either as far as I know no councils are looking to increase housing stocks (apart form the 2,000 labour said they are going to build lol.).
Most council housing stocks have been passed to HA's..

well i wouldnt know about councils specifically as we have no council housing down here, but i do know the housing associations have bought absolutely loads of flats here over the last two years- in really plush developments too... anyway, just assumed all social houing providers are looking out for cheap flats atm, as they are here, but i understand thinking about it why councils wouldnt

Really2 wrote: »

I suppose my point is what is the difference to a council tenant on benefits and another person on benefits (EG on housing benefit).

I understand their obligations, just seems a bit wrong that one as more rights than another to a decent size living accomodation.

well, they dont really. no one forces the private tenant to take on that particular flat, also, as the post above points out, councils needs to think ahed when it comes to the properties they own- future maintainance and values. this was neglected for years, hence so many having to be sold to ha' as they were not up to eu standard