Austerity drive to mean council homes swaps?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

same principle - one spare room or more than one spare room.

if you're comfortable why would you want to move to a smaller place.

It's nothing to do with "wanting to move".

Re-read the article.

LydiaJ

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Whether they are paying for it or not, this is still someone's home we are talking about.
These are real people with real lives, real families, in many cases real children. Do you really think that it is fair to turf them out of their home? How do you expect people to get back on their feet if you keep shifting them from pillar to post?

If they want to swap (location, access, don't want the maintenance / heating of a larger property) then fine. This should be encouraged and facilitated.

The article isn't specific about how the policy will work, but the only concrete suggestion mentioned is capping LHA for people in under-occupied houses. Seems fair to me. If you want to live in a house that's bigger than you need, then you have to pay for it yourself. The state will only house you in something of an appropriate size for your actual needs. If your circumstances change, then the state's provision will change.

In the private sector (both rented and owner occupied) people sometimes have to move to a smaller house for financial reasons. Such people also have real lives, real families and real children. Divorced families, for example, frequently have to move to much smaller houses once the children reach 18 and the maintenance payments stop arriving from the ex-partner.

JimmyTheWig

LydiaJ wrote: »

The article isn't specific about how the policy will work, but the only concrete suggestion mentioned is capping LHA for people in under-occupied houses. Seems fair to me. If you want to live in a house that's bigger than you need, then you have to pay for it yourself. The state will only house you in something of an appropriate size for your actual needs. If your circumstances change, then the state's provision will change.

Is that not what currently happens? I thought there were all sorts of rules about the number of people in the household and the number of bedrooms you are entitled to? But if you want to top up the difference yourself then you can.

LydiaJ

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Is that not what currently happens? I thought there were all sorts of rules about the number of people in the household and the number of bedrooms you are entitled to? But if you want to top up the difference yourself then you can.

There are rules like that for getting a council house in the first place, yes. But once you've got it, you can keep it until you die regardless of whether you still need the space. So somebody with 6 kids who was allocated a 5 bed house 40 years ago may be still living in the 5 bed house even though all the kids grew up and bought their own houses more than 20 years ago, and only the couple are left in the council house. Meanwhile, families who currently have lots of kids struggle in B&B accommodation because there isn't enough social housing for everyone who wants it.

silvercar

But rents on council homes are about half that of private sector homes, so capping LHA won't work.

Those unable to get a council home are forced to rely on shorthold tenancies which can mean moving as often as once a year and paying a higher rent (than a similar but council property). Changing the security of the tenancy to allow tenants to be moved to smaller properties goes a step towards putting council tenants at less of a huge advantage over private tenants.

My only concern is that people will decide to have an extra child just to retain the rights to remain in their home.

mufi

Raggs wrote: »

Dunno why you'd want to, but if the house isn't yours, and you aren't paying for it, then you shouldn't have much of a choice.

You think the families in houses without enough bedrooms are comfortable?

Hear hear. Very near to my house are some extremely nice semi-detached council houses, properly built about 60 years ago - 2 receptions, large kitchen, 3 bedrooms, long private gardens. Far nicer than the modern boxes that young people have to pay the earth for.

Four of these houses, in a neat little row next door to each other, are occupied by lone females - families long gone, husbands either scarpered or died. Don't blame them for not budging as the properties are lovely and the rent is £80 per week for those not on housing benefit. However, councils now need to start writing it into the contracts for new tenants that once they no longer need the space, they have to move to smaller accommodation and make way for young couples in need with children.

JimmyTheWig

LydiaJ wrote: »

There are rules like that for getting a council house in the first place, yes. But once you've got it, you can keep it until you die regardless of whether you still need the space. So somebody with 6 kids who was allocated a 5 bed house 40 years ago may be still living in the 5 bed house even though all the kids grew up and bought their own houses more than 20 years ago, and only the couple are left in the council house. Meanwhile, families who currently have lots of kids struggle in B&B accommodation because there isn't enough social housing for everyone who wants it.

And they still get housing benefit as though they had all 6 kids still at home? I didn't know that.
Out of interest, is the same true with housing benefit on privately rented properties?

lemonjelly

There is a kind of cycle in social housing...

Young person applies for flat. Eventually, flat is granted.
As time passes, young person gets partner, and in all likelihood, kids start appearing. As time passes, family is overcrowded. They apply for a house. Eventually, house is granted.

More time passes. Kids grow up, leave for work, university, to live independently. Parents are now a couple in a 3 bed house.

Trust me, having worked in housing, they will not move out of that property. Council's & HA's do not have the right to force them to move. They can incentivize tenants to if they wish, however the tenant retains the right to stay (provided rent is paid, no ASB etc...)

Until one or both parents is ill, & they require a bungalow. Then they'll move (provided the HA/council give them a bungalow. Other than that, they'll stay!)

Now, the issue is, that the 3 bed house is occupied by a couple (or even a single person - imagine if the parents divorced...) for a period of time which could be in excess of 20 years.

Social housing is supposed to meet a need. Because there are singles or a couple occupying a 3 bed house, it means there are families denied access to this house. The need for the property is not being met as it is being blocked by the current occupants.

It is an interesting dichotomy. In principle, I have no real issue with the notion of under occupants being "encouraged" to down-size, though how this can lawfully happen I am not sure.

I have seen worse cases. In some areas (usually rural areas) a couple may split up, but will argue that they will equally share the children for half a week each, meaning both parents will require a 3 bed house!:eek: & I've seen HA's give them!:eek:

silvercar

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

And they still get housing benefit as though they had all 6 kids still at home? I didn't know that.
Out of interest, is the same true with housing benefit on privately rented properties?

If they are entitled to all the rent being paid then thats what happens. LHA only applies to private rentals. For anyone in a secure council home on benefits, all the rent would be paid directly.

I think that LHA is re-assessed once a year, so after a year someone could find themselves having to contribute to the rent or move to somewhere cheaper. For those on housing benefit rather than LHA (been in situ since April 2008 I think) re-assessment is only made if there is a change in circumstances.

silvercar

Anecdotely there are many pensioners in 3 or 4 bed council homes who would happily trade down to a 2 bed house or bungalow, but there entitlement is only for a 1 bed as a couple, so the council won't allow them to take a 2 bed, so they refuse to leave their large home.