Council tenants with too much room forced into smaller properties

gary2007

There doesn't seem to be any fairness when it comes to social housing.

I am working class with wife and 2 young children. We have a big mortgage in a 3 bed new house. Its not massive. Yet opposite me is social housing with the same size houses. Some are key workers and do what they can to get by, yet others are just clearly claiming benefits and dossing about with their teenage children up to no good causing anti social behaviour, they don't work and have some of the biggest gardens on the estate. They seem to have more disposable income that us with their Sky dishes, flat screen tvs, quad bikes and more.

How does this work!

wymondham

This is a quite a big problem I suspect, and one which is difficult to work out fairly.... what do you do when families are living in B&B's, and the retired couple, or single elderly person is on their own in a 3 bed semi??

MissMoneypenny

Perhaps the answer is only to have two bedroom council houses, so that the more you breed, the less room you have.

bendix

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Perhaps the answer is only to have two bedroom council houses, so that the more you breed, the less room you have.

Don't be silly. Then the laws of Darwinism would come into play, and those families living in council houses who breed like rabbits would - through evolution - breed smaller and smaller kids to make do with the smaller space, rather like goldfish grow to the appropriate size for their bowl, and no larger.

We'd turn into a nation of midgets.

Still, at least it would deal with the obesity issue.

On second thoughts: GREAT IDEA.

LydiaJ

bendix wrote: »

Don't be silly. Then the laws of Darwinism would come into play, and those families living in council houses who breed like rabbits would - through evolution - breed smaller and smaller kids to make do with the smaller space, rather like goldfish grow to the appropriate size for their bowl, and no larger.

We'd turn into a nation of midgets.

Still, at least it would deal with the obesity issue.

On second thoughts: GREAT IDEA.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Lance

I dealt with a pensioner recently, she died, who the council were housing in a large 4 bed house for many years. She slept in a room downstairs to make her life easier. She lived alone in London.

lynzpower

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Perhaps the answer is only to have two bedroom council houses, so that the more you breed, the less room you have.

People dont always have that many children in council housing. They could have lost their job, been repossessed, abandoned by their partner etc( like one of my previous clients was)
Or that indeed they were getting LHA rate that has been reduced, leaving no option but to join the queue for council housing ( for example!_)

OPtion C- instead of selling off government land to developers building poxy new build one beds and studios why not build some family houses on that land to ease the pressure?

I know thats radical :cool: but its been done before!

Shakethedisease

I know thats radical :cool: but its been done before!

Yes, it has. And I can only presume this time, it hasn't been done because it hasn't 'hit' yet how problematic thing's are getting. Excess credit the last 10 years have masked things pretty well.
The LHA limits, the underoccupied social housing thing and waving ta-ta to 10% of housing benefits after 12 months unemployment at a time of unprecedented cuts, ( meaning even more unemployment) in all public sector areas.. should bring it to a head. Empty private housing cos the rents aren't being covered anymore, and not enough social housing to go round.

Well, we'll see I suppose. I've always been of the opinion that this time any house price collapse would come right from the very bottom --> up. This time round there's just soooo many depend on the private rental market for homes (tenants) /incomes and investment purposes ( investors/btl'ers/ those wanting a pension later on)... as opposed to the 80's, 90's where it was more or less just owner occupiers who suffered with 1 home (theirs) to worry about losing...
Anyway, from the bottom rather than rightmove asking prices, mortgage approvals, income to LTV levels.. and all that malarky pushing them down from the top. The difference this time is that there are many millions more private tenants and investors who depend on the current status quo than at any other time in the UK's history.

The government imho have just taken a very large 'swipe' at the bottom of the house of cards. The negative effects will ripple upwards, not downwards. Sentiment will do the rest.

( just my opinion ).

diable

I suppose this is the other side of the coin as when you are a council tenant the more children you have they then give you a larger property so I suppose once the children have left home then back down you go, keeping you in the same area so its not too much off a stress.

Shakethedisease

I suppose this is the other side of the coin as when you are a council tenant the more children you have they then give you a larger property so I suppose once the children have left home then back down you go, keeping you in the same area so its not too much off a stress.

Yes cos there's just loooooads of single council flats going. ( Not). Where do they shunt them out to then ? Because not many of them by the same token that they are under occupying a 3 bed home.. will be entitled to be homed in anything other than a 1 bed council flat ( if we're talking just about singles).

If they are to be placed in private, well, given the LHA limits, then there's likely to be less than is needed in the same area, given again, that those singles who were previously renting private at above the 30% percentile of average rental rates will ALSO be looking to rent the same properties in order to get the same lha cover.