Council houses for fixed terms only!

delain

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

The reason why I got it thank you , THIS GUY CLEARLY KNOWS HIS ONIONS FOLKS

We have a village here (where I'm from) which has 4 houses now only for local people. These were built in the mid 90's and are rabbit hutches at best. The whole road used to be council, large houses, you can tell which ones were sold, the council didn't convert them into 2 bed flats

FOURCANDLES_2

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

That's the BRITS all over you should be asking for more rights for private Tenants but NO but they ask for the poor level of protection be given to council/association tenants mind boggling.

I would also add from what you say your a single parent paying a mortgage I assume with paymenst from the ex husband where is that poor sole living ?, should you not in fact sell give your husband his share and rent privately because that is what you can afford. But no you cant say that to a mortgage payer I suppose.

Doshwaster

ninky wrote: »

i agree - people should certainly not be allowed to keep 'investment' properties empty when there are so many in housing need. unlikely to see that from a tory led govt unfortunately. that doesn't make lifetime tenure of social housing a good thing though.

Well, Labour had 13 years to do something about that - but they didn't. In fact they pretty much encouraged the buy-to-let or buy-to-leave-empty markets.

With booming house prices you could understand the temptation. Buy a house, a few licks of paint, don't bother with the hassle of tenants and then sell it a few years later. Easy money. Much better than sticking your money into the bank. At least it was until the financial crash.

ninky_2

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

That's the BRITS all over you should be asking for more rights for private Tenants but NO but they ask for the poor level of protection be given to council/association tenants mind boggling.

what about those with a mortgage? if there are house prices drop and they find themselves unable to pay the mortgage many could be left homeless and with outstanding debt. lenders don't care that it's their home or what improvements they've made to it.

personally i think someone who has been evicted from their home and has no income should get priority for social housing - even if that means getting a longterm tenant who now has well paid employment to move on.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

And many do not, but still had to pay for them,. (the vast majority earning less than your £60,000 salary)

Childless people pay for the education system.
The fit and healthy pay for the NHS.
Pedestrians pay for roads.
etc etc etc

It's called society. Generally regarded as a good thing.

FOURCANDLES_2

N79 wrote: »

Just remember that the European style system you like has the following additional features.

1. Ts are locked in for the same long periods as LLs (albeit normally with a limited right of assignment). In the UK Ts may not have security of tenure but they do have the flexibility to move with only a months notice.

and

2. The big one, the elephant in the room that never gets discussed when people talk about european style tenancies: repairing obligations.

The majority of tenants do NOT want to move certainly with a months notice if you have children you should seek secure tenure.
As for the other silly comment it is just that silly , However watch this spae over the next 3 years EURO rules on this one may be brought in even if a little watered down example 6 month --12 month will become for private 5-10 year agreements.

Mum_of_3_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No-one is saying that they CAN'T share. If the family with opposite sex children want to stay in their 2 bed house untill the kids are in their 20's, that's their decision. No-one is going to force them into a 3 bed. The system just says, quite rightly, that for a family with 2 opposite sex children over a certain age, a 3 bed broperty is appropriate. It's hardly revolutionary, is it?

How come a member of my OH's family (who is in temporary accommodation with his partner and 4 kids) has bid on and been very close to getting 2 x 3-bed properties in this area and even though they have said they don't care if their kids share and have begged to let them have the house, the council have said no it's not big enough!!!

This imo isn't right from two points of view, they should give them the 3-bed or a 2-bed if they are happy to live there and why should the council deem it necessary for this family to have a 4-bed house and think it's not right to make children share?

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

i agree - people should certainly not be allowed to keep 'investment' properties empty when there are so many in housing need. unlikely to see that from a tory led govt unfortunately. that doesn't make lifetime tenure of social housing a good thing though.

Why not? Why shouldn't a tenant who has paid rent, behaved themselves, looked after the property etc etc etc be penalised because of the greed of others?

FOURCANDLES_2

ninky wrote: »

what about those with a mortgage? if there are house prices drop and they find themselves unable to pay the mortgage many could be left homeless and with outstanding debt. lenders don't care that it's their home or what improvements they've made to it.

personally i think someone who has been evicted from their home and has no income should get priority for social housing - even if that means getting a longterm tenant who now has well paid employment to move on.

You been on the sherry today ?
Tenant rents it is not his if he fails to pay the rent he is out.
Mortgage payer a little different he is the banks tennant if he fails to pay the mortgage he is out.
As for if you have no income what is all that about association and council is not rent free you no .How do you propose they pay the rent ?

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Why not? Why shouldn't a tenant who has paid rent, behaved themselves, looked after the property etc etc etc be penalised because of the greed of others?

surely you mean need of others?