Council houses for fixed terms only!

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

I agree, but where it all falls down is in the example of fourcandles who is earning what most would consider a very good salary and in effect being subsidised my many that earn much less and get no support with thier housing. I believe social housing should be based on need.

elaine373

ninky wrote: »

don't think the new rules will impact housing association anyway. only council. and only future tenancies.

I think it is already in place with some housing associaions.I exchanged a 4 bed housing association,(sanctuary housing association) 3 years ago, to someone whose son left soon after her tenancy began.she was under occupying by 2 bedrooms and under her new tenancy agreement, had to exchange to another,smaller property.(which she did) so this isnt as new as we think.

Although present secure tenats may not be affected, I do wonder if any house swap took place, would the incoming tenancy have this new rule introduced? I think as long as you know what the rules are, when you sign then it is fair enough.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Kittikins wrote: »

I think that short-term contracts is a good idea for many of the reasons outlined in previous posts. Private tenants pay "market" (or inflated) rents and have very little security. I don't quite understand why people in social housing feel they should be protected for life, no matter how good their circumstances can become.....If after the 5/10 period the tenants are assessed as having enough money to rent or buy privately, why should they stay where they are? Of course, if they still need the house/flat, then of course they should stay where they are for a further rental period.

Rather than reducing the security of social tenants, why not INCREASE the security of private tenants? Give them 5 or 10 year fixed term agreements and let them enjoy a bit more security. That would easily deal with some of the demand for social housing. The biggest factor for most people is, and always will be, security of tenure. That's why you are choosing to pay your massive mortgage.

Kittikins wrote: »

What I don't particularly agree with though is the way everyone slags off Maggie and the Tories for selling off the houses, which I agree was completely wrong, but no one complains about the fact we've had what feels like countless years under a Labour government and they've not reversed decisions/made substantial improvements to the way social housing is run.

Agreed

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

surely you mean need of others?

I know what I meant, that's why I typed it very carefully.

Kittikins

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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.

Actually my ex husband was a sponger whose sole financial contribution to the upkeep of the house was to buy and run some telephone cables into the upstairs, spending maybe £30 in the process.......I bought the house based on my salary alone which has now reduced substantially as when he burgered off leaving me with a 4 month old baby with no family support, I couldn't then get a job in London and do a 12-hour day including commute to continue earning the salary I needed to have to make my life as comfortable as yours obviously is on a £59k salary!

Thankfully he showed some decency towards me, given that we were married less than a year, by not demanding 50% of the house the solicitor warned me he could be deemed entitled to, and he walked away. He didn't deserve a share of the house.

He pays a pittance towards our DD and sees her on average once every 6 months when it suits him.

Please don't assume you know everything.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

I agree, but where it all falls down is in the example of fourcandles who is earning what most would consider a very good salary and in effect being subsidised my many that earn much less and get no support with thier housing. I believe social housing should be based on need.

Sorry but who's needs
I need a roof over my head , I have a contract , I have not breached it, I am aware none of this will apply to me . What I am aware of however is the many who complain do it for the wrong reasons it has nothing to do with thinking of others . As I have said push for more protection for private tenants .

N79

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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.

I don't think that repairing obligations are silly, nor are they minor. They are one of the major differences between many european style tenancies and English tenancies.

Eg. If the boiler breaks down - T to fix. If the house burns down - T to rebuild. If the roof falls in, T to replace.

There is nothing stopping 5 year agreements in England today except that they will require higher rents than a 6 month agreement. If Ts want this then they should try to negotiate them. One of the main reasons that they are not available is due to repairing obligations. A difficult T with long tenancies would mean 5 years of losses for the LL - a high risk indeed - which would need to be priced into the rent. Remove at least some of the obligations (cf Belgium which has a reasonable, if fuzzy compromise) and rents can fall / longer tenancies can become the norm.

Extra rights for Ts mean higher rents. Extra rights for LLs mean lower rents (its why rents are so low compared with property prices in the UK at the minute). S21 should be scrapped but as part of a total rethink of tenancy law which should include security of tenure, eviction procedures and repairing obligations.

There is very little room for maneuver to get these changes right. History shows that if government legislates to far towards Ts rights then LLs will disappear from the market (see what happened in the 70s). Back then there was sufficient social housing to take up the slack. Now, government is dependent on private LLs to house social tenants and so could easily create a homelessness crisis if changes are made to only 1 aspect of tenancy rules.

Also, I think you seriously underestimate the problems of harmonising Napoleonic code housing law with the "somewhat different" (read totally incompatible) housing law of England. Not even the EU wants to take that monster on!

TwistedPsycho

Although I agree with the sentiment of the Big Cameron Plan, it still does not really address the affordability of the tenants.

Personally, I believe that with this should move in the direction of many benefits are; with the onus being ont he claimant to prove continued eligability. There is a very simple way of doing this:

The council should be charging commercial rates (Wow, did the whole forum gasp? Bare with me on this).....

The Council should be charging the commercial going rates for rent. The onus should then be on the tenant to apply for and prove eligibility for a subsidy on that rent, renewable on a pre-determined basis - considering that those returning to work would likely want to re-define their boundries with any change in financial circumstances this could be set at every 3 years.

For those therefore that are (legally) playing the system an earning enough money to be able to afford a mortgage, they would end up no better off than being in the private market; for those that are genuinely needing council assistance they will see very little change apart from the way any documentation is laid out.

I struggle with a mortgage and considerable (now bad) debt from my university days. I was turned down for the council list because my Debt Management Plan did not count in my finances and I was deemed "well off"; so I now live below the breadline, despite having a reasonably paid job; but I still don't qualify until I am evicted if I ever default on my mortgage (which thankfully I don't).

wherediditallgothen

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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.

You can, and it would make sense for the financial short term I suppose.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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?

Because they are in temporary accommodation. If they had secured a social housing tenancy on a 2 bed when they only had 1 or 2 of the children, no-one would be trying to force them out now.