Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

Kittikins wrote: »

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.

I do not that is the problem with this whole argument people making assumptions on people and it really is not very nice is it . Saying all that to buy the house similar to the one i have would cost £190k I cant afford that, It would take another 3 years to get a good deposit saving as I am .
The other option is buy a rabbit hutch on a new development and still pay through the nose for it and hate where I live every day I wake up no thanks.
As I have said it is difficult to get a mortgage while self employed unless I have a massive deposit quote from the Halifax and having asked 2 yaers ago about renting private no chance came from most of the estate agents unless it was a rough shack in a non desirable area.

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

At the point of allocation, it is. But fourcandles is at one end of the extreme. To apply his personal circumstances to social housing in its entirity is just wrong.

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

Not carefully enough as you seem to have replaced the 'n' with a 'g' and an 'r'?

Wee_Willy_Harris

elaine373 wrote: »

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.

You raise an interesting point. With proposed changes to security only effecting new tenancies, I wonder how many under-occupied tenants will be too worried to downsize for fear of losing that security they hold so dear to them? Will we see more demand for disabled addaptations as peoples needs change and the desire to move diminishes? Will we see LESS availability as more tenants choose to remain? Will we see even bigger accommodation log-jams as families FULLY excersise their right to succeed tenancies? Will we lose even more social housing stock as more tenants excersise their right to buy rather than risk reduced security?

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.



Agreed

how would 5-10 year private tenancy agreements reduce the need for social housing???? those in the private sector would still have to pay private rents. as such they are not the sort of people who will be on the social housing eligibility radar anyway.

the biggest factor for most people is not security of tenure, but affordability. most people don't want to stay in the same house, they want the best house at the most affordable price.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

Not carefully enough as you seem to have replaced the 'n' with a 'g' and an 'r'?

And you seem to have replaced the ability to read and comprehend with something resembling gibberish.

FOURCANDLES_2

TwistedPsycho wrote: »

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).

Again it is the wrong way around you should be making private tenants secure . As for your mortgage if you are struggling should you not rent AHHH no you cant because your rent in the private sector would be more that is why they should be looking at capping private rents as in the EU

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

At the point of allocation, it is. But fourcandles is at one end of the extreme. To apply his personal circumstances to social housing in its entirity is just wrong.

Why not just review the rent yearly to a maximum of market rate , based on income (plus a possible premium for secure tenancy). Would be fairer to everbody

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

how would 5-10 year private tenancy agreements reduce the need for social housing???? those in the private sector would still have to pay private rents. as such they are not the sort of people who will be on the social housing eligibility radar anyway.

the biggest factor for most people is not security of tenure, but affordability. most people don't want to stay in the same house, they want the best house at the most affordable price.

No. The biggest housing issue is security. Always has been, always will be. The reason people don't like renting privately is that they can be evicted after a short term (6 months) and at short notice. People like to make their house into a home, and to do that, they need to know that they will be there for longer than the minimum period allowed. With the private rented sactor, that just isn't possible at the moment. Just read a few of these boards and you will see plenty of "we were promised a long term let", or "the LL just put the house on the market" threads. Moving house is one of the most stressful things a person can do. Why would anyone NOT avoid it if they could?

Mum_of_3_3

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Waiting list had nothing to do with it really , the farmer wanted his cottage back to turn in to a holiday let after 17 years his choice, The rent was on par with council rent this house came up I asked I got problem with that ?, I then bettered myself and now if they could but they will not as it will only affect new tenures they wish to punish me ........

Umm, what about the other families in your village/local area that would also love the chance you had, but can't because you won't shift from the only affordable house?

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

I do care about others my family first I pay rent a full council tax , water rates etc I do not recieve benefits and that now includes NO child tax credits unlike many . If I was asked to pay a little more rent ie xtrax £100 I would if they wish to pay me to go a decent amount I would go but only if it benefits me . I will not do myself down for bettering myself.

Do you really care about others? If you did maybe you would look at buying and let another family have the leg up that you had.

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.

No, I just think that most people find it obscene that someone can earn roughly 2.5x the average national salary and still be offered discounted rent, when there are probably some families near you that earn less than the national rent and struggle to get by. Therefore by checking all tenants every 5-1- years the council/HA are making sure that those with the greatest need are staying, not those with the greatest greed!

Also don't bother complaining about the cost of having to renovate the kitchen etc on post and then stating n another "Oh nothing was wrong with eh original kitchen I just fancied a new one".


You don't seem to get it do you? If you don't move where do all the young families that are in the position you were in before gaining this tenancy and "bettering yourself" going to live? Do they have to "put up with Thatcher's mistakes" just because you are too greedy to move out?

M_o_3

PS On £59k you should be able to save a big enough deposit for one of those £179k houses in two years