Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

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

Social housing rents ARE reviewed yearly already.

ninky_2

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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 .

i for one don't care what the motivation is if the result is those in housing need (not housing want) get access to social housing.

you are right, this won't effect you, so stop throwing red herrings into the debate.

no one is going to be made homeless by this change. some people might lose their two spare bedrooms. what is the problem.

FOURCANDLES_2

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.

OH nicky what an ill thought out fur coat no knickers snobbish thing to say behave yourself:rotfl:. Many in private rents are living hand to mouth they need affordable rents the same could be said for over commited mortgage payers So we do have people who think an association tenant is lower than a private tenant for goodness sake it then goes to a debt ridden mortgage payer to the posh home owner to the gentry .

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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?

Rather than singling one tenant out, why not ask the rest of the village why they insist on selling their houses for a price that even 4 candles cannot afford? Surel;y if they reduced their property prices enough not only could he free up his tenancy and move within the village, but many others may be able to do so as well. Why is he being singled out?

FOURCANDLES_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing rents ARE reviewed yearly already.

Rent goes up every year,

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Rather than singling one tenant out, why not ask the rest of the village why they insist on selling their houses for a price that even 4 candles cannot afford? Surel;y if they reduced their property prices enough not only could he free up his tenancy and move within the village, but many others may be able to do so as well. Why is he being singled out?

Perhaps because they own their houses and have paid the going rate for them?

princeofpounds

wow this thread exploded whilst I was away...

I think too much has been said for me to comment on it all with any depth!

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

Forgive me. Wasn't aware you'd had a sense of humour bypass. So sorry.

Mum_of_3_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Rather than singling one tenant out, why not ask the rest of the village why they insist on selling their houses for a price that even 4 candles cannot afford? Surel;y if they reduced their property prices enough not only could he free up his tenancy and move within the village, but many others may be able to do so as well. Why is he being singled out?

Because he earns £59k and therefore should be able to afford to by a £179k house easily WWH! Don't start to pretend that anyone with that level of wage can't buy anywhere (save within the M25).

If for one do not give a monkeys if house prices fall to at least half of what they are now, it would give both me and my partner (both self-employed Fourcandles ) a chance to buy a bigger house so that our girls can have a room to themselves. Bring it on is what I say!

M_o_3

FOURCANDLES_2

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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?



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.



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

I am not moaning about anything really thatcher never made a mistake on selling , associations are the best and only way forward and as I have said many people better themselves and move on in their good time . And as has been said we all pay for many things through our taxes which we don't use.