Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

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

So, they are just selfish and greedy then?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing rents ARE reviewed yearly already.

Not on a basis of household income, and not up to market levels.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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?

I personally like the flexibility to be able to up sticks and move within a month if my Dream Job suddenly becomes available on the other side of the country (or globe). Also handy to be able to move quickly if chav neighbours arrive next door. 5-10 year tenancies would be welcome for some, but definitely not all. The UK would benefit from a more flexible workforce.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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

Bingo! The real problem. Over inflated house prices. But, rather than address that, the political will would seem to be directed at attacking the rights of social tenants. Hardly fair, is it?

FOURCANDLES_2

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

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

Yes and your deposit has to be BIG that is if you can get a mortgage while self employed , self employed made up a lot of sub prime mortgage market for a reason they couldn't get one on the high street .

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Not on a basis of household income, and not up to market levels.

No, because their ethos is one of "affordable rents". To turn them all into grasping private landlords would defeat the point of social housing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I personally like the flexibility to be able to up sticks and move within a month if my Dream Job suddenly becomes available on the other side of the country (or globe). Also handy to be able to move quickly if chav neighbours arrive next door. 5-10 year tenancies would be welcome for some, but definitely not all. The UK would benefit from a more flexible workforce.

We already have different notice requirements for LLs and tenants withing the 88 housing act. I see no reason not to adopt something similar within the security of 5-10 year fixed lets.

FOURCANDLES_2

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I personally like the flexibility to be able to up sticks and move within a month if my Dream Job suddenly becomes available on the other side of the country (or globe). Also handy to be able to move quickly if chav neighbours arrive next door. 5-10 year tenancies would be welcome for some, but definitely not all. The UK would benefit from a more flexible workforce.

Why is it always the chav or noisy next door is a Tenant another silly myth

FOURCANDLES_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

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

No they have not they have over paid . It is this very British thing if one section suffers we should all sufferrrrrrrr oh the pain .:mad:

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Bingo! The real problem. Over inflated house prices. But, rather than address that, the political will would seem to be directed at attacking the rights of social tenants. Hardly fair, is it?

i didn't see many social tenants campaign against the right to buy. i also didn't see many who took up the offer of buying a cheap house pass that benefit on to anyone else.

right to buy is not all that different to lifetime tenure. both allow those who have clawed their way up the capitalist ladder to prevent those at the bottom from getting a step up.

holding onto a social housing property when you can afford not to - or one that is larger than you need - is just as selfish and capitalist as private landlords who hike their rents up.

there is nothing worse than the recently better off trying to prevent the recently badly off from getting the help they once needed themselves.