Council houses for fixed terms only!

Mum_of_3_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

They have been on the waiting list for a couple of years now and would've jumped at the chance of having a 2-bed when they had two kids. Actually, they would jump at the chance of having one now!

The thing is WWH - very few people move out of LA/council housing! The most houses that come up around here are due to old people dying and their 3-bed houses becoming vacant and 4-beds are very, very rare.

These 3-beds are then taken up by young families who will no doubt stay there until the last one dies in say 50 years. This is regardless of the then needy family going on to earn 2x or 3x average wage, regardless of whether all the children have left the house, regardless of anything in fact unless they don't pay or cause a huge nuisance.

This is why I think this new rule is a good idea and should be implemented with checking people's income and number of people living there.

M_o_3

Jowo_2

A relative and his wife, both in full time employment and no dependents who could have afforded private rental or home ownership of a private property, are now the proud owners of her parents 3 bedroom council house which was purchased at a significant discount through Right to buy and means they have a tiny mortgage for a property now valued around 90% more than they paid.

They had a small council flat and swapped properties with her parents who then moved from their child's former council flat into a council bungalow for the elderly.

All of the process was legitimately done but it does show you why changes need to be made - a family size property has been lost to the community to a couple who had the means to live in private property and now have made a massive profit on it. The elderly parents could have remained in their original social housing property and have now moved into a type of property that is subject to huge demand by those with mobility problems.

ninky_2

this rule might also help with the not inconsiderable numbers of people who sublet their council houses (at private rental levels) when they are infact living elsewhere.

wherediditallgothen

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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:

I said the 'going' rate. It's this very British thing of a certain section of society wanting something without having to put in the hard work for it, even if it means other people suffer.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

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.

And many didn't take the right to buy bribe because they believed in the ethos of social housing.

Under-occupation isn't as widespread as many would have you believe. But what Cameron is twatting on about is taking away the rights of ALL social tenants, regardless of occupation levels. Even those who are overcrowded would lose security of tenure.

wodgerdodger

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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 .

The reason self employed often went to sub prime lenders was not that they didnt earn enough more a case they didnt like declaring what they really earned 'cos this would mean they would show higher profits and therefore pay more tax.

When High Street lenders started to compete with sub prime lenders by not checking declared incomes over 80 even 90% LTV's then as many self employed as employed went through normal channels.

The main business for sub prime were those who had track records of not honouring existing commitments NOT the self employed.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

They have been on the waiting list for a couple of years now and would've jumped at the chance of having a 2-bed when they had two kids. Actually, they would jump at the chance of having one now!

The thing is WWH - very few people move out of LA/council housing! The most houses that come up around here are due to old people dying and their 3-bed houses becoming vacant and 4-beds are very, very rare.

These 3-beds are then taken up by young families who will no doubt stay there until the last one dies in say 50 years. This is regardless of the then needy family going on to earn 2x or 3x average wage, regardless of whether all the children have left the house, regardless of anything in fact unless they don't pay or cause a huge nuisance.

This is why I think this new rule is a good idea and should be implemented with checking people's income and number of people living there.

M_o_3

Well, the argument seems to be that if they've been waiting for 2 years, why have they not secured private rented in that time?

I can't comment on the specifics of your family as I don't know the area. But 2 years in temp seems like a long time to me.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jowo wrote: »

A relative and his wife, both in full time employment and no dependents who could have afforded private rental or home ownership of a private property, are now the proud owners of her parents 3 bedroom council house which was purchased at a significant discount through Right to buy and means they have a tiny mortgage for a property now valued around 90% more than they paid.

They had a small council flat and swapped properties with her parents who then moved from their child's former council flat into a council bungalow for the elderly.

All of the process was legitimately done but it does show you why changes need to be made - a family size property has been lost to the community to a couple who had the means to live in private property and now have made a massive profit on it. The elderly parents could have remained in their original social housing property and have now moved into a type of property that is subject to huge demand by those with mobility problems.

It is most unlikely that a childless couple would be granted an exchange from a flat to family home. I fear you are being rather selective with the details of this story.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

I would say in fourcandles case, he has stated that to rent privately in his area costs approx £650 per month. I would say that was affordable on £59k salary. The £400 he is paying seems rather low.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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

I neither knew nor cared whether the noisy, foul-mouthed neighbours were tenants or owners, the point was they were awful but by being private tenants we could leave with one month's notice.