Council houses for fixed terms only!

ILW

I am now getting very worried as I keep finding myself agreeing with Ninky.

poppysarah

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The allocation of social housing is currently based on need. That seems fair enough to me.

Of course it isn't fair.

There isn't enough to meet needs. That's needs not demands.

Whether we should spend more housing big families - is that a need or just a want? After all if you're a home owner you don't get bumped up to a bigger house for free just cos you keep popping out kids.

My council chose to spend 2M on 11 homes for bigger families...

There's 11,000 registrants on waiting lists in Oldham - hows it fair to rehouse 11 big families over the needs of the other 10989?

2M is even at new prices is 20 2-3 bed houses. It's more than that if you bought terraces.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

no need to be sarcastic.

it's not just about being a millionaire it's about no longer having a need for the housing you are allocated. plenty of people on above average incomes stay in council housing. and they also stay in houses with 2 or more spare rooms. so that is no longer meeting a housing need really, is it?

It's meeting the entire reason behind social housing, which was an affordable alternative to a mortgaged property for those who could not afford it. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that owner/occs who have a couple of spare rooms should also be penalised or forced to sell?

FOURCANDLES_2

The point is need , need in my case was I was on the waiting list, I was low paid, and all the houses for private were for £600-£750 I could have gone private but would have had the rent subsidised with benefits . However I was given the one I am now in and the only benefit I have claimed has been child tax credit we were over the amount for working tax credit. We better ourselves now get the odd gripe from the odd one in the village at look how much they must be earning cars holidays etc , HAVE THEY GOT THE NEEDY AT HEART? no they do not want us to have it because they do not have it but they would be happy if we were sat here skint in low paid jobs and thats a fact.

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

The point is need , need in my case was I was on the waiting list, I was low paid, and all the houses for private were for £600-£750 I could have gone private but would have had the rent subsidised with benefits . However I was given the one I am now in and the only benefit I have claimed has been child tax credit we were over the amount for working tax credit. We better ourselves now get the odd gripe from the odd one in the village at look how much they must be earning cars holidays etc , HAVE THEY GOT THE NEEDY AT HEART? no they do not want us to have it because they do not have it but they would be happy if we were sat here skint in low paid jobs and thats a fact.

I think most would not bat eyelid if in your bettered circumstances you were now paying a market rent, and any extra the HA got from you was then put towards helping those with a true need.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

I think most would not bat eyelid if in your bettered circumstances you were now paying a market rent, and any extra the HA got from you was then put towards helping those with a true need.

Yes but the market rent is that a market rent, it is not fair or affordable rent ask the benefits agency. In fact the houses are not worth the rent people are paying And neither are some houses worth the prices people are paying . Again it is a case suffer because I am ohhh very british.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

I think most would not bat eyelid if in your bettered circumstances you were now paying a market rent, and any extra the HA got from you was then put towards helping those with a true need.

HA is a not for profit organisation

Fang_3

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

The point is need , need in my case was I was on the waiting list, I was low paid, and all the houses for private were for £600-£750 I could have gone private but would have had the rent subsidised with benefits . However I was given the one I am now in and the only benefit I have claimed has been child tax credit we were over the amount for working tax credit. We better ourselves now get the odd gripe from the odd one in the village at look how much they must be earning cars holidays etc , HAVE THEY GOT THE NEEDY AT HEART? no they do not want us to have it because they do not have it but they would be happy if we were sat here skint in low paid jobs and thats a fact.

You should be paying market rent. It's people like you that will lose out thanks to the Tories and that gives me a warm feeling, not unlike a hug from the baby Jesus.

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

It's meeting the entire reason behind social housing, which was an affordable alternative to a mortgaged property for those who could not afford it. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that owner/occs who have a couple of spare rooms should also be penalised or forced to sell?

you're not comparing like with like. owner occupiers have taken on the responsibility to house themselves. those in social housing are being housed by the state (although some may pay highly subsidised rent). there is also a large waiting list for social housing. however, private housing does not have a waiting list. if you look you will find estate agents and websites advertising homes all over the country for sale.

i find those who own extra houses and leave them largely empty distasteful and i'd like to see a tax system that discouraged such, absolutely. but forcing them to be sold would not reduce the waiting lists for social housing.

anyway we could argue this around in circles. clearly those who are hoping for a state subsidized house for life whether they continue to need it or not are going to be disappointed by any change in security of tenure.

Fang_3

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

HA is a not for profit organisation

It wouldn't be making a profit if that were the case. Do you actually understand anything or do you just react with whatever comment you think sounds intelligent?