Council houses for fixed terms only!

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

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.

It may be just symatics, but I would have thought the term "affordable" would be connected to income.

Wee_Willy_Harris

poppysarah wrote: »

Of course it isn't fair.

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

Then build more!

poppysarah wrote: »

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.

The difference between spending £2m on 11 houses or 20 is 9 houses. That's hardly going to dent the 10,000+ list you quote, is it?

Interestingly, as you mention Oldham, social housing is run by "First choice homes Oldham". Looking at recent lets for 2 and 3 bed houses to non priority applicants and without age restrictions, there were 9 in April, 9 in May and 17 in June. Of these, a considerable number had been on the waiting list for under 12 months. Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem there. Perhaps they have a shortage of supply of larger houses for larger families which cannot/will not be met by the private sector?

Miss_Liquorice

Speaking as someone who handles out of hours calls for various housing associations, I found that (in my experience) tenants are much more demanding than private tenants. For example, telling someone at 8pm that an engineer will fix their boiler at 10pm gets complaints about how they are paying for a service. Or somebody who stuck a nail through a water pipe and then became verbally abusive when told they would probably be charged for repairs. These are only two small examples, but there is a very noticeable attitude of the majority of council tenants that we speak to of a sense of entitlement.

If they owned their own home or privately rented, they would not get the level of service - I privately rent, and my letting agent won't even answer the phone outwith 9am-5pm! - and certainly I expect they will take money from my deposit for something (even though the flat is in the same condition as when I moved in). If I damaged my flat, I would expect I would get landed with the bill, just like if I owned a place and damaged it, it would be my problem to sort.

I think an end to the council houses for life can only be a good thing. The number of people I speak to in 3 bedroom houses for 1 person is shocking (likewise, on the other end of the scale, and 3 people in 1 bedroom flats, too)

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

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.

In terms of security it IS like for like. Pay your rent/mortgage, enjoy your home. Don't, and you face eviction. The only difference is that mortgages will be more constant than rent over their lifetime (someone who bought a like for like house 20 years ago will be paying less in mortgage repayments than the social tenant who took their tenancy at the same time) and, of course, social tenant will never reach the end of their rental obligation, unlike mortgages which have a fixed term. After 25 years, the mortgage should be paid off, but the rent continues to be due.

ninky wrote: »

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.

Of course it would. Those extra properties would force prices down, which may give some whos only option for security is social housing, the option to buy at a price they can afford. Many social tenants would like to own a home. The popularity of right to buy clearly demonstrated that.

ninky wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The Torys need the Lib Dems to support it through parliament. At the moment, even the tory MPs aren't 100% behind it.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

It may be just symatics, but I would have thought the term "affordable" would be connected to income.

No. Because, like EVERY other housing sector, the price is on the property, not the individuals ability to pay.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Miss_Liquorice wrote: »

Speaking as someone who handles out of hours calls for various housing associations, I found that (in my experience) tenants are much more demanding than private tenants. For example, telling someone at 8pm that an engineer will fix their boiler at 10pm gets complaints about how they are paying for a service. Or somebody who stuck a nail through a water pipe and then became verbally abusive when told they would probably be charged for repairs. These are only two small examples, but there is a very noticeable attitude of the majority of council tenants that we speak to of a sense of entitlement.

If they owned their own home or privately rented, they would not get the level of service - I privately rent, and my letting agent won't even answer the phone outwith 9am-5pm! - and certainly I expect they will take money from my deposit for something (even though the flat is in the same condition as when I moved in). If I damaged my flat, I would expect I would get landed with the bill, just like if I owned a place and damaged it, it would be my problem to sort.

I think an end to the council houses for life can only be a good thing. The number of people I speak to in 3 bedroom houses for 1 person is shocking (likewise, on the other end of the scale, and 3 people in 1 bedroom flats, too)

But you are speaking from an experience of ONLY social tenants and ONLY those who call out of hours. Of course your opinion, based on that very limited experience, will be biased.

Fang_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. Because, like EVERY other housing sector, the price is on the property, not the individuals ability to pay.

Mortgages? Private landlords that expect proof of income?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. Because, like EVERY other housing sector, the price is on the property, not the individuals ability to pay.

On that basis the rent would have to be £0.00 to make a property affordable to anybody. I would suggest that for someone on £60k that £1200 per months is affordable.

FOURCANDLES_2

Miss_Liquorice wrote: »

Speaking as someone who handles out of hours calls for various housing associations, I found that (in my experience) tenants are much more demanding than private tenants. For example, telling someone at 8pm that an engineer will fix their boiler at 10pm gets complaints about how they are paying for a service. Or somebody who stuck a nail through a water pipe and then became verbally abusive when told they would probably be charged for repairs. These are only two small examples, but there is a very noticeable attitude of the majority of council tenants that we speak to of a sense of entitlement.

If they owned their own home or privately rented, they would not get the level of service - I privately rent, and my letting agent won't even answer the phone outwith 9am-5pm! - and certainly I expect they will take money from my deposit for something (even though the flat is in the same condition as when I moved in). If I damaged my flat, I would expect I would get landed with the bill, just like if I owned a place and damaged it, it would be my problem to sort.

I think an end to the council houses for life can only be a good thing. The number of people I speak to in 3 bedroom houses for 1 person is shocking (likewise, on the other end of the scale, and 3 people in 1 bedroom flats, too)

Again the private sector do not get the same level of service , so you say if the private sector get poor service so should the H association tenant . Of course you will get rude people that is every where however a private tenant complains less as they are not protected with a secure tenure. I would also add Our H association charges you for any damage and chases you for leaving and not paying the rent.
I would also add a H association tenant has the same rights as a private tenant and as such has a right to repairs to be carried out in a reasonable time of course you as in any sector wil; get those who abuse this.I again question are people moaning as they care for the gen needy ? I think not lets face it we all no many H association tenants can go private however many would need help with the high rents so will go to the benefit agency for this and many are doing so do you think it may cost more?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fang wrote: »

Mortgages? Private landlords that expect proof of income?

Yes. Both properties for sale and for private rent are advertised at a price. If you can't afford it, there is little scope for the price to be reduced to a level at which you can. Equally, if you can easily afford it, you would not accept a price increase. The price, in both instances, is based on the property, NOT the individual.