Council houses for fixed terms only!

wodgerdodger

delain wrote: »

It wouldn't have been such a squeeze if a previous government hadn't sold them all off in the 80's and not bothered to build any more... Hmmm I wonder which party did that :think:

Surely since the 80's and 90's sell off of Council housing the slack has been taken up by new developments where a proportion of the homes on new developments have to be ear marked for "social housing" to get planning permission.

Where the money went from council sales I have no idea but pretty sure didnt all go into local authority coffers.

Do "council" houses actually exist as before?? Didn't Councils generally shift the burden on to Housing Associations

I have never been involved with renting a council property so my perceptions could be flawed but to introduce means testing which it would be however you dress it up is going to be fraught with problems and who would set the parameters or ceilings on earnings? IMO there would have to be regional variations as there is such a large variation on rental costs in major cities and geographic locations.

clutton_2

WWH - "Then perhaps the private rented sector needs to be brought UP to a level closer to social housing, rather than the provision of social housing dragged DOWN to that of the private sector? "2

this just shows your lack of objectivity when discussing housing provision in E&W .....

if you want equality of tenancy between private and social provision, then the thing that needs to change more than anything is the legislation...

councils find it MUCH more difficult legally to evict tenants, making tenants from hell much more of a problem on council estates than if they were in a private property;

councils and HAs get their LHA directly from the benenfits agencies - private landlords dont unless they have vulnerable tenants (hard to prove);

i have seen council properties in such appalling states of repairs that if i had a property in such nick, i would be hauled up before the magistrates soon as blinking,

council tenancies can be "handed on " to the next generation in certain circumstances, private landlords are under no such obligation

local authorities have a statutory responsibility to house certain demograhic groups.. private landlords dont...

i could go on

there are hundreds of thousands of great private landlords (there are well over 1million private landlords in total) - and maybe a couple of hundred council/HA landlords


it is almost impossible to compare the two.....


wodger doger asks ""Where the money went from council sales I have no idea but pretty sure didnt all go into local authority coffers. ""

it went to central government and disappeared into the depths of their coffers...... this was one of THE most shameful policies of its time... the money clearly should have been ring-fenced for more house building......

ILW

elaine373 wrote: »

I am a council tenant.making way for bigger families when mine have flown the nest does not worry me.I have rented from housing associations and now live in a 3 bed with 4 children. (council) what does bother me is the possible change to tenancies where once i had relative security , it seems i will no longer have that.I have paid from my own pocket to rent my home and if i had been able to get a mortgage i would have. seems my 25 year of rent payments wont count for anything, nor the fact that i have spent alot of money upgrading my home and making it "habitable" to live in.I agree something needs to be done but this does scare me.I am hoping my tenancy stands for something and only new tenancies are for 5 -10 years,then reviewed.I know some Housing associations have already done this.

I would consider yourself very fortunate to have had 25 years of subsidised rent.

Svenena

I saw this on BBC Breakfast this morning, and they were saying it wouldn't affect existing council tenants, only new ones, so those in situ have nothing to worry about.

Personally I think it's a great idea. If those who were fortunate enough to have had a positive change in circumstances had to move to the private sector, it would free up properties for those in real need, which is what council housing should be for.

delain

wodgerdodger wrote: »

Surely since the 80's and 90's sell off of Council housing the slack has been taken up by new developments where a proportion of the homes on new developments have to be ear marked for "social housing" to get planning permission.

Where the money went from council sales I have no idea but pretty sure didnt all go into local authority coffers.

Do "council" houses actually exist as before?? Didn't Councils generally shift the burden on to Housing Associations

I have never been involved with renting a council property so my perceptions could be flawed but to introduce means testing which it would be however you dress it up is going to be fraught with problems and who would set the parameters or ceilings on earnings? IMO there would have to be regional variations as there is such a large variation on rental costs in major cities and geographic locations.

I'm all for that policy (every development needs social housing) because it means that people who can't afford private rents don't always get lumped together on big estates, which are depressing places, imo

It also means that the children are all going to different schools, rather than he schools in the middle of the estate where low achievement is the norm, because there are some problem families who bring the schools down, it's seen as a bad thing (socially) to do well in some schools. Before I get shot, that is only my opinion, I'm entitled to it, you don't have to agree!

I'm certainly not advocating the building of new large council estates (flats) those are the last things we need. Just that there should be more houses built, but spread out within existing communities.

elaine373

arby wrote: »

you think 5-10 years would be too short for you? what about everyone who's trying to take care of their own needs in private rented who get a maximum of 6 months security with 2 months notice at any time after that? The disparity is huge. Some people need to wake up. Council housing should be an emergency measure while people get back onto their feet. It should be clean, warm and habitable, but nothing more.

Sorry, but the thought of being put into unsecured short time, expensive housing does scare me and i dont see why i should pay the price of Thatcher`s mistakes.I have put alot into my home and I did that believeing i had more security than i might have in the future.The shortage of housing is down to the sale of council homes and not because people stay in their homes until they die,imho.Council homes were for social housing and should never have been sold. I agree that there is too much of a gap between private and social housing.Sorry but i like the security i have at the moment.Doesnt mean i wouldnt move on when i have outgrown this house.I have already downsized once and would do it again.Just want to be able to feel some stability.

princeofpounds

I would consider yourself very fortunate to have had 25 years of subsidised rent.

Indeed, 25 years of payments from the taxpayer to them is the *reality* of the situation.

I think this is an excellent idea. I don't mind stability for a multi-year period, but awarding these tenancies for life is just ridiculous - we stopped that in private rental market decades ago - and it's just not fair on those not lucky enough to get the subsidy (many of whom are equally needy if not more).

It's one of the interesting bits of cognitive dissonance in the welfare state. It's biggest supporters think that people should pay according to ability and receive according to need. (For the record, I think we need some form of welfare state, so this is not a criticism of the system but of the woolly thinking of many of its supporters).

That's fine, but when it comes to council houses they seem perfectly willing for people to receive according to needs-they-had-once-but-no-longer, which is actually very unfair under socialist principles.

ninky_2

marmalize wrote: »

so are you really saying that just because someone chooses to have kids when they are unable to provide sufficient accommodation for them ...that an elderly couple who have worked all their lives and paid into the 'system' and are happily living among their friends and support system in a 3 bed property should be turfed out to make way for the 'breeders'????......

if you can afford the kids you should be able to afford to rent a bigger house council or private...it's called responsibility....:eek:

an elderly couple in a council house is unlikely to have worked all their lives. and they aren't going to be turfed out. they will be homed in smaller accommodation.

that said, i don't think that council houses should ever have more than 3 bedrooms. if people choose to have larger families they will just have to share. many people with large families shared in the past. it's inconvient and not entirely pleasant but not life threatening. parents in one room, girls in the other and boys in the third.

ninky_2

i'm far from being a tory supporter but i actually think this is quite a good idea. not sure about the 5 or 10 year tenancy. i don't see what is wrong with 12 months. private renters do not get more than this.

elaine373

ILW wrote: »

I would consider yourself very fortunate to have had 25 years of subsidised rent.

I agree, Did i say i wasnt grateful. In fact I am VERY grateful.:)

( from BBC website-"Any changes would apply to future, rather than current, tenants", Mr Cameron said.) I am also grateful to have read that line.seems my secure tenancy may be exactly that,I will still downsize when the time is right.