Council houses for fixed terms only!

Mrs_Optimist

I agree with Wee Willys post. However if the plans for fixed term council houses did come into play it would surely remove certain "rogue" elements from the Council tenancy allowing those in real need to have a home. It isn't my intention to post a "them and us" message ("them" being council tenants and "us" being private home owners/tenants) because like the previous poster picked up on, there is no typical tenant or homeowner. From DH's experience though, the majority of tenants that he personally has had to deal with have "played and abused" the system and still continue to do so, at the deteriment to others in more need.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

I agree with Wee Willys post. However if the plans for fixed term council houses did come into play it would surely remove certain "rogue" elements from the Council tenancy allowing those in real need to have a home. It isn't my intention to post a "them and us" message ("them" being council tenants and "us" being private home owners/tenants) because like the previous poster picked up on, there is no typical tenant or homeowner. From DH's experience though, the majority of tenants that he personally has had to deal with have "played and abused" the system and still continue to do so, at the deteriment to others in more need.

And any revised "system" will also be abused by the minority. That is a fact of life, rather than a rationale for changing the system. Much the same as the fact that the speed limit is often exceeded isn't an argument for doing away with speed limits, or even raising them. I have no desire to defend or protect those who abuse the system, but I will defend the system as I believe it to be both right and just.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

Sounds like where I lived for a while. I think it is probably more than coincidence to be honest, as the apple doesn't always fall too far from the tree. It depends from area to area, as some areas aren't exactly conducive to 'progress', but for someone to suggest that all council tenants are like these examples would be wrong.

If by the apple not falling too far from the tree, you mean that a child has seen the security that their parents enjoy in an area they are familiar with, and wish to emulate that, I would say that is fairly typical behaviour, replicated regardless of social boundries.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

i'm afraid this sort of sentiment is just not able to be indulged with the waiting lists as they are. basically they are expecting the next generation to live in overcrowded accommodation so they don't have to adapt. if they get ill they may well have to go into a home. this is the same for owner occupiers (whose equity even has to go towards paying for care).

The example quoted represents a tiny minority of social tenants and, as such, would have a negligable impact on any waiting list. The majority of social housing tenancies last less than 10 years (59%). 38% last less than 5 years. In fact, less than 20% last over 20 years, and within that 20% are those who have kept their secure tenancy but moved to a different address or addresses for any number of reasons (overcrowding/exchange/downsizing/nearer to employment or education/divorce etc). Under-occupancy in the social sector isn't the huge issue many would have you believe.

FOURCANDLES_2

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Agreed. Some tenancy agreements have always contained clauses to that effect. Lazy or politically motivated councils choose not to utilise them.


Agreed. I've seen the same.


Agreed. If you can't feed 'em (or house 'em), don't breed 'em.

Private renters have time limited tenancies, so why should council tenants expect extra privileges? If someone wants a tenancy for life, there's a word for it ... ownership.

Ownership some cant afford to buy , the very same person who may be helping you on and off the wc when you are old , hope they say to you if you cant go yourself sit in it:rotfl:

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Ownership some cant afford to buy , the very same person who may be helping you on and off the wc when you are old , hope they say to you if you cant go yourself sit in it:rotfl:

And that person on minimum wage is probably living in a crummy 2 bed flat whilst others earning £59k are living in a 3 bed place with a 150ft garden in a nice village and paying roughly the same rent because they would rather put all the money they are saving towards a place in France.
Mad system.

dboswell

great idea. why hasnt it been done before?

alot of people on low wages in non "critical" jobs are frustrated by council homes for life for others. seems very very unfair to people that are on less than £25k a year and have never resorted to council housing throughout their entire working life.

FOURCANDLES_2

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Yes, heard exactly the same myself.


Always the latest of everything in order to dispose of cash. That way they're 'in poverty'.

I knew one family who had seven cars and vans (the value of which I put at around £100,000), and another that kept horses!


Yep.


I went to several tenants & residents meetings and they were an eye opener.

The tenants were shouting abuse and demanding brand new bathrooms and kitchens. One said that it was outrageous because he 'hadn't had a new bathroom or kitchen' in 3 years' (easier than cleaning it, eh? Take the Rolls back James, the ashtrays are full). Another wanted every tree in the street cutting down because she didn't like the leaves blowing about (it was a rural area, too). She also wanted all the grass verges removing because her kids (five since you ask), got grass cuttings on their shoes!

BRAND NEW DECOR?? OH HOW ANGRY ARE YOU MATE you have made it up you read drivel you are clearly a moron oh how lucky these people are in your world they must be millionaires .GROW UP

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Under-occupancy in the social sector isn't the huge issue many would have you believe.

how do you justify the following then?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/council-tenants-may-be-forced-to-downsize-2037313.html

A total of 234,000 households in the social tenant sector are overcrowded while 456,000 are under-occupied, meaning people have more than one extra spare room, according to official figures.

almost half a million homes with more than one spare room is a pretty big deal imho.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

And that person on minimum wage is probably living in a crummy 2 bed flat whilst others earning £59k are living in a 3 bed place with a 150ft garden in a nice village and paying roughly the same rent because they would rather put all the money they are saving towards a place in France.
Mad system.

If you only look at extreme examples, any system seems mad. That's why it's important to broaden your mind and try to see the whole picture.