Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

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.

YES because I have a secure tenure contract, and I adhere to it, as my customers expect me to do with any contract I have with them, and I am with in the law to do so .
As I have said many including posters on here are getting things that if they sat down and thought about it that they do not need child benefit , winter fuel payments many private tenants getting H benefit could live in a smaller house but unlike me you cant see what they have or are getting so it doesn't bother you . Did you know in many villages some oap's sold there own homes and got an old peoples bungalow they then handed the money to there children to get on the property ladder another little money spinner . The thing is the torys will if they do only ever attack people in council houses H association houses and privare Tenants who are claiming benefits THEY PROBABLY SEE ME AS LEGAL AND WORKING THE SYSTEM AS THEY DO.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

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.

Well, looking at the sketchy details in the story, we have a net figure of just over 200,000 under-occupiers within the social rented sector. But it doesn't say how many of those live in adapted properties, how many provide support/childcare for extended families, how many are awaiting a suitable transfer/exchange, how many are unable to exchange due to impending redevelopment etc etc etc. It still represents only about 5% of the overall stock and in some areas, where they have difficult to let properties, this may well be the best use of their stock.

If under-occupancy is an important issue to you, then the private sector, owners in particular, is where you should concentrate your attentions. Not the minows in the social sector.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

Or maybe the system should be fine tuned to stop the extreme examples. It would not be that difficult.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Or maybe the system should be fine tuned to stop the extreme examples. It would not be that difficult.

By "fine tuned" you mean introduce legislative changes and establish the necassary administration and monitering to moniter tenants personal details. And, of course, the eviction process if they choose not to go quietly. So, you have extra legislation (and cost), extra admin (and cost), extra tenancy turnover (and cost), extra court usage (and cost), none of which serves either the tenant or society as a whole. Interesting plan.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

By "fine tuned" you mean introduce legislative changes and establish the necassary administration and monitering to moniter tenants personal details. And, of course, the eviction process if they choose not to go quietly. So, you have extra legislation (and cost), extra admin (and cost), extra tenancy turnover (and cost), extra court usage (and cost), none of which serves either the tenant or society as a whole. Interesting plan.

just a yearly declaration from tenants stating income, if over certain level for the aproperty (say 30% of gross earnings) rent goes to market rate or you move out. Very simple really.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

just a yearly declaration from tenants stating income, if over certain level for the aproperty (say 30% of gross earnings) rent goes to market rate or you move out. Very simple really.

Which, as I say, would need legislation, administration and lead to further voids, turnovers and court action, all of which cost. Hardly proportionate to the issue, is it?

Salz

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing in Cheltenham is now run by Gloucerstershire Homeseeker www.gloshomeseeker.co.uk . As recently as June this year, a 3 bed house in Cheltenham town centre was let to a general needs (bronze) applicant who had been on the list for just 18 months. (see recent lets www.gloshomeseeker.co.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/20.aspx?LettingCycleID=46 ) Have you applied to Gloucestershire Homefinder?

Thanks Wee Willy - I am on the list - (Bronze status). This week there was one house in Cheltenham - there are 37 above me which isn't too bad - we may get there before my son starts 3rd year
Can I just add, I don't like the fact that I have to apply for social housing - I feel as both me and my partner are working full time, that it is a sad state of affairs when you are forced into this position. I will not take one if I can get a private rental that is within my price range, and I would like to think that I would give it up when I could afford private renting, but, lets face it, human nature dictates that we are all out for ourselves, and will take what we can get.
Yes, I can understand people getting fed up with Fourcandles - it winds me up too, but, can anyone on here honestly say that if they had a lovely home at cheap rent in an area they like, with a secure tenancy for life that they would give it up for the benefit of someone they didn't know?;)

ILW

Salz wrote: »

Thanks Wee Willy - I am on the list - (Bronze status). This week there was one house in Cheltenham - there are 37 above me which isn't too bad - we may get there before my son starts 3rd year
Can I just add, I don't like the fact that I have to apply for social housing - I feel as both me and my partner are working full time, that it is a sad state of affairs when you are forced into this position. I will not take one if I can get a private rental that is within my price range, and I would like to think that I would give it up when I could afford private renting, but, lets face it, human nature dictates that we are all out for ourselves, and will take what we can get.
Yes, I can understand people getting fed up with Fourcandles - it winds me up too, but, can anyone on here honestly say that if they had a lovely home at cheap rent in an area they like, with a secure tenancy for life that they would give it up for the benefit of someone they didn't know?;)

As said before, the problem is the system, not the individual.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Which, as I say, would need legislation, administration and lead to further voids, turnovers and court action, all of which cost. Hardly proportionate to the issue, is it?

I believe it is.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

As said before, the problem is the system, not the individual.

And social housing isn't the root, cause or remedy to the problem. Salz post should demonstrate that much to you. The changes proposted will make no difference to the housing issues faced in this country. There is no solution to housing need in simply increasing ti's turnover. That is, in fact, just worstening the issue.