Council houses for fixed terms only!

mynameisdave

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Well in your view the only ones that really need social housing must long term unemployed as they struggle to get private rental property, anyone working can rent private and receive HB to top it up. So you wish to create an under class? as the unemployed if they better themselves will lose the house or they stifle their ambition in order to keep secure tenure.
This is all Tory BLUSTER where was the big story yesterday? lets face it H ASSOCIATION TENANTS WILL WORK BETTER THEMSELVES AND MOVE ON WHEN THEY CAN AFFORD TO and NO labour or Tory or lib/dem will stop that.

YOU, are evidence to the contrary.

£59,000 a year = ~£3,500 per month AFTER tax. More, if we assume the £59,000 is split between you are you're wife and you make use of the extra tax allowance.

Apparently private rental would be £650 a month. £750 per month for bills and spends gives you enough left over to save near as dammit the average PRE TAX wage.

Clearly people won't move when they can afford it.

Perhaps the more needy in private rental strugging to pay the bills could move into the HA property and NOT claim the money off the state that you point out is used to top their wages. Of course, to do that the people who no longer need the affordable rent would have to move on...

neverdespairgirl

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

This has been explained before, but for you........

The point of social housing is, and always has been, to provide an affordable and secure housing alternative to a mortgage for those who are unable to afford to buy.

Right. So wouldn't sorting out underoccupancy help?

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Right. So wouldn't sorting out underoccupancy help?

Underoccupancy is already being challanged. Most (if not all) social housing providers offer incentives for under-occupiers to downsize, succession to individual properties is denied when under-occupancy would result, full occupancy is expected at the start of the tenancy, etc etc etc. However, it isn't as huge a problem as it's made out to be. A certain level of under-occupancy is all but inevitable from those waiting for a suitable exchange, people with specifically adapted properties and those with social or support needs that would make a significant move undesirable. It needs to be remembered that this isn't just an issue of numbers and units. We're talking about real people and their homes.

neverdespairgirl

I don't think the hundreds of thousands of under-occupied properties can be catagorised as "isn't a huge problem as it's made out to be"

Morglin

It looks as though this whole idea was just Cameron running off at the mouth, and unlikely to ever be carried out:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/219cd202-9fc4-11df-927b-00144feabdc0.html

Lin

FOURCANDLES_2

Morglin wrote: »

It looks as though this whole idea was just Cameron running off at the mouth, and unlikely to ever be carried out:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/219cd202-9fc4-11df-927b-00144feabdc0.html

Lin

Of course it was, because he will never touch hard working H A tenants the torys only go after those on benefits . And as Our tory MP said it would only be for new tenants but he doubts very much it will happen ever as it will stifle the are of bettering oneself

FOURCANDLES_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think the hundreds of thousands of under-occupied properties can be catagorised as "isn't a huge problem as it's made out to be"

Just a point do we aso kick out many many private tenants claiming HB for a house that has one extra bedroom?.If we do wow are we going to have a lot out on the street.

C_Mababejive

Havent read all the posts but it seems like such a good move to put pressure on persistent dolehoppers but wait...if they get displaced from their council home,where do you think they will go? Why they will simply go rent privately on the nice estate..maybe rght beside you.

And what would that do to your neighbourhood?


No no,,i like to see the clear demarcation line.

It is my view that housing benefit should only be paid to registered social landlords and must never be paid to private individuals or businesses in the BTL industry or similar.

The reason? Well the idea is that by hard work and industry,you manage to afford to live in a private area.

Those who cant/wont work and are reliant on state aid,must live in areas offered by social landlords.

Labour has already tampered with this with its social engineering policies.

We see brand new very high spec new homes being built by social landlords and let out to dolehoppers to luxuriate in. We see dolehoppers being facilitated into nice private BTL semis and detached homes to luxuriate in.

Only yesterday i was working in what was previously a "nice" area.

Quite a few of the semis/terraced town houses on the row have now been let out. The one i was in was inhabited by a baby breeder. The street was awash with young feral kids with a bad attitude.

Here and there,the area dotted with for sale signs...the sign of decline..get out while you can.

The trickle becomes an avalanche.

The underclass are now the masters of the universe at least in the UK.

Wee_Willy_Harris

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think the hundreds of thousands of under-occupied properties can be catagorised as "isn't a huge problem as it's made out to be"

Within the social sector, you have both over and under occupation. When both are taken into account, the net figure for under occupation is about 200,000 (5% of total social housing stock). As I said, under-occupation will include those waiting for a suitable exchange, people with specifically adapted properties and those with social or support needs that would make a significant move undesirable. There is FAR more under-occupation within the private sector, both owner occs and empty homes.

FOURCANDLES_2

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Havent read all the posts but it seems like such a good move to put pressure on persistent dolehoppers but wait...if they get displaced from their council home,where do you think they will go? Why they will simply go rent privately on the nice estate..maybe rght beside you.

And what would that do to your neighbourhood?


No no,,i like to see the clear demarcation line.

It is my view that housing benefit should only be paid to registered social landlords and must never be paid to private individuals or businesses in the BTL industry or similar.

The reason? Well the idea is that by hard work and industry,you manage to afford to live in a private area.

Those who cant/wont work and are reliant on state aid,must live in areas offered by social landlords.

Labour has already tampered with this with its social engineering policies.

We see brand new very high spec new homes being built by social landlords and let out to dolehoppers to luxuriate in. We see dolehoppers being facilitated into nice private BTL semis and detached homes to luxuriate in.

Only yesterday i was working in what was previously a "nice" area.

Quite a few of the semis/terraced town houses on the row have now been let out. The one i was in was inhabited by a baby breeder. The street was awash with young feral kids with a bad attitude.

Here and there,the area dotted with for sale signs...the sign of decline..get out while you can.

The trickle becomes an avalanche.

The underclass are now the masters of the universe at least in the UK.

You visit a property which has been let and you come to the opinion this person is on benefits ? did you go through the drawers and intercept the post??. The thing is as people now divorce at a high rate how do you tell the difference between a baby breeder and a divorced mother chance are both are claiming benefits .