Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I repeat ... why should council tenants (who are subsidised by the taxpayer), enjoy greater privileges than private owners or renters?

I am minded of a news item some years ago in which a council tenant died (after 60 years in the same house), and said in his will that 'my son is to have my council house'.

And how, exactly, is that a "greater privilege" than a private owner?

WhiteHorse

WhiteHorse wrote:

I am minded of a news item some years ago in which a council tenant died (after 60 years in the same house), and said in his will that 'my son is to have my council house'.

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

And how, exactly, is that a "greater privilege" than a private owner?

It illustrates the attitude.

Wee_Willy_Harris

WhiteHorse wrote: »

It illustrates the attitude.

What attitude? He was granted a secure tenancy with the right of succession. Maybe he had more than one child and wished to decree his wishes as to which should benefit from the RIGHT to succeed. In much the same way that a homeowner may stipulate how his home is disposed of in the event of his death. Of course, one option the owner has which the social tenant doesn't is to give it away to the local cats home.

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

What attitude? He was granted a secure tenancy with the right of succession. Maybe he had more than one child and wished to decree his wishes as to which should benefit from the RIGHT to succeed. In much the same way that a homeowner may stipulate how his home is disposed of in the event of his death. Of course, one option the owner has which the social tenant doesn't is to give it away to the local cats home.

If we are talking adult offspring they generally should make their own arrangements.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

If we are talking adult offspring they generally should make their own arrangements.

Suggest you research the subject before pontificating further. The rules for succession are readily available.

C_Mababejive

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

There are more HB claimants than there are properties on "social housing estates". What would your solution to that be?

Build more flats...

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Suggest you research the subject before pontificating further. The rules for succession are readily available.

Suggest you learn to read before patronising further. The word used was SHOULD. I am aware of the rules of succession.

Wee_Willy_Harris

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Build more flats...

A fine suggestion. More social housing, of all types, would certainly ease the pressures of demand. It would also drive down the demand for private rented properties, deflate the rental market and, in so doing, deflate house prices generally. This, in turn, would bring the prospect of buying into the reach of many who are waiting for social housing as a viable alternative to a mortgage, again pushing down demand, and again pushing down house prices. I like the cut of your jib.

concerned43

debrag wrote: »

I agree with this, once you can afford to rent privately you are no longer in need of a council house. Plently near me with one 1 or 2 people living in them

Unbelievable - so instead of having stability of a secure tenancy to live in a home and raise a family or enjoy retirement after many years of paying the rent for that home - they are meant to go into 'insecure' property which means they can be kicked out after six months just because they can afford to pay the rent.
Cameron really needs to think twice about this - what a load of rubbish and dont see it ever being passed in the Commons.
I can see the private landlords loving this as they will be the only winners in this senario!
all those who think this is a great idea are either looking at the big bucks that can be made or jealous of social housing tenants.
Thanks goodness I have my council house and no one can touch my secure tenancy!!

Mum_of_3_3

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

What attitude? He was granted a secure tenancy with the right of succession. Maybe he had more than one child and wished to decree his wishes as to which should benefit from the RIGHT to succeed. In much the same way that a homeowner may stipulate how his home is disposed of in the event of his death. Of course, one option the owner has which the social tenant doesn't is to give it away to the local cats home.

The point being it's mental that a tenant has the right to tell the landlord who should have the property if they die.

If a tenant dies then it should go to the first in the general housing queue, it should not go to his grown up children! If people want that right then to me they should buy their own place. If this is what is allowed then no wonder some council tenants have this entitlement attitude.

M_o_3

PS I'm not talking about tenants where a parent dies leaving another parent and underage children in the property (although I guess they would have a joint tenancy anyway?).