Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

princeofpounds wrote: »

Just been catching up on some of this thread, it's gone into quite an interesting area in terms of succession of tenancies.

A lot of people are understandably critical of this concept. Those defending it seem to rest their argument on two principles:

1. It's the legal right as that was the deal they signed up to
2. There is a principle of unlimited security of tenure.

The first point is totally irrelevant. Not because it isn't practically important - it is for past tenancies - but because it has no bearing on whether we should allow permanent tenancies and succession going forwards. Just because the taxpayer cut a bad deal at some point doesn't necessarily mean that it should be continued for all future council tenants.

The second is a somewhat curious argument, because it begs a question. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone to have lifetime and sometimes inter-generational security of tenure? Surely we should be asking this question rather than taking it as an unarguable axiom?

I'm genuinely interested to hear why because I can't think of any good reasons. I can think of some good reasons for limited secure tenure, but the award of lifetime and inter-generational security does seem quite excessive. It's certainly a perk that is entirely unavailable to the private renter, so would appear to be the provision of benefits better than what we would expect 'ordinary' people to live with. But even setting aside the relative argument - what is the real idea behind lifetime and succession tenure? Just because security is 'nice' to have doesn't really cut it.

The ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

The ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

I thought they were for those that could not afford to buy, am I completely wrong?

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

I thought they were for those that could not afford to buy, am I completely wrong?

I say again, for the hard of understanding, the ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

CharlieBilly

There's lots of cases like that its very common especially when you reach retirement age sell home go into sheltered housing

WhiteHorse wrote: »

I recently came across an elderly but quite fit couple who sold a good house for £100,000 and then successfully applied for a council house. They gave £50,000 to their children and kept the other £50,000 themselves.

How can that be right?

Wee_Willy_Harris

CharlieBilly wrote: »

There's lots of cases like that its very common especially when you reach retirement age sell home go into sheltered housing

Your point being?

CharlieBilly

Does there have to be a point I was stating a fact

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Your point being?

Callie22

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I say again, for the hard of understanding, the ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

But isn't that the essence of the problem here? The reality is that the world has changed, and it's not so simple as you can either afford to buy yourself a home or if you can't then you can get a socially provided one, in which you can either stay for the rest of your life or, if you're lucky, you can use as a stepping stone to ownership. Thinking very simplistically, it seemed much easier in the past - you were either 'poor' (council housed) or you were 'richer' and you could realistically afford to buy a house.

What's happened now is that many, many ordinary working people face the prospect that despite having 'reasonable' incomes, they might never actually own a home of their own and will never, ever be eligible for council housing. So you've got a massive group of people who are stuck, who are paying out a significant proportion of their income in rent for an insecure private tenancy, who can't save because rents are so high and who actually in the current circumstances would be better off not working as then they might actually become eligible for a council house and a secure, long-term tenancy at lower than market rates.

I'm just thinking aloud here, but given that the world and the provision of housing has changed so massively, can we as a society realistically afford to house people for life in council houses, no matter what their personal circumstances? There are probably many people renting privately who in real terms are living on much lower incomes than those in council housing - why is one group privileged with long-term tenancies and 'lower' rents and the other not? As a private tenant, I have to regularly reassess the kind of housing I can have based on my changing personal circumstances. Why is the right to state provided housing decided at one specific point and never really realistically reassessed? The lines are becoming so blurred that it's getting harder to say who should be eligible for this 'viable alternative to ownership', or even whether it should exist at all.

There's no easy answer to this issue and tbh, even as a (relatively ) impoverished private tenant I think that making council tenancies limited is a pretty stupid idea, unless it goes hand-in-hand with major reforms of the whole rental market.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I say again, for the hard of understanding, the ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

So is social housing for people that can afford to buy?

princeofpounds

The ethos behind secure tenancies and social housing is that they are a viable alternative to ownership or a mortgage.

But again, that doesn't actually answer the question - that's a description of what it is, but not why it should be that way, which is the crucial issue.

It sounds like a 'nice' ethos, but why should the taxpayers fund quasi-ownership and even quasi-inheritance for other people, many of whom will have passed the point of 'need' long long ago?

FOURCANDLES_2

Callie22 wrote: »

But isn't that the essence of the problem here? The reality is that the world has changed, and it's not so simple as you can either afford to buy yourself a home or if you can't then you can get a socially provided one, in which you can either stay for the rest of your life or, if you're lucky, you can use as a stepping stone to ownership. Thinking very simplistically, it seemed much easier in the past - you were either 'poor' (council housed) or you were 'richer' and you could realistically afford to buy a house.

What's happened now is that many, many ordinary working people face the prospect that despite having 'reasonable' incomes, they might never actually own a home of their own and will never, ever be eligible for council housing. So you've got a massive group of people who are stuck, who are paying out a significant proportion of their income in rent for an insecure private tenancy, who can't save because rents are so high and who actually in the current circumstances would be better off not working as then they might actually become eligible for a council house and a secure, long-term tenancy at lower than market rates.

I'm just thinking aloud here, but given that the world and the provision of housing has changed so massively, can we as a society realistically afford to house people for life in council houses, no matter what their personal circumstances? There are probably many people renting privately who in real terms are living on much lower incomes than those in council housing - why is one group privileged with long-term tenancies and 'lower' rents and the other not? As a private tenant, I have to regularly reassess the kind of housing I can have based on my changing personal circumstances. Why is the right to state provided housing decided at one specific point and never really realistically reassessed? The lines are becoming so blurred that it's getting harder to say who should be eligible for this 'viable alternative to ownership', or even whether it should exist at all.

There's no easy answer to this issue and tbh, even as a (relatively ) impoverished private tenant I think that making council tenancies limited is a pretty stupid idea, unless it goes hand-in-hand with major reforms of the whole rental market.

Yes I am sure we do have many on less pay, living in private rental but I guess many of these people are having to claim HB . Many who better themselves remain in HA house until they can afford to buy which they do in the end. My point is why change the rule on secure tenure? when they should be looking at secure tenure for private tenants?. 6-12 tenures are not good unless of course you can find a property like the 3 country estates near us that still rent homes locally plus National trust they want long term tenants but isue 12 month tenures so as long as you are a good tenant you can get a nice home on a long term basis, however the National trust told me the list is rather long for people waiting and so did the three estates . You could also say here is it getting abused ? some of these houses are being rented by some very well paid employees who are renting the homes due to location one I can name off hand is rented for £950 4 bed with a 1.5 acre paddock at an extras £20 pm a guy and his wife rent it (he said to me if he wanted to buy the same it would cost a fortune here) and have done so for the last 8 years should this estate ask them to leave as I have 2 children could afford that rent it would be ideal and it is under occupied ? . There are alos others on the country estate who have lived there for years and get HB for help with the rent and under the new rules for hb will be fine as the rents stil fall well below what the coalition have set for weekly max what about these people?.