Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

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

In some cases, yes it will be.

Wee_Willy_Harris

CharlieBilly wrote: »

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

Well, no you weren't. Clearly you feel there is a massive problem with people retiring and getting social housing. Perhaps you could provide some numbers to help us see this in perspective?

FOURCANDLES_2

Not a big fan of tabloids sunday mirror but have been pointed to a good article by Eamon Holmes on this subject it is on line take a look .

Wee_Willy_Harris

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.

The main difference has been the rise in ownership and the cost of buying. These factors have pushed buying out of the reach of many whilst also having an upward pressure on private rents. To penalise social tenants for this would seem unfair, to say the least.

Callie22 wrote: »

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.

Eligability for social housing isn't based around employment. I am not aware of any providers who target, or even offer priority to, the unemployed. Our current benefits system protects most from the harsh realities of affordability. Ironically, the one group for whom affordability may still be an issue, and who may garner priority as a result, are owner/occs.

Callie22 wrote: »

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.

Equaly, therer will be many within the owner/occ sector who have small/nil mortgages and enjoy ALL the protection of ownership for less cost than even the social tenant. However, the issue you describe is the result of over-inflated house prices. Surely that should be addressed rather than stripping the social sector of their housing rights. What would that achieve?

Callie22 wrote: »

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.

Address the private sector issues (both owner/occ and private rent) and the percieved inequality with social housing goes away. But reducing the security of social housing will have zero impact on what is the real issue, and the inequality between these sectors will simply become wider.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

In some cases, yes it will be.

So what roughly are the criteria, eg could a family with 2 children earning say £250k pa get a HA house whilst also owning a couple of other properties and renting them out?
I am not trying to stir up an argument, I am just very curious to know how it all works.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

So what roughly are the criteria, eg could a family with 2 children earning say £250k pa get a HA house whilst also owning a couple of other properties and renting them out?
I am not trying to stir up an argument, I am just very curious to know how it all works.

Some providers will have certain stipulations regarding property ownership, but most would allow such a family to apply. Obviously, their lack housing need would place them at the bottom of the list, as it were, and it would be unlikely that they would qualify for anything other than low demand housing in a low demand area, which they would then have to live in as their principle home. So, it's possible, but very, very unlikely.

Casiopeia_2

I think it's only fair to limit tenancies. Why, out of any two people on similar incomes, should one be in a better financial situation than the other, because they happened to be entitled to community resources at some point in the past?

I also don't understand how anyone can say that people in 'too large for needs' council houses aren't subsidised by taxpayers. Every 'too large' house, could be used to take a family on benefits out of an expensive privately rented house. This would cut their council's housing benefit bill, which we all pay.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Casiopeia wrote: »

I think it's only fair to limit tenancies. Why, out of any two people on similar incomes, should one be in a better financial situation than the other, because they happened to be entitled to community resources at some point in the past?

Same reason why out of any two people on similar incomes, one should be in a better financial situation than the other, because they happened to have bought/inherited a property at some point in the past (often taking advantage of MIRAS when available)?

Casiopeia wrote: »

I also don't understand how anyone can say that people in 'too large for needs' council houses aren't subsidised by taxpayers. Every 'too large' house, could be used to take a family on benefits out of an expensive privately rented house. This would cut their council's housing benefit bill, which we all pay.

Simply reducing the price of privately rented accommodation would have a far greater impact.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Same reason why out of any two people on similar incomes, one should be in a better financial situation than the other, because they happened to have bought/inherited a property at some point in the past (often taking advantage of MIRAS when available)?



Simply reducing the price of privately rented accommodation would have a far greater impact.

Trouble is that in the real world, reducing the price of privately rented accomadation means no more private rentals, especially in popular areas.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Trouble is that in the real world, reducing the price of privately rented accomadation means no more private rentals, especially in popular areas.

If by that you mean that those private landlords who currently rent would simply sell up, you may well be right. But that would lead to a downward pressure on house prices, as well as the remaining private rents, bringing more properties to within the reach of those who would otherwise be making use of social housing.