We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
Council houses for fixed terms only!
Comments
-
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.
People's private property is their concern and responsibility, but council houses belong to us all, are maintained out of our taxes, and are under UK government control. They are totally different issues.
Just as privately rented houses belong to landlords, and are under their control. They can be forced to reduce rents, but they can also choose to sell those houses or otherwise take them out of the rental market.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »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.
Why do you think it is right for a tiny section of the population to have a lifelong right live in secure, government-owned, cheaply priced houses, and others not to?0 -
People's private property is their concern and responsibility, but council houses belong to us all, are maintained out of our taxes, and are under UK government control. They are totally different issues.
The majority of council properties are now run by housing assiciations and are maintained out of rental revenues. Even the affordable rents charged are sufficient for HA's to not only maintain and improve current properties, but to run at a surplus. And, of course, social housing tenants are tax payers too, many of whom will have subsidised buyers during the era of MIRAS, and continue to subsidise private LL's who can offset interest charges on their properties against income, so reducing tax liability.Just as privately rented houses belong to landlords, and are under their control. They can be forced to reduce rents, but they can also choose to sell those houses or otherwise take them out of the rental market.
And I hope many of them choose to do just that. With rental income capped and more properties on the market there will be more opportunities available for those who's only option for security at the moment is social housing.0 -
Why do you think it is right for a tiny section of the population to have a lifelong right live in secure, government-owned, cheaply priced houses, and others not to?
If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I am more interested in seeing the private rented marked brought UP to levels of security and affordability closer to that of the social sector, rather than reducing the social sector to that of the private rented market. Why should a good tenant, who pays their rent and looks after the property, still face the prospect of eviction at any time? Would YOU want to live like that?0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »If you have read my previous posts, you will see that I am more interested in seeing the private rented marked brought UP to levels of security and affordability closer to that of the social sector, rather than reducing the social sector to that of the private rented market. Why should a good tenant, who pays their rent and looks after the property, still face the prospect of eviction at any time? Would YOU want to live like that?
Why do you assume I don't live like that? I live in an expensive (and insecure) private rental, but I still don't agree with council houses for life, except, occasionally, in extreme cases of illness or disability.
The fact is, I am able to work, move, and everything else I need to do, without gobbling up scarce government resources .
A european-style private rental system would be great, but that is a seperate issue.0 -
Haven't read the entire thread, but the way a council house was used back in my home town was you had one when you first got married, then saved up and bought your own place, and then gave the council house back to the council, so a new generation was allowed to live in the house with cheap rent to allow them to in turn save up until they could afford to buy a house. This was in Scotland.
I then moved down south, and noted the following.
When council houses where sold off that made it a problem of supply and demand, loads of people wanted a council house but thre where none left, so the people that bought them secured finances on the council house they had bought and moved to a nicer area, with the tenants in the original council house paying a rent 5 or 10 times more than the original council house rent. So loads of families didn't get the "legup" given to so many for years, they then had to work like dogs to get a mortgage and house in a decent area, with property prices pushed up by people buying the same houses with a £200000 profit from their council house.
My dad was a finacial adviser before he retired, when my uncle in Stevenage was offered his council house he was advised to buy it, I think the price was about £8500, the house was sold for almost £180000 a few years later.
I suppose my viewpoint is from somebody that has been refused any kind of help frm the council to house his family at a reasonable cost, after a few years you get fed up with watching cheap housing being given to those who view it as a money spinner, rather than those who view it as a way to enable them to save for a better future for thier family then give it back.
My next door neighbour had a council flat in Hackney, when he moved to Essex he kept hold of it and rented it out, basically subletting, and makes a nice £800 a month tax free, this is wrong but how do you stop it? Here is my idea, you get the property on reduced rent for only a set number of years, then the rent gradually reverts to the average for the area, or how about your needs for social housing are reviewed every few years, with the main point being to keep an eye on disposable income, why should somebody have the right to cheap accomodation when others have to work like slaves to get through, obviously my viewpoint is probably influenced by the fact that the cheapest monthly rent, before I bought my current house, that I have had for a 3 bed house over the last ten years is £950pcm plus all bills and council tax.
The current system isn't fair, simple as that.0 -
Why do you assume I don't live like that? I live in an expensive (and insecure) private rental, but I still don't agree with council houses for life, except, occasionally, in extreme cases of illness or disability.
The fact is, I am able to work, move, and everything else I need to do, without gobbling up scarce government resources .
A european-style private rental system would be great, but that is a seperate issue.
No, it's a huge part of the same issue. The problem isn't one of social housing. The problem is within the private rented/owner occ sector.0 -
Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »No, it's a huge part of the same issue. The problem isn't one of social housing. The problem is within the private rented/owner occ sector.
Different opinions. I believe that we would be better off as a whole country if social housing tenancies were reviewed every two years or so, and people not fitting the criteria given say 6 months notice to vacate them.
I also believe that the current mess of private rentals needs to be tackled through gradual changes in housing law, but that these are seperate issues.0 -
Different opinions. I believe that we would be better off as a whole country if social housing tenancies were reviewed every two years or so, and people not fitting the criteria given say 6 months notice to vacate them.
I also believe that the current mess of private rentals needs to be tackled through gradual changes in housing law, but that these are seperate issues.
Housing is an issue. You can't separate its constituant parts and change them without having an effect on the whole. This is one of the reasons housing is in such a mess is that it is so often treated as several independant issues and the effects of one constituant on another are ignored.
As for renewable social housing tenancies? I just find it so disappointing that the greed of some has to be remedied by stripping rights from others. Social housing is intended to give a viable alternative to ownership. What you are proposing, with limited security of tenure, is to remove the very reason for its existance. People treasure that security, they value the fact that they can spend money on their property in the knowledge that they will be resident long enough to enjoy the benefits, they are more likely to play a positive role in their community because they know will be a part of it for as long as they so choose.
Of course, there is also a cost benefit in having stable tennacies, as many landlords will tell you. Tenants who keep moving are a bad thing for landlords. Void costs, re-let costs, termination costs, etc etc etc all add up. And, of course, a large number of youir tenants constantly moving will mean that more and more of your properties are tied up in the whole tenancy turn-around process, rather than actually let, which may cause more problems, regarding supply and demand, than it would solve. Repair and maintanence costs would also be likely to increase as temporary tenants will be less inclined to look after the property than longer term tenants.
What will end up happening is that a vast tracty of the population will just churn between the private sector and the social sector, providing no satisfactory outcome for anyone.
This is peoples lives we are talking about, not just numbers in a book.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards