Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

bigjl wrote: »

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.

Most people rent HA homes now and most move on eventually very few stay for life it is a red herring

FOURCANDLES_2

Casiopeia wrote: »

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.

So you move your children around like gypsy every few years ??

FOURCANDLES_2

I would add if we all look between the headlines, the coalition more than likely wish this could be forgot about "under occupation" is not the big issue for them, Cameron just made one of his on the hoof comments , the big issue is HB Benefits which is the issue for this coalition etc many in HA are not on benefits and clearly many on here believe this to be true hence why they want HA to go in to private rent or buy, in most areas however many private tenants are on HB due to the high cost of rent which would not be the case if we adopted some EU rules on private renatl's .
The whole idea would only concern new tenants anyway AND YOU WOULD THEN NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE FOR DECADES.

magicgirl

wow!! have spent the last two hours reading this thread and am convinved i must have missed the point that keeps running thru my mind..

in principle, i agree with the plans. i also belive that in practice, it will not be a fair policy in any way shape or form.

i am a social housing tenant. I have a secure tenancy and I work. It makes my blood boil that i can barely afford to keep myself in work on account of the high childcare prices. I live in central london and my rent is in the £600-£700 range yet my wages are considered 'average'. I am the sort of person who would most likely be affected by this 'proposition' (that has now been suggested is pie in the sky but it has certainly made for a lively debate. )
I have three children in a two bed flat. I am shocked that people consider £700 high for renting a private house as if i wanted a two bed in private, i would be looking at paying £500 per WEEK. there is no way i could afford that and so i would have to move. if i wish to BUY a two bedroom flat in this area, an ex council property would cos me no less than £350k. despite these over inflated prices, i would only be a leaseholder and therefore, in 100 years or so, the property could be taken off me unless i renew the lease and that woud cost me close to the amount of the cost of the property anyway. If as an individual paying so much, you still have a time limit on your lease, why then do people feel it is so wrong for social housing tenants to have fixed terms? reviews - if implemented properly - could work both ways. those in greater need can be assisted in finding something more suitable. those who's circs have changed could be 'nominated' to assisted purchase or an intermediary rent... if their needs changed again, then they would not be 'lost' by having 'given up' a property. Obviously, there are many flaws in this system but as i say, i do believe the underlying principle is a fair one but sadly, the implementation would not be.

My circs are, thankfully, about to change and i hope to no longer have a need to stay in this area. i only ended up in social housing after being made homeless 13 years ago. it took five years in and out of hostels and b&b's beofre i was offered a flat and i was unable to work on account of being homeless. as soon as i was able to, i DID go to work and sadly, it bagean a dreadful debt spiral. i understand people who want to keep their properties but in the position i am in now, i would like to be helped out of social housing. there are many schemes that allow me to do this only i cannot get a mortgage due to my financial history. i am hoping in a few years when i have proved myself to be better with money, i will but thankfully, my h2b is in a different position and we can work together. i think that social housing SHOULD be for people who NEEED it and sadly, its the people who stay put when they don't need it that take out of teh system as the lack of housing means people in need are renting privately and we end up paying more taxes to pay the housing benefit for these over inflated private rents.

puddy

I think that it would be unworkable to align social housing accommodation to the tenants income etc. People will simply use it as another barrier to work and improvement. If there was a review every 5 years or so, people would just make sure that they're out of work during the review so are needy enough for accomodation

FOURCANDLES_2

magicgirl wrote: »

wow!! have spent the last two hours reading this thread and am convinved i must have missed the point that keeps running thru my mind..

in principle, i agree with the plans. i also belive that in practice, it will not be a fair policy in any way shape or form.

i am a social housing tenant. I have a secure tenancy and I work. It makes my blood boil that i can barely afford to keep myself in work on account of the high childcare prices. I live in central london and my rent is in the £600-£700 range yet my wages are considered 'average'. I am the sort of person who would most likely be affected by this 'proposition' (that has now been suggested is pie in the sky but it has certainly made for a lively debate. )
I have three children in a two bed flat. I am shocked that people consider £700 high for renting a private house as if i wanted a two bed in private, i would be looking at paying £500 per WEEK. there is no way i could afford that and so i would have to move. if i wish to BUY a two bedroom flat in this area, an ex council property would cos me no less than £350k. despite these over inflated prices, i would only be a leaseholder and therefore, in 100 years or so, the property could be taken off me unless i renew the lease and that woud cost me close to the amount of the cost of the property anyway. If as an individual paying so much, you still have a time limit on your lease, why then do people feel it is so wrong for social housing tenants to have fixed terms? reviews - if implemented properly - could work both ways. those in greater need can be assisted in finding something more suitable. those who's circs have changed could be 'nominated' to assisted purchase or an intermediary rent... if their needs changed again, then they would not be 'lost' by having 'given up' a property. Obviously, there are many flaws in this system but as i say, i do believe the underlying principle is a fair one but sadly, the implementation would not be.

My circs are, thankfully, about to change and i hope to no longer have a need to stay in this area. i only ended up in social housing after being made homeless 13 years ago. it took five years in and out of hostels and b&b's beofre i was offered a flat and i was unable to work on account of being homeless. as soon as i was able to, i DID go to work and sadly, it bagean a dreadful debt spiral. i understand people who want to keep their properties but in the position i am in now, i would like to be helped out of social housing. there are many schemes that allow me to do this only i cannot get a mortgage due to my financial history. i am hoping in a few years when i have proved myself to be better with money, i will but thankfully, my h2b is in a different position and we can work together. i think that social housing SHOULD be for people who NEEED it and sadly, its the people who stay put when they don't need it that take out of teh system as the lack of housing means people in need are renting privately and we end up paying more taxes to pay the housing benefit for these over inflated private rents.

Valid point however you live in london not a good example when it comes to realistic house prices or rents.

FOURCANDLES_2

puddy wrote: »

I think that it would be unworkable to align social housing accommodation to the tenants income etc. People will simply use it as another barrier to work and improvement. If there was a review every 5 years or so, people would just make sure that they're out of work during the review so are needy enough for accomodation

If it was based on what you earn it can't work when we moved in my wife worked part time I worked full time situation remained the same for a few years then our situation improved . My point the ones who the tabloids pick out ie work shy would never be in a better position ever but the majority of HA tenants in my opinion if they were means tested would have to move in to private rent and the lack of secure tenure the majority although depends where you live would not be able to buy.People need to stop looking at it in black and white terms it is not that simple.

bigjl

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

In priority areas they give HA and shared ownership to police officers, teachers ,nurses etc etc

Ah, the old chestnut of the keyworker, getting priority for housing in all the new lush developments, sorry to burst your bubble but I have been a keyworker for 10years, and have applied for loads of these, guess what, even with 2 kids I didn't get a look in.

The added bugbear for the Police and Ambulance service (in particular) is that we get to visit the "needy" people that get these Housing Association properties several times a shift, normally when they have been "dissed" or "my boyfriend doesn't understand me and I have taken 3 paracetamol 2 minutes before calling 999", nice to know that we get priority for this affordable housing.

Funny how very few people in my line of work live anywhere near Central London, normally 30 miles away from London if i'm honest.

Sorry Fourcandles but it is that simple, why should I have to work 60 hours a week just to afford a roof over my head, when people with the means to afford someting else, use the savings they make on rent to live the high life, have six holidays a year etc.
I know of people in social housing on £100k a year working in the city.

At the end of the day, nobody helped me, and if these people that no longer need the assistance of cheap housing should be made to give it back so that a new generation of families can get a legup, the sunject of people that even sublet the extra rooms in their council flat to make even more money really make my blood boil, such as my next door neighbour, making £800 a month tax free.

From what I have seen it would be a very good idea to limit the length of these tenancies.

puddy

exactly and because new 'affordable' housing is nothing like the prices of traditional council housing, key workers dont get such a good deal even if they are allocated this housing.

so back to what i was saying, fourcandles says that the definition of whether to move people on wouldnt be decided on the tenants income, well what else would it be decided on?

Wee_Willy_Harris

puddy wrote: »

exactly and because new 'affordable' housing is nothing like the prices of traditional council housing, key workers dont get such a good deal even if they are allocated this housing.

so back to what i was saying, fourcandles says that the definition of whether to move people on wouldnt be decided on the tenants income, well what else would it be decided on?

The tenants wishes? Isn't that the whole point of security?