Council houses for fixed terms only!

Wee_Willy_Harris

bigjl wrote: »

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.

Then you should report your neighbour to the housing provider.

Oh, and there is a whole world outside London. It would be unwise to change policy just to suit one very small corner of the country.

bigjl

My neighbour owns his house where we live, it is his previous address that he sublets, unfortunatley I don't know where it is or I would have done so, I would also think that the same problem is the same in any large city, i still think the problem is more of a city problem so to speak, mainly due to the large immigrant population that you tend to get in cities, also, like I did lots of people move to a large city after Uni, if my wife and I had access to a Council Flat with say rent of about £80 pw, for say 3 or 4 years when we first had our kids I wouls have been able to save up a sizable deposit for a house rather than just the minimum 5%.
Means testing for council and HA properties would be a good start, the houses are, in my view, a way to help when you need it, just like other benefits, but they also shouldn't be there just because somebody is to lazy to get off there bum and work. The whole syatem is unfit for purpose, I see it many times at work when an old dear is almost a prisoner in their flat due to the council not putting them in a block with a lift or on the ground floor, then some who know how to work the system get a nice garden fat when they are fit and healthy.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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.

The simple answer here is that when a HAs income goes above a certain level, then their rent is adjusted to the market rate. This would have two benefits.
It would motivate people to then buy, thereby freeing up properties for those with a greater need.
If they decide to stay put, the surplus could be used by the HA to go towards building or aquiring more property for those in need.
Seems an ideal solution to me with no obvious downside.

puddy

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

in an ideal world, of course, but its not and the world has moved on from the 40s and 50s (in this country especially) where council houses were for those who couldnt afford to buy. so a tenant would wish to stay in their council home even if they are earning a huge amount of money, why wouldnt they. but this means that there is a lack for those who are in desparate need, families in b + b for example, families renting 2 rooms because there isnt anywhere else

of course the long term plan should be to build more 'council' homes, not these 'affordable schemes', but until that happens, unfortunately because people dont act in a socially minded manner, the government will need to force the issue and put legilsation into place to prevent people hogging up accommodation when they could be renting privately or buying

puddy

ILW wrote: »

The simple answer here is that when a HAs income goes above a certain level, then their rent is adjusted to the market rate. This would have two benefits.
It would motivate people to then buy, thereby freeing up properties for those with a greater need.
If they decide to stay put, the surplus could be used by the HA to go towards building or aquiring more property for those in need.
Seems an ideal solution to me with no obvious downside.

of course theres an obvious downside. if people want to keep their home, all they'll do is ensure that their income doesnt go above that level, whether officially or not

ILW

puddy wrote: »

of course theres an obvious downside. if people want to keep their home, all they'll do is ensure that their income doesnt go above that level, whether officially or not

That is not correct, they are not going to be evicted, just made to pay a market rent. If they wish to commit fraud to avoid this there are measures in place to avoid this.

FOURCANDLES_2

puddy wrote: »

in an ideal world, of course, but its not and the world has moved on from the 40s and 50s (in this country especially) where council houses were for those who couldnt afford to buy. so a tenant would wish to stay in their council home even if they are earning a huge amount of money, why wouldnt they. but this means that there is a lack for those who are in desparate need, families in b + b for example, families renting 2 rooms because there isnt anywhere else

of course the long term plan should be to build more 'council' homes, not these 'affordable schemes', but until that happens, unfortunately because people dont act in a socially minded manner, the government will need to force the issue and put legilsation into place to prevent people hogging up accommodation when they could be renting privately or buying

We do not want to back to the days of council houses on large developments I think those days are long gone the most you will get now is 6-10 spread over a large private development with some rental, some shared ownership, and some affordable development .

FOURCANDLES_2

puddy wrote: »

of course theres an obvious downside. if people want to keep their home, all they'll do is ensure that their income doesnt go above that level, whether officially or not

BAN ambition mmmmm coalition wouldn't like that.

ILW

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

BAN ambition mmmmm coalition wouldn't like that.

If anyone would turn down a promotion or chance to earn more purely to keep a discounted rent, they do not have ambition and it is just an excuse. If someone has the go and talent to better themselves, they should be paying their way in life, and proud to do it.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

If anyone would turn down a promotion or chance to earn more purely to keep a discounted rent, they do not have ambition and it is just an excuse. If someone has the go and talent to better themselves, they should be paying their way in life, and proud to do it.

Yes we are, paying more tax with the more your earn easily out ways the £2,500 k you save over a year by not renting an insecure private house , Employing 2 part time staff,putting money in to the local community , being a law abiding citizen , abiding by your housing contract, what more can some one do ?.This all seems fine to my local councillor(tory) and even my mp My councillor I can understand as in his words if you move out they will house some baby breeder from outside the area who will let the house turn in to a tip and I will have the 3 houses owners by you on my back and probably others in the village , as for my MP(tory) you have a contract and you adhere to it I see no problem . So we have many issues I have mine why I will not go yet and others have their's why I should stay it is not that black and white.