Council houses for fixed terms only!

FOURCANDLES_2

ninky wrote: »

an elderly couple in a council house is unlikely to have worked all their lives. and they aren't going to be turfed out. they will be homed in smaller accommodation.

that said, i don't think that council houses should ever have more than 3 bedrooms. if people choose to have larger families they will just have to share. many people with large families shared in the past. it's inconvient and not entirely pleasant but not life threatening. parents in one room, girls in the other and boys in the third.

And you base this fact on what?? clearly many , many, council house people were working hence how they bought the houses.

bryanb

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Lets make it clear recent statistics say 40% council /association tenants pay their rent and are not in reciept of benefits , 70 % pay there rent but are in reciept of some form of benefits such as housing benfit, council tax benefit , tax credits,income support etc etc etc

110% altogether-That's statistics for you!

FOURCANDLES_2

ninky wrote: »

fourcandles - you were on a waiting list for 17 years for social housing. clearly the list is very long. your household income is now 59k before tax. yet you still think you should live in social housing???

agreed you should not be out of pocket for the improvements. but what would be wrong with reimbursing the costs of the improvements and allowing the house to be given to a family in greater need?

Any one can put their name down for local affordable homes in fact I know a police officer and his wife who live in an association house in our local town his wife was a tenant before they were married. They I doubt would give it up with out reward.
No I will not give it up in fact the 3 neighbours have said don't you dare leave .I will how ever go when I can afford it and not before and as my MP said your a secure tenant go when you wish at odd with his boss I think .

wherediditallgothen

bryanb wrote: »

110% altogether-That's statistics for you!

85% of statistics are made up on the spot.

FOURCANDLES_2

bryanb wrote: »

110% altogether-That's statistics for you!

And if the statistic are correct many mortgage payers are debt ridden I suppose I will suffer for people not living within their means.

FOURCANDLES_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

85% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Bit like the ones form the con dems and the daily mail:T

wherediditallgothen

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

Any one can put their name down for local affordable homes in fact I know a police officer and his wife who live in an association house in our local town his wife was a tenant before they were married. They I doubt would give it up with out reward.
No I will not give it up in fact the 3 neighbours have said don't you dare leave .I will how ever go when I can afford it and not before and as my MP said your a secure tenant go when you wish at odd with his boss I think .

With a household income of £59K I think you could afford to go. Just a hunch.

FOURCANDLES_2

bryanb wrote: »

110% altogether-That's statistics for you!

clearly a typo error 40-60 I am sure the clever spotted it.:rotfl:

ninky_2

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

With a household income of £59K I think you could afford to go. Just a hunch.

the issue would be having to cut back in other areas of lifestyle that they had become accustomed to. affording to pay for a new kitchen and bathroom etc suggests a certain level of disposable income.

i don't think social housing tenants should be paying to update kitchens etc. given that the property doesn't actually belong to them.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Doshwaster wrote: »

The clue is in the phrase "owner occupier". They *own* the property so they can do with it whatever the want. Council tenants don't own the house, the Council does (actually, we all own the house as Council taxpayers)

As most social housing is now under housing assiciation control, it is of no interest to the "taxpayers" (Of course, social housing tenants are taxpayers too). Secure tenancies were created to give social tenants the same security as a mortgage, so I see no reason not to include owner occupiers in any scheme to free up under-occupied properties and ease the strain on the housing market. Perhaps a tax on underoccupation would be fairer for all concerned, the revenue being used to build more much needed social housing.