Council houses for fixed terms only!

wherediditallgothen

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Pretty much the same as owner occupiers maximising their property prices and private landlords maximising rents then?

If I own something I can do what I like with it.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Discounted, I agree with. That's the current principle behind affordable rents. But the question was..... "How is the taxpayer funding their housing association tenancy? "

Because if no discount was given to those who do not need or deserve it, the money could be in effect refunded to the taxpayer, who in most cases paid for the construction of these properties in the first place.

FOURCANDLES_2

ninky wrote: »

apparently being on a long waiting list and being good neighbours means they've earned it......?

Waiting list had nothing to do with it really , the farmer wanted his cottage back to turn in to a holiday let after 17 years his choice, The rent was on par with council rent this house came up I asked I got problem with that ?, I then bettered myself and now if they could but they will not as it will only affect new tenures they wish to punish me .I HAVE BETTERED MYSELF AND ARE SAVING HARD AND WORKING HARD AND TOOK THE CHANCE WHEN IT CAME ALONG. Many who complain would do also .

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

absolutely. it all comes down to the motivation of selfishness. however, i thought the purpose of social housing was to create a fairer society and protect those with greatest housing need?

Indeed. And the current issue is 2 fold.

1. Demand outstripping supply. In simple terms, there is not enough social housing to meet current demand. This is due to many factors, not least of which the hangover from "right to buy". However, this is hardly a good enough reason to punish the tenant. Lets deal with the supply side of the issue. Build more social housing.

2. High house prices/private rents. If private rents were more affordable, the demand for social housing would be reduced to a more manageable level. The same applies to affordable properties to buy. At present, high house prices are being kept inflated by those already on the ladder using equity to support purchases. Effectively pulling up the drawbridge to those following. These same people are the ones who on one hand brag that their house has multiplied in value since purchase, then whine because their own kids can't afford to buy. I am yet to see any proposals to address the massively inflated house prices which support high rental levels in the private sector.

FOURCANDLES_2

ILW wrote: »

Because if no discount was given to those who do not need or deserve it, the money could be in effect refunded to the taxpayer, who in most cases paid for the construction of these properties in the first place.

Tax payers live in them .

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Because if no discount was given to those who do not need or deserve it, the money could be in effect refunded to the taxpayer, who in most cases paid for the construction of these properties in the first place.

And benefited from the PROFITABLE levels of rent charged. Another one confusing "affordable rent" with "market rent" and assuming the former is subsidised.

FOURCANDLES_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Indeed. And the current issue is 2 fold.

1. Demand outstripping supply. In simple terms, there is not enough social housing to meet current demand. This is due to many factors, not least of which the hangover from "right to buy". However, this is hardly a good enough reason to punish the tenant. Lets deal with the supply side of the issue. Build more social housing.

2. High house prices/private rents. If private rents were more affordable, the demand for social housing would be reduced to a more manageable level. The same applies to affordable properties to buy. At present, high house prices are being kept inflated by those already on the ladder using equity to support purchases. Effectively pulling up the drawbridge to those following. These same people are the ones who on one hand brag that their house has multiplied in value since purchase, then whine because their own kids can't afford to buy. I am yet to see any proposals to address the massively inflated house prices which support high rental levels in the private sector.

If we followed many euro countries private rents are capped by local councils and you are a secure tenant for as long as you wish unless the owner sells, you breach your contract etc etc hence why banks lend to euro tenants for refurbishments as they are long secure tenants. Why would I wish to put myself in the nightmare scenrio of 6- 12month right off you go I want to sell etc .

ninky_2

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Indeed. And the current issue is 2 fold.

1. Demand outstripping supply. In simple terms, there is not enough social housing to meet current demand. This is due to many factors, not least of which the hangover from "right to buy". However, this is hardly a good enough reason to punish the tenant. Lets deal with the supply side of the issue. Build more social housing.

2. High house prices/private rents. If private rents were more affordable, the demand for social housing would be reduced to a more manageable level. The same applies to affordable properties to buy. At present, high house prices are being kept inflated by those already on the ladder using equity to support purchases. Effectively pulling up the drawbridge to those following. These same people are the ones who on one hand brag that their house has multiplied in value since purchase, then whine because their own kids can't afford to buy. I am yet to see any proposals to address the massively inflated house prices which support high rental levels in the private sector.

there is no reason why you couldn't do both those things (build more social housing and tackle high house prices and private rents) as well as remove lifetime tenures on social housing.

to my mind the problem has become so big we need to use many different tactics to tackle it.

it seems that stagnant house prices and rising inflation combined with stricter mortgaging (no lie to buy etc) will see house prices reduced in real terms. limiting the amounts paid in housing benefit will also put a downward pressure on rents.

Wee_Willy_Harris

FOURCANDLES wrote: »

If we followed many euro countries private rents are capped by local councils and you are a secure tenant for as long as you wish unless the owner sells, you breach your contract etc etc hence why banks lend to euro tenants for refurbishments as they are long secure tenants. Why would I wish to put myself in the nightmare scenrio of 6- 12month right off you go I want to sell etc .

I, for one, would dearly like to see the end of the Section 21 notice and, with it, the amateur private LL.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ninky wrote: »

there is no reason why you couldn't do both those things (build more social housing and tackle high house prices and private rents) as well as remove lifetime tenures on social housing.

to my mind the problem has become so big we need to use many different tactics to tackle it.

it seems that stagnant house prices and rising inflation combined with stricter mortgaging (no lie to buy etc) will see house prices reduced in real terms. limiting the amounts paid in housing benefit will also put a downward pressure on rents.

If we really want to see realistic house prices and a more open housing market, then we also need to address all these issues within the owner occupier sector as well. Doing away with the amateur landlords would be a start. Perhaps a tax on under-occupied owner/occ properties would also help. We keep being told that we're all in this together, yet the owner/occs seem to want immunity while penalising everybody else.