Council houses should be allocated on fixed-term , NOT for life.

tomterm8

They should change the tenancy of all council tenants. There should be a maximum 5 year lease, after which time the council tenant has to reapply for council housing.

marklv

Batchy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10855996



Well that throws a right clanger in the works...
Looks like buying is the end of the ladder... no more gold plated houses. No more gold plated pensions, nor gold plated jobs...

You work hard, ...you get rewarded.
You play hard ...you get rewarded.
You do nothing... you get nothing.

I knew I voted tory for good reason!

Well done...

Typically idiotic Tory policy. It seems nothing changes with these boneheads, does it? This means that council tenants will effectively be denied security of tenure for no apparent reason other than to move people on to meet demand. What about elderly and infirm people? Are they going to be expected to abandon their residences to make room for new people? 90 years old being thrown into the streets? The more I see their policies the more I hate the Tories and everything they represent.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

Typically idiotic Tory policy. It seems nothing changes with these boneheads, does it? This means that council tenants will effectively be denied security of tenure for no apparent reason other than to move people on to meet demand. What about elderly and infirm people? Are they going to be expected to abandon their residences to make room for new people? 90 years old being thrown into the streets? The more I see their policies the more I hate the Tories and everything they represent.

Try the BNP instead, then marklv. It's the party closest to your anti-immigrant, left wing economic, populist nonsense ideal.

You know it makes sense.

marklv

nomoreboomandbust wrote: »

Shakethedisease wrote: »

News to me. Where have they said that ?



Aaah. Slight problem there then, since waiting lists for new council house tenants are 5-10 years long in places.

Not if you are a Somalian with 10 kids in tow, right to the front of the queue:(

Too damn bl**dy right! Foreigners with lorryloads of annoying brats are always welcome, but if you're British, white and elderly you just get told to shut up and die. This is modern Britain.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Try the BNP instead, then marklv. It's the party closest to your anti-immigrant, left wing economic, populist nonsense ideal.

You know it makes sense.

You're right. But the BNP is too small, ridiculed and insignificant to matter. What I want is for one of the major parties to swing in this direction.

wherediditallgothen

marklv wrote: »

Typically idiotic Tory policy. It seems nothing changes with these boneheads, does it? This means that council tenants will effectively be denied security of tenure for no apparent reason other than to move people on to meet demand. What about elderly and infirm people? Are they going to be expected to abandon their residences to make room for new people? 90 years old being thrown into the streets? The more I see their policies the more I hate the Tories and everything they represent.

It means that social housing will now be a rung on the ladder rather than the end of the line, (well that appears to be the intention at least).

Most of the 90 year olds you are referring to will no doubt be exempt so I hear, as this will only apply to new tenants from what I understand.

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

You're right. But the BNP is too small, ridiculed and insignificant to matter. What I want is for one of the major parties to swing in this direction.

Well it has happened in the past.

PasturesNew

Speaking as somebody would would never, ever, ever qualify for a council house (where I grew up they preferred couples to singles, which annoyed me as they had two incomes) .... I do think it's wrong when people stay in a council house, yet earn a lot and even buy holiday homes or even a BTL (or several), because they've got a cheap house for life.

On the other hand, re-assessing people could be troublesome. I'd set the rules probably to something like: 5-10 years in the first instance, then reassessed every 5 years for situation and finances... but on the finances side, it needs to be looked at not "what are you earning today", but what have you earnt in the next 5 years and a judgement put down to decide how likely that was to continue. Some people will have a short blip. Aside from that, any household with a household income of more than 2x the average should be told to look elsewhere... although if you're self-employed you might be in a position to hide most of your income (e.g. by shovelling it in a pension). So, overall.... it's not easy to pinpoint what's right/wrong is it.

Batchy

I think that its necessary for some, and even when they are reassessed they would still qualify.

But seriously, Let me just walk through a like for like example.

Take two people
one brought a house had two kids and worked in a rather well paid job for most of their life
one got a council house (or housing association) had two kids and worked in a rather well paid job for most of their life

effectively both earnt the same money during their lifetime...

When one brought got to a ripe old 80years of age, he had to go into care home, they had to sell the house to pay these fees. Leaving the kids homeless basically, since they both still lived at home.
When one in social housing got to 80years of age, they too went into care, thye fee's were paid by the government but the house was signed over to the kids who still live in their family home, very happily.

I just dont see how this is FAIR... it just isnt.

A council house should only be made available while it is necessary, how you would deem necessary would be 3-5 year reveiws. If your earning enough to save, then money should be put aside from savings in rent, to buy a house.
The council social housing should serve as a platform to enable low paid FTBs to save, without having to pay the high cost of private renting.