is social housing subsidised?

CLAPTON

If the private sector housing is broadly the same price as sicail sector housing (comparing like for like i.e. number of rooms, size, general condition) then presumely there is no need for social sector housing as the private sector can make equivalent provision.

so why do we bother with social sector housing?

and why, in many areas is there a long waiting list for social housing?

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Considerably less than the benefit the public purse received (and continues to receive) from "right to buy". Local Authority run social houisng has been massively underfunded for decades, hence the need for such an investment just to bring the properties up to a basic minimum standard.

Maybe a condition of lifelong tenancy should be that the tenant has to sort out their own refurbishment, at least internally. As do long leaseholders in private housing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

PasturesNew wrote: »

The difference to me right now is: I could afford a social rent, I can't afford to equal the LHA rate, so I don't have a place of my own at the moment.

If private rents were what social rents were, I'd have rented months ago, I would have known I could afford it. But not the cost of the LHA rate.

£30's a lot. £30 doesn't sound a lot .... but when you roll that into the monthly amount, then add bills on top, it's unaffordable for many. I don't know where they find these cheaper places to make the LHA in the middle so high, I reckon they must be people already in their place.

New places that come to market are on at LHA or more. None lower. Or, one lower, if you go into a converted 3-bed terrace and have a 1-bed flat where your neighbours are 20-something bongo-players and dope smokers.

Social: £75 = £325/month
Private/LHA: £112 = £480/month

BIG difference on £1000/month, or less. Especially if your income is variable.

Without knowing the area you refer to, I couldn't comment. But a low private sector rent rate would indicate that social housing may be more accessable to you than in some areas.

Wee_Willy_Harris

CLAPTON wrote: »

If the private sector housing is broadly the same price as sicail sector housing (comparing like for like i.e. number of rooms, size, general condition) then presumely there is no need for social sector housing as the private sector can make equivalent provision.

so why do we bother with social sector housing?

and why, in many areas is there a long waiting list for social housing?

Social housing provides security of tenure, a very valuable consideration to many who rent. Whilst there are waiting lists for social housing, in many areas they are nowhere near as bad as the scare-mongers would have you believe.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Maybe a condition of lifelong tenancy should be that the tenant has to sort out their own refurbishment, at least internally. As do long leaseholders in private housing.

You would end up with housing of very variable standards. It's also worth remembering that despite the much vaunted "tenancy for life", the majority of tenancies are considerably shorter. Over half last under 10 years.

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing provides security of tenure, a very valuable consideration to many who rent.

Should that not carry a premium then?

CLAPTON

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Social housing provides security of tenure, a very valuable consideration to many who rent. Whilst there are waiting lists for social housing, in many areas they are nowhere near as bad as the scare-mongers would have you believe.

surely it would be hugely better then to address the issue of security of tenure in the private sector rather than to build more social housing

and if you have some figures to support the ready availability of social housing it would be most useful

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

Should that not carry a premium then?

The premium is reflected in the demand.

Wee_Willy_Harris

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely it would be hugely better then to address the issue of security of tenure in the private sector rather than to build more social housing

and if you have some figures to support the ready availability of social housing it would be most useful

I agree that more security in the private sector would close the disparity between the two tenures.

A number of posters have identified areas of interest for social housing. Cheltenham was the most recent I looked at, where a 3 bed property had recently been let in the town centre to an applicant with no priority who had been on the waiting list for under 12 months. Many areas using CBL will publish their recent lets.

Svenena

PasturesNew wrote: »

The difference to me right now is: I could afford a social rent, I can't afford to equal the LHA rate, so I don't have a place of my own at the moment.

Surely this means you would qualify for LHA, and therefore would only be have to find from your wages an amount similar to the price of social housing? When I was on a low income, LHA contributed to my rent and I only paid about half of it from my wages.

Also, as LHA is set at the median of available properties, exactly half of all available properties within an LHA band should be below it's value.