The End of Social Housing for Life

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Social housing landlords will be able to check their tenants' finances after two years in the property, under planned reforms.

Following the review, tenants could be evicted if their financial situation is deemed to have improved enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11802378

Applies to new tenants only, but a good idea overall IMO.

When we have such a shortage of housing in general, and millions on waiting lists for social housing, it's unfair to have people who could afford to rent privately or buy sitting in cheap subsidised council houses for life.

Force them out and you free up places for people who genuinely can't afford the private market.

halight

Wont forceing them out push up the prices in the private market. Which in turn will make a good deal of houses not afordable for many????

staffie1

I agree, and this principle could apply in other areas of public expenditure too.

jamespir

we going to end up with families out on the streets its bloody stupid

Callie22

I wonder how much someone would have to earn or own in order to be classed as 'too rich' for social housing. I can't help but think that all that will happen is that people will end up having to leave council housing and then find a private rental, only for them to need the rent to be paid/subsidised by HB/LHA. Can't see it pushing rents up much if the amount people can pay is going to be limited by what they can claim.

In principle I'm not against the idea of reassessing the need for social housing at some point, but I wonder how this is actually going to work in reality.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

halight wrote: »

Wont forceing them out push up the prices in the private market. Which in turn will make a good deal of houses not afordable for many????

As it only applies to new tenants, it won't make much difference in the short to medium term.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

jamespir wrote: »

we going to end up with families out on the streets its bloody stupid

We already have around 150,000 homeless families in "temporary accomodation" at any given time.

Don't you think it makes sense for the homeless to be housed in council housing, whilst those who can afford it have to move out into the private sector?

Jowo_2

They do something like this in other countries where social housing is seen as either temporary in nature or ends when the household income reaches a certain level. Social housing is now allocated based on need and giving someone a secure lifetime tenancy seems to suggest that a person will be needy for their entire lifetime which is wrong.

Same with the other flaw where people are entitled to a larger property when they have more kids but there is no requirement for them to move to smaller properties when their kids leave the nest. This is one reason why there are huge bottlenecks as it advantages tenants who get entry into social housing when they are needy but are never required to make adjustments when their circumstances change.

In France, I believe that a person pays rent that is pegged to their income and perhaps that's a better way of doing it.

I do worry about the admin overhead in checking people's salary or how it will disincentivise the tenants from bettering themselves as they will just associate it with the loss of their accommodation.

halight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We already have around 150,000 homeless families in "temporary accomodation" at any given time.

Don't you think it makes sense for the homeless to be housed in council housing, whilst those who can afford it have to move out into the private sector?

Really i never knew that the number was so high:eek:

Yes i do agree that council housing should be for anyone who needs housing but can not aford to houses themselfs.

I just think there has to be a better way to go out it than this.

At the moment i have to say that i can not think of one:) But there really should be something better we can do

jamespir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We already have around 150,000 homeless families in "temporary accomodation" at any given time.

Don't you think it makes sense for the homeless to be housed in council housing, whilst those who can afford it have to move out into the private sector?

perhaps but the cost of private renting will rise to an extent that only the super rich salary bands are going to be able to afford it

so what they will basically do is make one family homeless just to put another in

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

halight wrote: »

Really i never knew that the number was so high:eek:

Few do....

A lot of posters seem to think that because there isn't an epidemic of rough sleepers, there isn't a mass homelessness problem in the UK, and therefore, there isn't a shortage of housing.

Nothing could be further from the truth though.

There are only around 1400 people sleeping rough in the UK. Another few tens of thousands live in substandard accomodation, such as converted garden sheds, tents, caravans, etc.

Then there are around 150,000 households, perhaps 400,000 people, being housed by councils in temporary accomodation such as B&B, usually at great expense to the taxpayer.

And a further million or more living with family and friends in overcrowded conditions.

The waiting list for council housing is around 4.5 million people, or 1.7 million applications, and the council waiting list in some areas is as long as 35 years.

And of course, UK population continues to grow at 400,000 a year, forming 250,000 new households a year, but we build just over 100,000 new houses.

The housing shortage is real, and getting critical. It's why house prices soared, and now that mortgages are being rationed, it's causing rents to soar instead.