The End of Social Housing for Life

miamoo

I think this will affect the very people, that they say they are trying to help. People on benefits getting back into work. So they get a job, no chance of getting a mortgage (no work history etc) have to move into private rented accom, which is scarily unsecure.
You could hyperthetically have to move house every 6 months, depending on the landlord. I think the government should offer everyone a mortgage on a house (within reason) no matter what their financial cicumstances. There are so many people who have no chance of ever getting a mortgage and I dont think its fair.

sjaypink

miamoo wrote: »

I think this will affect the very people, that they say they are trying to help. People on benefits getting back into work. So they get a job, no chance of getting a mortgage (no work history etc) have to move into private rented accom, which is scarily unsecure.
You could hyperthetically have to move house every 6 months, depending on the landlord. I think the government should offer everyone a mortgage on a house (within reason) no matter what their financial cicumstances. There are so many people who have no chance of ever getting a mortgage and I dont think its fair.

Interesting point.

Is there ever a case for a government backed mortgage scheme? Would it (perhaps they acting as guarantors) cost less than keeping people in subsidised (? < I still take issue with this but I'll roll with it ) housing, and/or off and on housing benefit for their lives?

Could it be whats really needed to aid motivation, work ethic, pride and true social mobility?

I believe many years ago local councils used to offer mortgages to those unable to obtain from the old skool 'bank manager'. Not sure how this worked or when it ended - anyone know?

PasturesNew

My friend was offered about £25-26k to move out of her 4-bed council house. £350/month she pays for that, in a nice town in Essex. She has 5 kids (1-18 years) living with her and her husband. I told her not to do it. They then followed that up with another letter a couple of months later offering it again. I told her not to do it.

On her estate, an identical house in the private renting market, of which there are a few on RM most of the time, is currently about £1200/month - and I pointed out to her that to move out, to buy, she'd need to raise a mortgage of about £250k, which she couldn't do on her husband's salary, which is about £33k and directly linked to property.

She was actually considering taking the money and trying to buy.

dawyldthing

lemonjelly wrote: »

What I am suprised by is that there is nothing here to tackle under occupation. IME that is an equally significant issue, where a family is in a house, kids move out, 2 (or even 1) adult(s) remain in the 3 bed house.

They don't need a 3 bed house. At the same time we have families overcrowded in flats.

The adults with the kids moved out should also be looking to downsize, to free up the stock to those who are now those in need.

That doesn't appear to be happening though. Maybe it isn't such a popular idea?

They do, or they seem to be doing it in parts of Derbyshire as I've heard a few times of the council writing to tenants that have underoccupancy offering them alternative housing and a grant to help them redecorate/reallocate etc.

dawyldthing

I used to watch a programme on the BBC I think it was about the local governments trying to find the owners of empty houses - there should be a 5 year limit and if its not found then surely there is something they can do about it.

There was a study by the government not too long ago (i think it was the government, maybe Labour) that said that the minimum liveable wage should be £7.50 an hour, which sounds about right. But as it is at the moment people on minimum wage on a full time job are lucky to walk away with little over £10,000 a year after tax and national insurance. I read with interest the other day the government bleating about giving everyone more tax allowance, so it meant that we get £170 a year more, BUT the national insurance is going up 1%, so basically they are giving it in one hand and taking it in another!

I really think they should invest the social housing money made on more housing, as then it will mean that it will rejuvinate it and mean there are more houses available. I think they should look into rejuvinating different areas, as some areas have loads of places that could be redone but because of the reputation of the area no one wants to live there.

The one thing i think the government needs to think about is stability for children up to 16 years old as it really isn't fair if they are moving out to different areas and schools as it is ultimately the most important years of their lives and needs to properly be considered

Gary1963

I rent privately on an estate that has social housing. The private sector have one allocated parking space and the social housing have two! I can not afford to run a car but those in social housing often run two! Now if you can afford to run two cars then something is wrong. Social housing should be for those that really need it not those that enjoy low rents and then can afford all the things that those of us who rent in the private sector can not!

ceridwen

miamoo wrote: »

I think this will affect the very people, that they say they are trying to help. People on benefits getting back into work. So they get a job, no chance of getting a mortgage (no work history etc) have to move into private rented accom, which is scarily unsecure.
You could hyperthetically have to move house every 6 months, depending on the landlord. I think the government should offer everyone a mortgage on a house (within reason) no matter what their financial cicumstances. There are so many people who have no chance of ever getting a mortgage and I dont think its fair.

I foresee one slight snag with that - the Government simply cant afford to give out mortgages to anyone anyway. I havent tried to get a mortgage or loan for some years (and was always used to getting what I wanted when I wanted no problem at all at that time) - so I have no idea how hard/easy it is to get a mortgage now. My feeling is that anyone who is obviously capable of repaying a mortgage will get given one anyway by one firm or another - and those who arent given a mortgage are deemed "bad risks" and the economy simply cant afford for anyone else to take on a mortgage/loan that is really going to be unaffordable and a sensible person would know that fact and not ask in the first place.

Thats not to say I dont feel sorry for those who have to cope with the insecurity attendant on being in the private rented sector - because I do. I would hate to have to put up with some of the things I notice. But we do, as a Society, have to accept now that people simply must not be loaned any money EVER for anything unless they are realistically able to repay it. I do object to people saying "Give us a loan" - when realistically it would probably turn into a gift and the people asking probably know that fact at the time they ask.

Generali

Social housing should be no more for life than the dole.

How's this for a suggestion. If you lose your way in life and need some help then the state should be there to help. For a couple of years perhaps, pretty generous support should be available including a council house if necessary. 2 years should be enough time for people to get back on their feet, retrain if they feel the need or find some work and build up a bit of a buffer for hard times.

After 24 months, if you still feel you need council housing then you get a 2 bed flat. Got kids? Well kids can share a room. Got teenage kids of different sexes? Looks like the parents are going to sleep in the sitting room. Don't like it? Rent on the open market like the rest of us.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Social housing should be no more for life than the dole.

How's this for a suggestion. If you lose your way in life and need some help then the state should be there to help. For a couple of years perhaps, pretty generous support should be available including a council house if necessary. 2 years should be enough time for people to get back on their feet, retrain if they feel the need or find some work and build up a bit of a buffer for hard times.

After 24 months, if you still feel you need council housing then you get a 2 bed flat. Got kids? Well kids can share a room. Got teenage kids of different sexes? Looks like the parents are going to sleep in the sitting room. Don't like it? Rent on the open market like the rest of us.

With rent for 3 bed houses in the south east in excess of £1000 a month and 30% of people in south east earning less than £15000 take home about £1000 a month how easy would it be.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

With rent for 3 bed houses in the south east in excess of £1000 a month and 30% of people in south east earning less than £15000 take home about £1000 a month how easy would it be.

If you cut housing benefit so that rents were no longer being subsidised by the taxpayer then more people could afford market rents as they would fall.

Ultimately, you can't charge more as a business than your customers can afford. If that happens and landlords go bust, the houses still exist to be bought or to be rented out by other landlords.