The End of Social Housing for Life

luvpump

jamespir wrote: »

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

That is where Hamish is coming from ! In his bizzare world he thinks more people will end up buying a property...... from him !

In reality , i think the story will never happen ..

suburbanwifey

cootambear wrote: »

how about building some more houses?

I know its crazy, but it might just work.

Yes it would, but enough of our beautiful countryside has been destroyed by building more and more houses to house the mass of immigrants and the single-parent (have yet another baby, more benefit!) culture we have here.

How about the Govt. stop landlords ripping people off by charging ludicrous rents when a lot of people don't earn enough to pay them (minimum wage rates are not a living wage) by forcing them to charge lower rents and give more secure tenancies? like 2 years minimum....then all these people wouldn't be on waiting lists, they would be able to afford to rent privately.

Its a nice dream more houses being build, but we are a small country, we can only hold so many houses...how about less babies (unless they can afford them and don't rely on benefits to support them) to grow up to need houses? much better idea.

suburbanwifey

ceridwen wrote: »

I do think people who can afford to buy their own houses should do so - rather than stay in Council housing.

However - there are certainly some safeguards that would need putting in place with these proposals. It looks as if social landlords will have the ability to check at two year intervals - but could check less frequently if they choose. Well - my instant first thought was that if someone is sitting there in the offices of a social landlord with not enough work to do - then that person will decide to keep themselves occupied by deliberately checking at those minimum possible intervals (ie rather than say at more reasonable one of - say - every 10 years).

The other thing is that a safeguard will be necessary to prevent anyone else getting access to this information - ie the information would need destroying the second it had been "checked over". I would be willing to bet that the information will be available in actual fact for anyone else that can plead an interest in looking at it.

Phew - must say my very first thought of all was "Thank goodness I own my own home - no-one has an excuse to invade my privacy at intervals by checking my finances <sigh of relief smilie>". NB: Thats not because I have anything to hide - because I dont - but because my finances are MY business alone and I hate people snooping around on any aspect of my life.

In fairness too - it does have to be pointed out that probably darn nearly everyone on Council waiting lists had the child/children that "needs" social housing provided AFTER it had already become very clear in our Society that there are severe shortages of social housing available. I cant quite get my head round why anyone would put themselves in the position of "needing" social housing AFTER it became so clear that the chances are very low of getting it...

<ducks before someone who has done just that throws something at me...:cool:>

I too would go ballistic if the Govt. in any way felt they had a right to snoop into my personal finances...glad I own my own house too! I think the Govt. and the big brother society we live in now has gone way too far already...the only way to remain private in this country is to not claim anything and thankfully I don't need to.

I don't think people should be encouraged to buy their own home if they do not wish, to get them out of council tenancies. Owing your own home only occurs truly when you have paid off your mortgage. Until then, the building society/bank pull your strings. Don't pay your mortgage and your house will be taken back, you out on the streets.

A mortgaged home you buy/own is more secure than a private tenancy (you don't have to renew tenancy every 6 months and a landlord can't decide to sell and kick you out)

A council tenancy is the most secure home you can currently get. Lose your job, you don't get kicked out, your rent is paid for you etc...home for life and that is how it should stay...

ceridwen

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yes it would, but enough of our beautiful countryside has been destroyed by building more and more houses to house the mass of immigrants and the single-parent (have yet another baby, more benefit!) culture we have here.

How about the Govt. stop landlords ripping people off by charging ludicrous rents when a lot of people don't earn enough to pay them (minimum wage rates are not a living wage) by forcing them to charge lower rents and give more secure tenancies? like 2 years minimum....then all these people wouldn't be on waiting lists, they would be able to afford to rent privately.

Its a nice dream more houses being build, but we are a small country, we can only hold so many houses...how about less babies (unless they can afford them and don't rely on benefits to support them) to grow up to need houses? much better idea.

Well - I was being a bit cautious about saying "More people means more houses means less countryside:eek:" - but it is a very fair point to make.

I understand where you are coming from re the idea of "forcing" landlords to charge less rent - but there is a snag to that - ie "The law of unintended consequences". In this case it would manifest as many landlords deciding to sell their BTL properties - as they wouldnt be able to get as much income from them as they had planned for. Though that would then lead to extra properties coming onto the market - so house prices might come down...:think:.

Hmmm...goes back to pondering the fact that I foresee "shanty towns"/increase in squatting springing up in Britain in a couple of years time (ie from us ...not just illegals from elsewhere...).

vivatifosi

suburbanwifey wrote: »

A mortgaged home you buy/own is more secure than a private tenancy (you don't have to renew tenancy every 6 months and a landlord can't decide to sell and kick you out)

A council tenancy is the most secure home you can currently get. Lose your job, you don't get kicked out, your rent is paid for you etc...home for life and that is how it should stay...

But why should a council tenancy, of which there are far too few according to need, be more secure than owning a home with a mortgage? It doesn't make any sense.

Rikki

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So how unsettling do you think it is for the hundreds of thousands of genuinely poor people stuck in B&B's because working folks that could afford to live elsewhere are getting cheap subsidised council accomodation?

True, but I was looking at this a Government planned disruption.

ceridwen

vivatifosi wrote: »

But why should a council tenancy, of which there are far too few according to need, be more secure than owning a home with a mortgage? It doesn't make any sense.

It may not make any sense - but personally I would be worried about the help I would get with mortgage interest from the Government if unemployment hit. Back when I bought my house I knew that I wasnt at risk of losing the place at all ever as long as I had the sense to make sure it was a repayment mortgage (not an endowment one) and to choose a building society for my mortgage that would accept receiving "interest only" payments for however long might be necessary. I knew that full mortgage interest for however much I needed to have for however long I needed to have it would be paid by the DWP (DHSS as was then...) - so I didnt have to worry about losing my home at all.

In the event - I've not had to call on that assistance with mortgage interest payments ever:D and the mortgage is now gone:D.

As I understand it - the current system doesnt start paying mortgage interest until one has been unemployed for a while (13 weeks??) and limits the amount thats payable. I think, beyond that, there might be a time limit as to how long they will pay it for????
I would really hate/be scared of the amount of insecurity I would have about my mortgage if I were to take one on now:eek:.

pstuart

cootambear wrote: »

how about building some more houses?

I know its crazy, but it might just work.

Its so simple, but the 'not in my back yard brigade' have a vested interest in keeping their own house prices high and the armchair eco warriers don't want the views spoilt.

Great idea though!

suburbanwifey

vivatifosi wrote: »

But why should a council tenancy, of which there are far too few according to need, be more secure than owning a home with a mortgage? It doesn't make any sense.

It shouldn't be! I agree, but it is...what I was saying, was that at least council tenants had this security...not saying it was right, I think mortgaged houses should be more secure, but the mere fact that you have to borrow money and pay it back, means they are not.

JoeyG

ceridwen wrote: »

Hmmm...goes back to pondering the fact that I foresee "shanty towns"/increase in squatting springing up in Britain in a couple of years time (ie from us ...not just illegals from elsewhere...).

maybe the government could then buy up the cheap houses, and private landlords could then go back to charging whatever they want! (or the going rate)

seriously, i'm not up on this subject, but is there now an ongoing commitment (apart from funds) for local councils to use private rentals rather than buying up its own stock?... I read on here that in parts of country houses are going for as little as £30K and people still don't want them, the councils should buy these and maybe offer big incentives for business startups in these areas.

OK, more investment from the government, which is why it probably isn't possible, but the result would be more houses on the market and private landlords sell up, so lower house prices and lower private rentals.