The End of Social Housing for Life

ceridwen

drc wrote: »

This should apply to all tenants, not just new ones.

There are cases of millionaire lottery winners still living in their subsidised council homes;

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=511493&in_page_id=2

and very highly paid businessmen and women living in them.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23426025-kens-117000-aide-lives-in-90pw-council-house.do

Why should they get subsidised housing when they can afford to pay more than a lot of people who don't live in council homes and have to pay full rent.

I think we would probably all agree that any Council tenant (new or old) that subsequently becomes actually wealthy (eg winning the Lottery) should be made to move.

I have read - more than once - about lottery winners saying "But we are going to stay in our Council house (or worse still - buy their Council house) because we like it here". Obviously its nice to see people expecting so little from life - personally I'd have been round every local estate agent there is collecting details by the end of that day looking for a better house:rotfl:. BUT - I also "register" each time "Why dont they buy a better house too? - and leave that one available for someone else..". In the case of people like this - then they need to have the Council step in and act as a replacement for their missing conscience - and instruct them to move out and buy.

My concern would be that people who are just a bit better off than when they moved in might get forced out of their homes. I know that if I had been given a Council home whilst on NMW or less and been forced to move because my salary had gone up to what was still only national average salary (think thats currently £25k - STILL - as it has been for the last few years....:() then I would feel very disillusioned when I walked past to see who was living in MY home now if I could see that it had been rented out to some household that had obviously put themselves in the "need to have social housing - because of having had a child/ren AFTER it became clear everything had gone pearshaped in Society" category. I WOULD be mentally "clocking" the ages of the children/whether the adults looked like people who are "trying" (as opposed to "hangers-on"). Slobby-looking adults and children under, say, 10 would result in my sending a letter of complaint to the Council that they had turfed me out and replaced me with them.

MrsE_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

OR would it stop people seeking work/extra hours/promotion or improving their financial situation thereby creating yet another benefit trap.

The other downside, many (maybe most) tenants do lots to their homes, if these were seen as only as permanent as private renting then they wouldn't do this & homes would quickly deteriorate.

wymondham

When we were young and just married, we had our name on the council list. Forgot about it as we rented privately, then two years later we had an offer for a two bed flat. The rent for this was £45 per week at the time - our normal rent was £300 per month...... We really thought about it, but then decided to buy (massive struggle!)..... it was quite a profound time as we were choosing our lifestyle with the toss of a coin...... as we could just afford to buy it was the right decision, both morally and financially for us. I often wonder what life would have been like had we chosen this alternative path or circumstances were different in that we had no choice.

MrsE_2

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.

Its not.
Don't pay your rent you get evicted, don't pay your mortgage you get repossessed.

MrsE_2

pstuart wrote: »

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!

True:o

I think they need to build a million council houses, think of the jobs too.

But I don't think any more houses should be built in my village, council or private:o

Pont

Wouldn't those who are assessed as being too wealthy to remain in council accommodation simply buy their council house under the (subsidised) right to buy scheme. If I was forced into a corner, buy or get out, I know which I'd be attempting to do. The knock on effect could well be even less council accommodation available for rent.

Also, who decides if a tenant has too much income to stay in council accommodation? I know of someone who earns 40K a year (good wage?) who after paying the usual tax/NICs etc., and work associated expenses such as petrol is left with 20K a year (not so good?). In reality he has no greater income than someone on NMW who has extra payments made through tax credits, HB, CTB etc.

What of those who are self-employed (stonking year followed by a carp year)? What of those who are approaching retirement age (income goes down)? Those who become sick? Those who have children in the local school (can just anticipate the law suits due to stressed kids!)?

IMO, an ill thought out scheme as there are too many variables.

drc

ceridwen wrote: »

I think we would probably all agree that any Council tenant (new or old) that subsequently becomes actually wealthy (eg winning the Lottery) should be made to move.

I have read - more than once - about lottery winners saying "But we are going to stay in our Council house (or worse still - buy their Council house) because we like it here". Obviously its nice to see people expecting so little from life - personally I'd have been round every local estate agent there is collecting details by the end of that day looking for a better house:rotfl:. BUT - I also "register" each time "Why dont they buy a better house too? - and leave that one available for someone else..". In the case of people like this - then they need to have the Council step in and act as a replacement for their missing conscience - and instruct them to move out and buy.

My concern would be that people who are just a bit better off than when they moved in might get forced out of their homes. I know that if I had been given a Council home whilst on NMW or less and been forced to move because my salary had gone up to what was still only national average salary (think thats currently £25k - STILL - as it has been for the last few years....:() then I would feel very disillusioned when I walked past to see who was living in [STRIKE]MY[/STRIKE] the home previously provided to me by the council and subsidised by taxpayers now if I could see that it had been rented out to some household that had obviously put themselves in the "need to have social housing - because of having had a child/ren AFTER it became clear everything had gone pearshaped in Society" category. I WOULD be mentally "clocking" the ages of the children/whether the adults looked like people who are "trying" (as opposed to "hangers-on"). Slobby-looking adults and children under, say, 10 would result in my sending a letter of complaint to the Council that they had turfed me out and replaced me with them.

I agree with you to a certain extent, however, I have made one small correction to your post . Too many people living in council homes are under the impression that the home belongs to them. They want to have their cake and eat it (pay low rent but be able to keep "their" home). They don't know how lucky they are :mad:.

MrsE_2

drc wrote: »

I agree with you to a certain extent, however, I have made one small correction to your post . Too many people living in council homes are under the impression that the home belongs to them. They want to have their cake and eat it (pay low rent but be able to keep "their" home). They don't know how lucky they are :mad:.

But instead of doing away with it because its unfair only some have it maybe we need to cherish & improve it.

Ample council housing, a world class NHS, a first class education system, these are things that public money should pay for, not for lazy bone idle layabouts to have 7 kids & never do a days work:mad:

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Rikki wrote: »

My concern is ~ you are in a council house your children are settled in the local schools, you come to the end of your two year tenancy and are asked to move out. If you can't afford to rent privately in that area and need to move, how unsettling could that be for the children, especially leaving friends and changing schools. Also it wouldn't allow families to put down roots.

People relocate all the time,children deal with it.
I realy wish children were'nt used as an excuse for everything,they're a lot more resilient than you obviously think they are.

MrsE_2

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

People relocate all the time,children deal with it.
I realy wish children were'nt used as an excuse for everything,they're a lot more resilient than you obviously think they are.

There is a difference between a family relocating for work (or whatever) occasionally & people moving every 6 months like they might have to in private rented accommodation.