The End of Social Housing for Life

freyanneke_2

Now here is just a thought...can we just try and get all the empty properties habitable and occopied? Also all those empty lofts above shops could be perfect for young couples, singles or students.

Graham_Devon

It surprises me that people can argue in favour of people keeping their state subsidised home, or housing association type setup home (where the rent is paid for by the state), when that person is quite able to pay their own way.

It's like arguing in favour of those on the dole keeping the dole when they get a job, & keeping child benefit forever because they have a 33 year old daughter.

Housing seems an emotive subject. Especially taking it off people.

If people don't have it in the first place and don't get that opportunity in the first place, we care little, thats their problem. However, if they have had the opportunity and prospered, all of a sudden, people feel as if they should keep that opportunity, propser further and further, and the younger people needing the same opportunity can go swivel, thats their problem, not ours.

suburbanwifey

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.

Why? because when they were given subsidized housing they will have earned a LOT less and were eligible.

They were BOTH given SECURE TENANCIES and that means a home for life, regardless of them staying poor or being lucky enough to better themselves. Secure tenancies have been the norm since Council Housing was invented, yet suddenly there is an outcry? an outcry of jealousy.

I can see why the first guy doesn't move out - to buy a house in that area would cost him for a similar house £750,000 or to rent, around £2,000+ a week, both amounts which are ludicrous and to me, that house in that place is not worth that rent or that purchase cost. This is just another example of how ridiculous house prices have gone over the last decade.

The man is sensible. He lives in a nice part of London and he pays little for his rent. You all see him as selfish, I see him as being very, very smart. He won't struggle in retirement, he'll have enough money from his income left over to afford one, unlike most of the rest of the country. His kids can afford to go to University if they are smart enough, as he can afford to pay for them, without them leaving saddled with thousands of pounds worth of debt.

He was given a secure tenancy and he enjoys it and uses it. He is not breaking the law or being immoral.

Very smart man!

By the way, I do not live in a council house, I live in a house bought with a mortgage.

Good on him! At least a few in society are benefiting, the rest are struggling like f**k. :T
And please, none of the 'he's taking someone else's home' brigade, no he isn't, its his home that he is entitled to!

Jealousy makes people very bitter doesn't it.

ceridwen

I dont agree by and large with social tenants losing their homes BUT this £4 million lotto winner is "taking the p***" continuing to live in that Council house in his case.

So - say he buys a house in that area and it costs £750,000 for the house. Add associated costs and he could maybe kiss goodbye to £1 million - still plenty over. If they have 2 children - then say £50,000 each for them to go to University. Still nearly £3 million over. Buy 2 children houses nearby - still over £1 million left over.

Does he plan to hand the Council any of that £1 million "spare" sufficient to cover the cost of building a replacement house - to enable them to continue to be "happy there". Does he heck?:cool:

i am concerned with peoples rights and needs - but not their selfishness and greed.

CLAPTON

ceridwen wrote: »

I dont agree by and large with social tenants losing their homes BUT this £4 million lotto winner is "taking the p***" continuing to live in that Council house in his case.

So - say he buys a house in that area and it costs £750,000 for the house. Add associated costs and he could maybe kiss goodbye to £1 million - still plenty over. If they have 2 children - then say £50,000 each for them to go to University. Still nearly £3 million over. Buy 2 children houses nearby - still over £1 million left over.

Does he plan to hand the Council any of that £1 million "spare" sufficient to cover the cost of building a replacement house - to enable them to continue to be "happy there". Does he heck?:cool:

i am concerned with peoples rights and needs - but not their selfishness and greed.

in truth there must be relatively small numbers of lottery winners living in council property

olly300

MrsE wrote: »

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

So you think they should build more housing built but not in your back yard?

Sorry if there needs to be housing then it needs to be built where there is already infrastructure which is why villages and towns get built in.

treliac

olly300 wrote: »

So you think they should build more housing built but not in your back yard?

Sorry if there needs to be housing then it needs to be built where there is already infrastructure which is why villages and towns get built in.

The problem is that many of them are busting at the seams already. If we have to accommodate a rapidly increasing population, imo it should be into newly developed areas rather than to create undue stress on existing areas.

But first and foremost, look at ways of controlling the population.

Callie22

MrsE wrote: »

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

True (ish...) but it's far, far more lax when you've got council accommodation than it is when you're renting privately. I personally know someone who is thousands of pounds in debt through not paying her council rent. She's allowed to pay it off at £5 a week ... Get two months behind in the private sector and you're more than likely going to get a Section 8 notice evicting you. Even if you pay it off, chances are you'll get a Section 21 evicting you anyway once it looks like you might be struggling.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

suburbanwifey wrote: »

its his home that he is entitled to!.

Why should a multi-millionaire be entitled to a cheap subsidised house from the state?

suburbanwifey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Why should a multi-millionaire be entitled to a cheap subsidised house from the state?

Benefit claimants who have never worked a day in their life, single parents who have kid after kid by different men, living on benefits or drug addicts who rob and steal in society to feed their addiction have more right have they?

I think you'll find they got their house before they won the lottery. Winning the lottery is a stroke of luck, they had lived in their home 26 years prior....