The End of Social Housing for Life

pwllbwdr

The phrase "entitled to" makes my hackles rise when we are referring to a limited resource. If it were "in need of", my opinion would be very different.

Accountant_Kerry

perhaps if we moved older people out of the 3 bed houses they have lived in for years into more appropriate accomodation for their househols size this would help. I do agree with the principle of this, council housing at the moment is just a bargain for those that have it and they should not be entitled to this forever.

However if you are in a council tenancy and you don't work its very difficult to move to find a job, moving council house should be made easier.

LydiaJ

I don't understand the complaint that reassessing council tenants' financial circumstances every so often is intrusive.

The state provides some things universally (child benefit at the moment, free use of NHS doctors and hospitals, refuse collection, public libraries etc). These things are for everyone. Other things are provided by the state for those who are on low incomes (child tax credits, free prescriptions, income support, jobseekers' allowance etc). If you want help with these things, you have to give details of your financial circumstances every year.

Why should social housing be different from other forms of help for those on low incomes?

PS Hamish - I agree with a lot of the things you've said on this thread, but I do wish you wouldn't refer to mortgages or rental houses or whatever being "rationed". When things are rationed, everyone gets the same small amount. Rationing is designed precisely to avoid the situation we have with mortgages where only a few people can have any at all, but they get lots. Eggs and sugar and things were rationed during the war, so that everyone from the King down to the poorest slum child got their 8oz of sugar a week and one egg every two months. This is not what is happening to mortgages, so please choose a more accurate word.

ceridwen

Just made a long post on another thread on this:

- people will find out what the local "deemed salary level" is that they must not earn more than or they will lose their home and make sure that they earn up to £1 less than that level. After that - any further earnings they get will be through the Black Economy (so its not taken into account).

- people who are over the deemed salary level and get given notice will put in an appeal if they lose their job during the eviction process (which I anticipate they would win...)

These things are all so obviously going to happen that the Government must have something else as a hidden agenda behind this proposal. So - what are they REALLY after? Hmmm...:think::

- maybe they want extra work for other people (ie in chasing up Black Economy people)??

- maybe they want people to be specifically looking for jobs BENEATH the deemed salary level (ie "Here Bert...better not go for that job at £30,100 pa - better go for the one at £25,000 pa - as the deemed salary level in our area is £30,000pa") - thus ensuring a DOWNward pressure on salaries??

- maybe its a way to ghetto-ize lower-paid people?? (in which case "Nah...nah...nah....cant ghetto-ize me:rotfl: - I'm low-paid..but I'm safely a home-owner).

or...MAYBE...just MAYBE....its an excuse to check on everyone's income level at some point. "Come on now Minister...first we start by checking Council Tenants' income every 2 years...right thats them dealt with. Now we need an excuse to check everyone else's income too - what can we use for that?"

:cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ceridwen wrote: »

or...MAYBE...just MAYBE....its an excuse to check on everyone's income level at some point. "Come on now Minister...first we start by checking Council Tenants' income every 2 years...right thats them dealt with. Now we need an excuse to check everyone else's income too - what can we use for that?"

They could just look it up as they have the data already....;)

Jowo_2

ceridwen wrote: »

Just made a long post on another thread on this:

- people will find out what the local "deemed salary level" is that they must not earn more than or they will lose their home and make sure that they earn up to £1 less than that level. After that - any further earnings they get will be through the Black Economy (so its not taken into account).

I agree that it will discincentivise some people from bettering themselves precisely because people are naturally self-interested and there won't be much motivation to gain employment knowing it will result in them getting turfed out of their accommodation and into a more expensive rental property.

For instance, the threshold for certain tax credits is 16 hours and many posts on the benefit forum suggests that people stick closely to the minimum hours of employment they can get away with in order to qualify for the maximum benefits they can. My sister is a manager and finds it frustrating that this threshold means her staff won't work any extra overtime or switch into full time roles. They don't think 'oh, good, I have the opportunity to better myself' but think 'why should I work an extra £16 hours when I don't have to and it doesn't make me twice as better off'.

There are certain means tested limits that mean savings/capital of a certain level will affect benefits. Again, on the benefits forum, it is clear that people are seeking advice how they can get rid of an unexpected lump sum in order to continue qualifying for benefits. They don't think 'smashing, now I can pay my own rent, council tax and household bills, proudly pay my own living expenses instead of relying on the state' but 'oh my god, I have to spend my own money on things I'm used to getting for free'.

When JSA was tightened up years ago and fortnightly sign on was introduced and job seekers had to prove they were actively looking, applications for Incapacity Benefit (which has no requirement to work) shot up. Did the nation's health suddenly get worse or were those unhappy about returning to employment given an easy way to continue to opt out of the workforce?

So people will change their behaviour in order to qualify for certain services.

Perhaps the best option is to issue a 2 year tenancy which will never be extended, to make all new social housing tenancies temporary for all new tenants. That way people will know at the start that they can't influence the outcome and will have to accept that they must leave and there's no loophole to this. The mindset will follow the rules and if the rules are inflexible, there could be more people that think 'we'll, i'll have to stand on my own two feet in two years'.

lemonjelly

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?

Graham_Devon

lemonjelly wrote: »

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

I don't think it can be done for those already in housing, which is why cash incentives are offered for people to move out. All to do with the long term tenancies. We can change things from today, but can't change it for the stubborn who simply will not move, even with cash incentives.

In a way, many of those who have raised their kids int hese homes see it as theirs, and see no reason to move. It's their home and they treat it as such. Seen many threads on this in the past, especially in discussion time, and it boils down to two camps...those who can see the need other people have, and those who think it's outrageous that someone should be expected to move, as the house has memories etc in it and they may have to pay more if they move as they have savings which would exclude them from the new terms.

Then there is the whole issue of signig the house over to the kids, as if it's owned.

Jowo_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...
In a way, many of those who have raised their kids int hese homes see it as theirs, and see no reason to move. It's their home and they treat it as such. ...

Yes, when they have kids, it is their right to request a larger property and they are happy to see their current place as merely interim...

but when their kids move out, they are firmly of the belief that it's their forever home.

funny, that.

StevieJ

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.

There was enough for all before the great sell off :eek: