The End of Social Housing for Life

lemonjelly

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

But it could be brought in, in the same way financially checking the circumstances of tenants is proposed. & bring it in for new tenants - if the idea was retrospective, all hell would break loose.

But imagine, during the bi-annual review;

HA worker; "Well, your finances are in good order. However your 3 children have all moved out now. Seeing as when your family grew we moved you from smaller accommodation to this 3 bed house to facilitate your growing family, now that family has shrunk, it is only fair & proportional for you to return to smaller accommodation to allow a family who are cramped - as you were - the opportunity of using this house."

miamoo

I hope you dont mind me adding my opinion.
I live in 'social housing' and have done for the last 10years. I love where I live (as do all my neighbours) its a lovely little street everyone has spent money and time doing up the houses and the gardens.
None of us will be affected by the change in rules, but that doesnt stop me worrying for future generations.

What is going to happen to these council estates?
Full of drug addicts,single parents on benefits, alcoholics etc (because these are the people in the most need) no one will care what the estate looks like because they dont get to stay there long.
Eventually the estates will be back to the ghettos they where years ago, where no one wants to live!
Having your tenancy re-assessed after 10yrs is fair enough. But 2 years is ridiculous.

Also anyone who already has a tenancy is going to stay put, which means houses that have 3/4 beds with only a couple in them.

suburbanwifey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Is it only councils that offer cash incentives to move out of council houses? and if so, is it all council's or just some? I have never heard of Housing Associations offering cash incentives to move out, do they? if so, all of them or just some?

lemonjelly

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Is it only councils that offer cash incentives to move out of council houses? and if so, is it all council's or just some? I have never heard of Housing Associations offering cash incentives to move out, do they? if so, all of them or just some?

Having worked in housing for 6 years, I am not aware of anyone (council or HA) actually offering cash incentives - though it has been suggested. Problem is, the type of sums under discussion are equivalent to the cost of building a new house.

LA's & HA's would struggle to justify the cost.
Plus, a lot of tenants would refuse it anyway. It would affect their benefit entitlement, plus they'd have to do their own repairs, etc.

suburbanwifey

lemonjelly wrote: »

Having worked in housing for 6 years, I am not aware of anyone (council or HA) actually offering cash incentives - though it has been suggested. Problem is, the type of sums under discussion are equivalent to the cost of building a new house.

LA's & HA's would struggle to justify the cost.
Plus, a lot of tenants would refuse it anyway. It would affect their benefit entitlement, plus they'd have to do their own repairs, etc.

That's what I thought - when I read the above poster mentioning cash incentives I searched on the web and found no evidence of it.
Thanks for answering my query.

lemonjelly

suburbanwifey wrote: »

That's what I thought - when I read the above poster mentioning cash incentives I searched on the web and found no evidence of it.
Thanks for answering my query.

You are welcome.

At a housing conference, when discussed, the general figure bounced around was £50,000:eek:

suburbanwifey

lemonjelly wrote: »

You are welcome.

At a housing conference, when discussed, the general figure bounced around was £50,000:eek:

Good God! that's a ludicrous figure to encourage tenants to move out! If they bring it in, I'll be kicking myself that I don't live in a council house :eek:

Jowo_2

Yes, council tenants can receive incentives to move out of under occupied properties, though I don't think it's more than a few thousand pounds, with perhaps an offer to help with removals or a grant for redecoration. My aunty downsized and got help but I don't know what the exact terms are.

I believe southwark council canvassed all the tenants in their under occupied 5 bedroom properties with some kind of incentive but didn't manage to persuade many tenants to move into smaller properties, perhaps the tenants weren't impressed with the sum offered or perhaps they were hoping the tenancy would transfer to one of their children so resisted it.

There is also a scheme to help those OAP tenants in London (i don't know if it's other places to) to transfer to the seaside.

It's nice to see that the proposed changes also include restricting the succession tenancy to the partner of the tenant and not onto the next generation.

eve13_2

Why not be fair and say that everyone, social housing tenants, private rent tenants and home owners should all move out of their properties if they are under-occupied? Its still hard earned money whether its rent or mortgage. Or make it compulsary for every under-occuped accomodation owners/renters to take in lodgers. Where I live some owners have 5+ bedrooms for just two people while in my part of the village 2 bedrooms are the norm for 4+ families (incidentally I don't think theres anything wrong with this, lived in same when i was a kid and later when I had a larger family 2 kids + 2 informally fostered kids. It taught us to be more tolerant).

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I think the problem is the lack of alternative accommodation. My mother has moved into a 1 bed flat on a social housing sheltered estate and there is no shortage of people willing to go there.