Will I lose my council property?

EltonJohnFan

Hi all,

I'm growing increasingly worried as more and more people are telling me that the rules on council housing are going to change soon and I've actually just read an article there which has left me really frightened. I'm a Scottish Secure Tenant and I've had my council home for five years now. I'm a very badly disabled person and have extensive care and mobility needs which means I'm well known to my local council as they've provided me with lots of additional support over the years. My worry is that if these new rules come into force then I could quite possibly be evicted from a home that I love and find myself in a very bad situation because I don't want to be homeless and have nowhere to go.

Can you tell me what rights I actually have as a Scottish Secure Tenant and how these new rules might possibly affect me? I've done a lot of work in making this house a home and it would break my heart to leave all of this behind. I'm not a rich person money wise or in health but I do have my happiness and that to me is what counts. I have lots of questions about all this but I'm too afraid to ask the local council in case they tell me what I don't want to hear - I.E that I'll lose my home under the new rules. Am I right in assuming that at present I have a home for life as a Scottish Secure Tenant and that as long as I follow the rules then I won't get into any sort of trouble? I'm a law-abiding person who lives very quietly, just hate the uncertainty of my situation right now. Thanks for your help.

[Deleted User]

As an existing tenant this change will NOT apply to you.

dmg24

woodbine wrote: »

As an existing tenant this change will NOT apply to you.

... Or at least not straightaway. As for the future, who knows, but there is no point in worrying about something that may never happen.

nannytone_2

this is one new ruling that i just don't get!
surely the answer is to build more social housing?
if you rent a council/housing assosciation property without security of tenure...........what is the drive to maintain that property?
why would you carpet/decorate that property if youre going to be kicked out?

they will turn into the slums of the future!

dmg24

nannytone wrote: »

this is one new ruling that i just don't get!
surely the answer is to build more social housing?
if you rent a council/housing assosciation property without security of tenure...........what is the drive to maintain that property?
why would you carpet/decorate that property if youre going to be kicked out?

they will turn into the slums of the future!

To me it is just the same as all the new rulings - completely random and unconsidered!

AsknAnswer2

Living in Scotland this will also not affect you. The change is to be implemented in England

Jowo_2

The articles that I have read about changes in the duration of social housing tenancies from lifetime secure ones to shorter lengths have been in reference to England only and will not be applied retrospectively (i.e. will only apply to new tenancies granted IF the legislation is passed in parliament).

Scotland/Wales have their housing laws devolved, I think, (Scotland has its own housing law) so much of the headline articles that receive a lot of attention are not necessarily national policies.

Much of the changes to the benefits system, according to the govt, does not adversely affect those with disabilities, though of course, people are sceptical about this.

In fact, one change proposed in the emergency budget of June was to allow those with a certain severity of disability to be eligible for an extra bedroom in the property for their carer, thus increasing the level of LHA/HB they are permitted. From April 2011, housing benefit claimants with a disability and a non-resident carer will be entitled to funding for an extra bedroom. I don't know any further details about this, though.

oldestrocker

nannytone wrote: »

this is one new ruling that i just don't get!
surely the answer is to build more social housing?
if you rent a council/housing assosciation property without security of tenure...........what is the drive to maintain that property?
why would you carpet/decorate that property if youre going to be kicked out?

they will turn into the slums of the future!

If I follow that argument along, do you think that private tenants live in slums? They look after their property just the same as a council/housing association tenant would do.

The fact is that there isn't enough social housing for everyone. Unfortunately that was in the main caused by tenants in the 1980's buying them at prices of up to 50% of the true market value. In my opinion that was one of the worst pieces of legislation that ever hit the statute books!!

So, don't blame the council/housing association for not building enough - blame those that bought them thereby depriving the rest of us.

Back to the point. Social housing should only be temporary until you get on your feet. Those that can't for one reason or another, then they will have security. It is a complete joke that a household with upwards of £50,000 coming in still feel that it is their right to have discounted housing. They should be moved into the private sector and pay the going rate!

I drove through a local estate last week, and was shocked at the number of expensive cars that were parked on the drives. If they have enough money to spend on that then they should be spending it on private rented property.
This does make my blood boil when I see families with little having to live in B&B's!!!

diable

oldestrocker wrote: »

I drove through a local estate last week, and was shocked at the number of expensive cars that were parked on the drives. If they have enough money to spend on that then they should be spending it on private rented property.
This does make my blood boil when I see families with little having to live in B&B's!!!

They could be company cars and an expensive looking car doesn't have to be expensive.

suelees1

I completely agree with you as regards the R2B. Social housing should not be sold off. I don't agree that such tenancies should be given on a temporary basis and should be vacated when the tenant reaches a certain salary. That would be very little incentive for people to better themselves.

nottslass_2

oldestrocker wrote: »

If I follow that argument along, do you think that private tenants live in slums? They look after their property just the same as a council/housing association tenant would do.

The fact is that there isn't enough social housing for everyone. Unfortunately that was in the main caused by tenants in the 1980's buying them at prices of up to 50% of the true market value. In my opinion that was one of the worst pieces of legislation that ever hit the statute books!!

So, don't blame the council/housing association for not building enough - blame those that bought them thereby depriving the rest of us.

Back to the point. Social housing should only be temporary until you get on your feet. Those that can't for one reason or another, then they will have security. It is a complete joke that a household with upwards of £50,000 coming in still feel that it is their right to have discounted housing. They should be moved into the private sector and pay the going rate!

I drove through a local estate last week, and was shocked at the number of expensive cars that were parked on the drives. If they have enough money to spend on that then they should be spending it on private rented property.
This does make my blood boil when I see families with little having to live in B&B's!!!

What and line the pockets of private landlords who make a profit ?

The rents for Social housing tenants are not subsidised at the tax payers expense and the reason that they are cheaper than the private sector is because Housing associations are not allowed to make a profit unlike private landlords.

I can't understand why a family with little would have to live in a B&B purely due to having a low income when there is Housing benefit which is designed for the very purpose of supplementing families in such situations.