Will I lose my council property?

oldestrocker

diable wrote: »

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

I thought social housing was for those who are either on low income, in need or disabled.
A new £35,000 BMW on the drive could be a company car - but if so, they must also have a good salary to go with that type of car. You don't see many door to door salesmen with a car like that.
Secondly, I do know the price and value of cars. I certainly know the difference between a 1998 Ford Escort and a Mercedes E class on a 60 plate!!

suelees1

oldestrocker wrote: »

I thought social housing was for those who are either on low income, in need or disabled.
A new £35,000 BMW on the drive could be a company car - but if so, they must also have a good salary to go with that type of car. You don't see many door to door salesmen with a car like that.
Secondly, I do know the price and value of cars. I certainly know the difference between a 1998 Ford Escort and a Mercedes E class on a 60 plate!!

how do you know they haven't bought this house?

oldestrocker

nottslass wrote: »

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.

Well maybe they are on benefits and as you well know, there are not that many private landlords that would consider them as tenants.
Plus the LHA invariably does not cover the full rent so they have to use their benefit to make up the difference.

Turn it another way, who should have social housing - a family with a household income of £50,000 or someone on Income Support?

And yes families are in B&B for months in some cases - years because they would be homeless otherwise.

I have no idea where you live, but we have here in Kent a town called Margate that has a great number of private hotels that used to be for holiday makers. They are now used as B&B accommodation.
They come from the South East and East London.
The sheer scale of numbers of families involved is staggering.

suelees1

oldestrocker wrote: »

a great number of private hotels that used to be for holiday makers. They are now used as B&B accommodation.
They come from the South East and East London.
The sheer scale of numbers of families involved is staggering.

Nice little earner for these landlords. They don't even have to keep the building in a decent state of repair as they're not letting to holiday makers

oldestrocker

suelees1 wrote: »

how do you know they haven't bought this house?

Simply because I live in a small village, and have done so for years. THere are not that many people that I don't know.
Just take it from me, I know who has and who hasn't bought their council house - and these two in particular rent it with one renting it which was his parent's home before they died. He has lived there for over 40 years is a professional person with a salary to go with it. Incidentally he actually owns two other properties which are let out - his son is the 'landlord' in name only! I will concede that he doesn't claim any benefits for the rent etc.

oldestrocker

suelees1 wrote: »

Nice little earner for these landlords. They don't even have to keep the building in a decent state of repair as they're not letting to holiday makers

It certainly is! One hotelier in particular used to house Asylum Seekers only, until they started damaging the property and the government moved them out of Kent to other parts of the country.
The best place for that was in Dover ALL of the B&B's used to have the 'illegals' living there on benefit. They called Folkestone Road, 'Asylum Ally'.

With the current tenants, he has to comply with H&S regs, but yes, he only supplies the most basic of amenities. One kitchen per floor - 5 floors, with 15 rooms per floor and 2 bathrooms per floor.

His income amounts to over £65,000 per week!!!!
It is no wonder the town has gone downhill! But as I said, it is very depressing seeing the poverty.

AnxiousMum

Here's an example which basically typifies the scenario that the government are talking about.

A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine and her husband and her the three step children, were on the council housing list. When they first applied, he was employed full time, as was my friend. He lost his job, and a home became available. They were interviewed for it on the Thursday, when he had only JSA as income. On Friday, they hadn't been notified that they had the house or not, and he called to let them know that he had been offered a job at £45,000 starting wage. On the Monday he was offered the house. Given that the qualifying income for these homes was earnings of under £32,000 per year, he again brought up the fact that he was now on a salary of £45K per year - and was advised it didn't matter, that the house was his. He simply wanted to make sure that he didn't get into trouble after the fact, and was honest with them. They moved into the home, were in it for a year, have been able to totally landscape it professionally, replace the bathroom and kitchen - and are just in the process of putting a downpayment on a buy to let house which they will be renting out. They do not receive any help towards their rent, but they are in subsidized housing nonetheless.

Is this right in your mind? Market rentals for a property of the size in the area they are are in the region of £750 to £1000 per month, and they are paying FULL rent to the housing association of £425 per month.

Or........when he became ineligible for the home in the process BEFORE he was given the house - and he was honest with them, should this house maybe have gone to someone who would not be able to support their family properly in a house rented by a regular landlord?

Now under the new plan, after two years, his financial situation would certainly be alot different to the day he was interviewed for the place. They have a joint family income in the region of £65K, two of the kids are now 'adult' and working full time, but living back with their mother, and they have two children now living in a four bedroom council house. They could certainly afford to rent privately, and under the new plans announced, they would be given six months notice to find somewhere privately so that the council home could be given to someone who really needs it.

Another family on benefits, who will never change that.....with five children - have a council house. Why, when their children are grown and out of the house, should they not be given six months notice to move into a smaller council house which suits their needs as a couple, rather than hanging onto a five bedroom council house that could be better suited to another family in need?

oldestrocker

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Here's an example which basically typifies the scenario that the government are talking about.

A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine and her husband and her the three step children, were on the council housing list. When they first applied, he was employed full time, as was my friend. He lost his job, and a home became available. They were interviewed for it on the Thursday, when he had only JSA as income. On Friday, they hadn't been notified that they had the house or not, and he called to let them know that he had been offered a job at £45,000 starting wage. On the Monday he was offered the house. Given that the qualifying income for these homes was earnings of under £32,000 per year, he again brought up the fact that he was now on a salary of £45K per year - and was advised it didn't matter, that the house was his. He simply wanted to make sure that he didn't get into trouble after the fact, and was honest with them. They moved into the home, were in it for a year, have been able to totally landscape it professionally, replace the bathroom and kitchen - and are just in the process of putting a downpayment on a buy to let house which they will be renting out. They do not receive any help towards their rent, but they are in subsidized housing nonetheless.

Is this right in your mind? Market rentals for a property of the size in the area they are are in the region of £750 to £1000 per month, and they are paying FULL rent to the housing association of £425 per month.

Or........when he became ineligible for the home in the process BEFORE he was given the house - and he was honest with them, should this house maybe have gone to someone who would not be able to support their family properly in a house rented by a regular landlord?

Now under the new plan, after two years, his financial situation would certainly be alot different to the day he was interviewed for the place. They have a joint family income in the region of £65K, two of the kids are now 'adult' and working full time, but living back with their mother, and they have two children now living in a four bedroom council house. They could certainly afford to rent privately, and under the new plans announced, they would be given six months notice to find somewhere privately so that the council home could be given to someone who really needs it.

Another family on benefits, who will never change that.....with five children - have a council house. Why, when their children are grown and out of the house, should they not be given six months notice to move into a smaller council house which suits their needs as a couple, rather than hanging onto a five bedroom council house that could be better suited to another family in need?

I absolutely agree with you!!! Simple common sense V the greed of others!!

sunnyone

Durham got its first new council homes in a generation recently and more are planned but they are a drop in the ocean but my! what a drop.

lindsaygalaxy

I really think it is unfair just to base this on new tenants. I know several people in council houses who earn much more than the average person and pay virtually nothing in rent in comparison to a mortgage or private rent who have no intention of ever moving out.