starting to think it wasn't worth it

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Any idea why they didnt do this for existing tenants?

Just think of the money it could raise, instead of closing down services while in the meantime, sheltering people who have had cheap rent for ages, from paying normal rent.

I think it's worse to have some people paying more for the same services / house, than it is to simply put it up to a resonable level for everyone. Once again, those "haves" are protected, while the have nots coming along afterwards are having to pay their way.

Probably something to do with the fact you would be remarkably p***** off if you bought a car & then 4 years later they sent you a bill for another 30% of the cost.

Because that would hardly be reasonable, would it?

Hereward

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Probably something to do with the fact you would be remarkably p***** off if you bought a car & then 4 years later they sent you a bill for another 30% of the cost.

Because that would hardly be reasonable, would it?

It would be reasonable to revise the rent on a periodic basis, say once a year, though. That's what happens in the private sector, so why shouldn't social housing follow the same model?

Graham_Devon

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Probably something to do with the fact you would be remarkably p***** off if you bought a car & then 4 years later they sent you a bill for another 30% of the cost.

Because that would hardly be reasonable, would it?

But they haven't bought a car. With the car analogy, they have been loaned one at lower cost than anyone else can get one.

They don't own it and haven't made any payments towards buying it.

ukcarper

Hereward wrote: »

It would be reasonable to revise the rent on a periodic basis, say once a year, though. That's what happens in the private sector, so why shouldn't social housing follow the same model?[/QUOTE

I thought they did.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But they haven't bought a car.

They have entered a contract dependent on several factors laid out in the contract. Included in that is the agreement of maximum rent increases.

The deal is done.

Unless of course you believe that breaking contract is a good thing when it suits you. Cant see a court being behind you on that one.

Graham_Devon

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

They have entered a contract dependent on several factors laid out in the contract. Included in that is the agreement of maximum rent increases.

The deal is done.

Unless of course you believe that breaking contract is a good thing when it suits you. Cant see a court being behind you on that one.

Well thats what I was asking, why they couldn't do it. If the contract says they can't, and it's a lifetime contract, then thats the answer.

But is it really a lifetime contract? Are council house tenants really under such a contract whereby you can't move them and can't increase rents for their entire lifetime up to a more standard rent?

You've moved from the tenant being pi**ed off as a reason, to contractual law, and suggestons I want contractual laws broken?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well thats what I was asking, why they couldn't do it. If the contract says they can't, and it's a lifetime contract, then thats the answer.

But is it really a lifetime contract? Are council house tenants really under such a contract whereby you can't move them and can't increase rents for their entire lifetime up to a more standard rent?

You've moved from the tenant being pi**ed off as a reason, to contractual law, and suggestons I want contractual laws broken?

Well, that is why.

It is all in the contract. Rent paid at a certain amount & cannot be increased by a certain amount.

I am quite sure their are many councils that would love to put up rent to private levels but what would they do with the money? Probably hire a few more traffic wardens.

Mallotum_X

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a startling fact.

Maybe you stop paying for that private healthcare.

I wish the NHS was free, but sadly it is only free if you dont pay in...

quantic

It always cracks me up when people say something like "Yes but they still have to pay rent in a council house", and where exactly does that money come from? If a household does not have any income, they are getting everything for free.

Worse still, they state has to pay people a wage to process these payments... that run housing benefit etc. So not only does it cost the tax payer to pay for housing benefits but it also costs them to process the payments.

One thing that I'm always amazed at is how people on benefits seem to be able to get ahold of credit cards. Surely it should be illegal to have a CC without an income?

illgetthere

quantic wrote: »

It always cracks me up when people say something like "Yes but they still have to pay rent in a council house", and where exactly does that money come from? If a household does not have any income, they are getting everything for free.

Worse still, they state has to pay people a wage to process these payments... that run housing benefit etc. So not only does it cost the tax payer to pay for housing benefits but it also costs them to process the payments.

One thing that I'm always amazed at is how people on benefits seem to be able to get ahold of credit cards. Surely it should be illegal to have a CC without an income?

Then that would be discrimination....;)