The wonderous way 'social' housing is allocated

elsien

"The new tenant was revealed to be Mrs Vincent, who sends her daughter to the £14,000 a year City of London School for Girls"
I don't suppose it's occurred to anyone that the daughter may have a bursary or scholarship?

the_flying_pig

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

they appear to me to be two different issues.

1. Should the house have been taken back after the death of the father?

2. If so, to whom should it then have been allocated?

The answer to (1) seems to me fairly simple - it's the standard rule for social housing, and stops social housing drifting down the generations forever.

On the information provided, (2) seems to be "someone else".

yup.

i mean, valuable houses in seven dials [the most central part of london imaginable - where all the theatres are] should absolutely not be part of the social housing stock. it's a grotesque waste & unfair on the millions of non-HB private renters out there who can't afford such accommodation.

accepting though that this was a 'social' house, on the facts as they're presented i suspect that neither tenant really 'deserved' the place, but 'Mrs Vincent' deserved it much less.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

societies for the benefit of the community – these trade to benefit the broader community, and the Registrar will refer to charity law. Societies for the benefit of the community are granted charitable status by the taxation authority, HM Revenue and Customs, rather than the Charity Commission (in England and Wales).

That sounds like a subsidy from the public purse to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_provident_society

A bit like MIRAS then. And how many are still reaping the rewards of THAT example of taxpayer generosity?

Wee_Willy_Harris

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yup.

i mean, valuable houses in seven dials [the most central part of london imaginable - where all the theatres are] should absolutely not be part of the social housing stock. it's a grotesque waste & unfair on the millions of non-HB private renters out there who can't afford such accommodation.

accepting though that this was a 'social' house, on the facts as they're presented i suspect that neither tenant really 'deserved' the place, but 'Mrs Vincent' deserved it much less.

Social housing is, for many "non HB" tenants, their only chance of renting a home in those areas. What would be trully grotesque and unfair would be the removal of that chance.

Wee_Willy_Harris

harryhound wrote: »

This looks like the state funded cycle of deprivation and dependency
versus
String pulling ...........I cannot think of a word that is not potential libel.

Perhaps the TWO siblings with failed relationship, expecting society to finance them and their kids, together with the private educator, should come on here and explain how they need and qualify for tax subsidised accommodation in central London..
Level playing fields and all that.

Then what we say could be fair comment.

The TWO siblings wanted to excersise their perceived rights to succession in accordance with the agreement between their parents and the housing provider. However, that right had already been exhausted. Seems fair and reasonable to me.

vivatifosi

I'm not for one minute going to be an apologist for a Camden councillor who is given a house in a housing association of which they are on the board, but equally I don't understand why the Telegraph is running a story about something that happened three years ago.

blueboy43

Mary_Hartnell wrote: »

societies for the benefit of the community – these trade to benefit the broader community, and the Registrar will refer to charity law. Societies for the benefit of the community are granted charitable status by the taxation authority, HM Revenue and Customs, rather than the Charity Commission (in England and Wales).

That sounds like a subsidy from the public purse to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_and_provident_society

Please tell me what subsidies from the public purse they enjoy ?

It is a not for profit organisation so would not in the normal scheme of things paying corporation tax. (Normally they might have a annual surplus of deficit).

Exactly what is wrong with co-operatives / mutual societies / friendly societies / credit unions / charities ?

harryhound

They are treated as a charity.???????????????

I finance my own household - I am not a charity.

Getting that 20% back on my investments and paying no IHT would come in handy for starters.

Once upon a time I used to get tax relief on my mortgage, that would be handy too.

I could not begin to afford to send my kids to a private school in central London, any vacancies at your charitable institution?

purch

I think "social housing" is a seriously misunderstood sector.

Why it should only ever be allocated to the poor, or those on benefits is beyond me.

chewmylegoff

purch wrote: »

I think "social housing" is a seriously misunderstood sector.

Why it should only ever be allocated to the poor, or those on benefits is beyond me.

it isn't though is it. e.g. once you get social housing, you can keep it, regardless of your wealth. it isn't removed when the need for it has gone away. frankly, it should be. there is no reason for the state to be levying taxation in order to subsidise housing for people who could pay for it themselves.

in any case, this article doesn't appear to be anything to do with social housing.