Council house debate

Tippytoes

eamon wrote: »

I've gone many months without responding to this type of thread but I can't resist and there is a protest song on the radio.

Most of the criticism of current social housing tenants is not justified. There isn't sufficient social housing, demand far exceeds supply. For this blame Maggie Thatcher & right to buy. Approx 2 millions homes were removed from the social housing pool and have not been replaced. Many of these were the best houses in the best streets, neighbourhoods etc.

Where would you have social housing tenants living? Why should they have to sacrifice security of tenure? What is market rate rent? Why should the private rental sector get rich on the backs of taxation funded LHA? Indeed why should the private rental sector get rich on the backs of housing people at all? Why should your income level determine that you need to leave social housing?

There are many problems with social housing but its not all the fault of current and past tenants. Blame past and present housing policy and social housing management.

I'm sorry, but I get very annoyed when people blame housing shortages on Thatcher selling off council houses - as though that's the only reason. I don't know exact figures, but I'll assume that your 2 million homes quote is correct. How many millions of immigrants have come to the UK in the same period of time? Take 2 million and multiply it God knows how many times. They require (a great many DEMAND) housing and I can state as fact: they DO take priority over the indigenous.

It's all down to politics and if you don't believe me, take a stroll through any council estate. Keep your eyes and ears open....summer evenings are perfect.....then wonder why your son/daughter has been on the council waiting list twice as long as many have been in the country. Sorry if this offends, but I swear it's true.

davsidipp

Tippytoes wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I get very annoyed when people blame housing shortages on Thatcher selling off council houses - as though that's the only reason. I don't know exact figures, but I'll assume that your 2 million homes quote is correct. How many millions of immigrants have come to the UK in the same period of time? Take 2 million and multiply it God knows how many times. They require (a great many DEMAND) housing and I can state as fact: they DO take priority over the indigenous.

It's all down to politics and if you don't believe me, take a stroll through any council estate. Keep your eyes and ears open....summer evenings are perfect.....then wonder why your son/daughter has been on the council waiting list twice as long as many have been in the country. Sorry if this offends, but I swear it's true.

i dont agree with you about thatcher council tenants should not have been allowed to buy she caused a lot of divide with those that bought them getting snotty about their property but i do agree with the rest of your post on immigrants getting priority over english the prove is on an estate close by me where when a council property becomes empty immigrants are 9 times out of ten first to move in and for those it offends truth always hurts.

ladymarmalade1970

davsidipp wrote: »

i dont agree with you about thatcher council tenants should not have been allowed to buy she caused a lot of divide with those that bought them getting snotty about their property but i do agree with the rest of your post on immigrants getting priority over english the prove is on an estate close by me where when a council property becomes empty immigrants are 9 times out of ten first to move in and for those it offends truth always hurts.

I agree with you here in that people got snotty. You had estates with those that brought and those that STILL couldn't afford to. Not fair and created big divide. Plus, those that brought gall me as they "think" they are the same as others who brought privately and didn't get 60% discount on the price. They don't seem to realise they never would have been house owners if the government hadn't subsided them at the expense of young working families.

davsidipp

my mums next door neigbour was a prime example they bought theirs then decided when they could sell they would move to bexleyheath as they didnt like the people moving in around charlton ,hang on wasnt you one of them once lol.the problem now is people buying ex authority places from these people tend to rent them out and the houses which were once tidy are now tatty so they were better of in council hands.

p_joker

I think the whole council house situation is so wrong. I will give you an eg.... my supervisor at work i believe is on about 20 k a year now I know thats not a huge amount of money but its more than me and my husband put together, her partner of many years also works AND he has been left a flat when his mum passed away, my supervisor has lived in her council house for years it is a 3 bed one - for just her and partner, the estate she lives in is being re jigged her house will be knocked down along with others and will be rebuilt but 2 bed, she will be re homed they had the choice of being re homed or I think given around 3k to find somewhere else, she has said she will want to be replaced in the new house once its built even tho she has another house to move into they wanted her to move into a 1 bed but she refused saying she has a grand daughter who might want to stay, my problem with this whole situation is her and her partner are taking up a place that surely would be better for a family? myself and my husband put our names on the list before we got married we have been married 5 years now and have 2 kids and have no chance what so ever of getting a house and even if we did it would be a 2 bed flat if we were lucky, our last place cost £595 a month to rent. We have now been lucky enough to be offered a house that is on a lovely estate at a rent of £440 a month, really its a house that would be sold under a part ownership and its the last rental on their books but this isn't forever this is so we can save up and after 6 months they could well turn round and say they will be selling it :-(

t0rt0ise

A lot of the arguments when it comes to social housing is caused by plain jealousy. You can't have a safe tenancy for a reasonable price so nobody else should. The real answer is for councils and HA's to build and acquire more housing, stop selling it off to tenants and do something to limit the rents that private landlords can charge. And also do something to help people be able to buy.. build more affordable housing to buy in places that people want to live. But then I suppose it's just easier to hate other people for what they've got even if you wouldn't really want it yourself.

Print_Screen

I was thinking about the perception by some that immigrants get preferential treatment and I came up with a theory.

Now I don't know if this is correct as I don't work in the council housing team so it would be good if someone who knows more could correct me so I can adjust the hypothesis. But in the meantime the theory goes thus:

Many councils will only house those who they consider homeless (eg. Sheffield so I gather from that BBC program on the other day)

Now if you have an assylum seeker plus family, I don't mean an illegal immigrant, I mean someone claiming escape from persecution, and they come here and submit their claim to stay.

This takes time to process in which I believe they are not allowed to work or are restricted in doing so (not 100% sure on this) so they are put in an asylum centre (or are they given a council house? Lets assume the former).

After a year of waiting they get asylum and the right to stay.
Now as they and their family were no allowed to work (?), they have little money, nowhere to live and no friends in this country.

Compare this with a British person who may have friends in this country (or are deemed more likely to by the council perhaps) who are going to be made homeless.

Perhaps the council see the person recently granted asylum as a greater need than a person who has lived here all their lives and therefore may have more connections and family to tide them over even if they are made homeless.

So the family granted asylum get a place and the British person keeps on waiting. Thus leading to resentment and a perception that foreigners get it all while Brits get to wait on the list.


Now I am not saying this is what happens, I don't know, I was just trying to theorise why I keep hearing that immigrants get houses and Brits don't and how the Council, would be able to justify it if true.
If someone works in house would care to correct me that would be great.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Print_Screen wrote: »

I was thinking about the perception by some that immigrants get preferential treatment and I came up with a theory.

Now I don't know if this is correct as I don't work in the council housing team so it would be good if someone who knows more could correct me so I can adjust the hypothesis. But in the meantime the theory goes thus:

Many councils will only house those who they consider homeless (eg. Sheffield so I gather from that BBC program on the other day)

Now if you have an assylum seeker plus family, I don't mean an illegal immigrant, I mean someone claiming escape from persecution, and they come here and submit their claim to stay.

This takes time to process in which I believe they are not allowed to work or are restricted in doing so (not 100% sure on this) so they are put in an asylum centre (or are they given a council house? Lets assume the former).

After a year of waiting they get asylum and the right to stay.
Now as they and their family were no allowed to work (?), they have little money, nowhere to live and no friends in this country.

Compare this with a British person who may have friends in this country (or are deemed more likely to by the council perhaps) who are going to be made homeless.

Perhaps the council see the person recently granted asylum as a greater need than a person who has lived here all their lives and therefore may have more connections and family to tide them over even if they are made homeless.

So the family granted asylum get a place and the British person keeps on waiting. Thus leading to resentment and a perception that foreigners get it all while Brits get to wait on the list.


Now I am not saying this is what happens, I don't know, I was just trying to theorise why I keep hearing that immigrants get houses and Brits don't and how the Council, would be able to justify it if true.
If someone works in house would care to correct me that would be great.

Nope, that's not quite how it works. To be considered homeless and the council to have a "duty to house", you must fulfill 5 criteria, commonly called hurdles. In order they are:

Eligibility - are you eligible for social housing.

Homeless - You must be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 28 days.

In priority need - ie have children, pregnant, under 18, some care leavers, mental/physical health issues such that you "would suffer harm if homeless when compared to an average homeless person".

Not intentional - Have become homeless through no fault of your own.

Local connection - Lived in the area for 3 of the last 5 years or 6 of the last 12 months.

Apart from the need for a local connection, the rules are the same for immigrants as they are for the indigenous population.

fabbman

The concern for me & my family is there doesn't appear to be any movement on banks lending without substantial deposits, so what do we do long term??? Private landlords can charge what they like and we will still have to pay, after all we all need a roof over our heads!

My rent is £700 PCM, what if the landlord decides that due to a) lack of affordable housing and b) banks not lending they want to charge me £1000 Pcm for my rent because they 'can', what am I going to say to my family 'we are leaving' ..... no I have to stay!

We will never get a council house because we are a responsible family who pay our bills and look after ourselves hence our category 'adequately housed' on the list!

We pay taxes, where is the justice?

Wee_Willy_Harris

fabbman wrote: »

The concern for me & my family is there doesn't appear to be any movement on banks lending without substantial deposits, so what do we do long term??? Private landlords can charge what they like and we will still have to pay, after all we all need a roof over our heads!

My rent is £700 PCM, what if the landlord decides that due to a) lack of affordable housing and b) banks not lending they want to charge me £1000 Pcm for my rent because they 'can', what am I going to say to my family 'we are leaving' ..... no I have to stay!

We will never get a council house because we are a responsible family who pay our bills and look after ourselves hence our category 'adequately housed' on the list!

We pay taxes, where is the justice?

You are not in "urgent housing need" and you see that as a bad thing???