Council house debate

Mankysteve

PasturesNew wrote: »

Years ago I had a friend who was a single mother - and she was a bad one. She got her council flat because she had a baby. She used the flat to invite all and sundry to sit around and get drunk. She kept a dog under the stairs, with a door she'd removed just leaning against the stairs to keep him in, of course the dog'd jump out and !!!!!! all over the flat. She never cleaned up.

Eventually her lad was taken from her (fully justified for many other reasons I won't go into), yet she still kept the council place... and filled it with dogs/cats who poo'd everywhere. She was living the life of riley with her cheap rent.

In that case there clearly mental issues with your friend, That's more a failure of SS and our metal health care.

Social housing shouldn't be up for sale full stop there should be no right to buy.

Right to buy is what kicked off a lot of the problems. In theses large council estates the only people who tend to get houses now are the very desperate who tend to more people suffering from mental illnesses and other social problems.

Increase the S housing provision and reintroduce the require for new council tenets to have decent references unless in desperate need.

Also increase the Minimum standards in all private lets to the same as S housing standards.

The increase in S housing places available will help to regulate the prices in the private lets and will hopefully decrease house prices.

House prices need to come down, sorry to all the folks that will end up in negative equity but the current overvaluing of properties is one of the big reasons where in the mess we are.

paddedjohn

Council houses should remain open to anyone who wants to live in one and the rents increased to the level of private rents.

Morglin

fabbman wrote: »

I have been privately renting for 4 years now and just received a lecture form a family member about 'throwing my money down the drain' and need to vent my frustration somewhere.

Firstly this lecture came from a person who lived in a council house for 30 years and then bought it for 25k! Where are council houses for me & my partner? We enquired about obtainng one and were told that we are 'adequately' housed - of course we are we pay £700 a month for the Bl**dy privilege! :mad:

My argument in this was why was it the council's obligation to provide houses to the likes of him anyway, surely people should pay for the house they choose to live in and not say ' the council need to find me a house'

I think all council tenants should me made to apply for their homes every 5 years to see if more eligible people could benefit, after all some council tenants pay £70 a week with incomes of 30-40k per annum.

Sorry just had to rant!

Council homes were much more freely available 30+ years ago, when your relative got theirs. As they have bought their house, then 'allowing' them to live there is no longer a choice the council could make anyway.

Turfing people out of their homes would be costly and complicated - what if they got thrown out and then lost their job?

Would they then be allowed back in their previous home?

It would also provide no incentive for CT's to improve their homes, and most do, over time.

No one in a council home would have any incentive to climb the job ladder, if they thought it would result in the loss of their home.

What needs to happen, with a growing indigenous and foreign population, is for more homes to be built.

Many were never replaced after RTB, and we have a terrible shortage of affordable housing. They should also be bringing back 'fair rents officers' for private lets.

Investing in new homes is expensive, I know, but as it would help with both housing need and employment, for the future, I don't know why politicians can never think any further forward than the next 4 years. :wall:

Lin

andygb

paddedjohn wrote: »

Council houses should remain open to anyone who wants to live in one and the rents increased to the level of private rents.

The whole idea of council houses, is that they provide accomodation for those at the bottom of the ladder. By increasing rents to match those in the private sector, you would be denying housing to the very people who need it most.
I think that council housing should be means tested, and that RTB is abolished.
Council house tenants should not be alloowed to own other properties.

fabbman

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

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

Because I get off my a**e to ensure I am not in desperate need! Every action made by me financially has been thought through to consider the consequences of my actions.........If I get my self in Rent arrears and get evicted that makes me desperate does it not???? Really responsible that.......but we know if I am homeless the council will house me!

ILW

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No need. Social housing providers are already running at a surplus. All it needs is the political will.

I believe that if they had to pay for the properties or the land to build on, most would not be able to break even.

I I were to be given a few houses fro free, I would happily rent them out for half market rate and still make a nice profit.

Fly_Baby

t0rt0ise wrote: »

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.

No, it is not jealousy - it is an outrage at the unfairness.

I am pretty sure that if buying a house would take a few years to buy and pay off (as opposed to current few decades) then council tenants would not be begrudged for getting it for free.

Fly_Baby

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No. It's fabbman who needs to change. He needs to understand that there are rewards to being a productive person, to working for a living, to aspiring to better things

What are they?

Seriously, I would like someone to remind me of them.

Fly_Baby

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

If we're talking inequality, then perhaps we should include owner/occs in any housing solutions. They are, after all, part of the housing market and should play their part. Let's start by encouraging under-occupiers to downsize by taxing empty bedrooms.

Why should they, they have paid for the house this size with their own earned money.

But under-occupiers in coucil properties should be made to downsize - it is not their property to decide and the council is their landlord after all, and private landlords have that power.

fabbman

Out of interest Wee willy what housing sector do you fit into????