Council house debate

wrightk

would just like to say after being involved with council and housing that anyone who thinks getting a council house is easy is completely wrong. even if you have children.

from our own experiences we spent two years on the waiting list. a large proportion of that was spent homeless, as our landlord decided to kick us out for complaining about the dreadful state the property was in. we had to live in one room for us and our child. renting again was not an option as we couldnt afford it, bond schemes are ok as long as they exist in your area but with financial problems in the past we would need 6 months up front or a guarantor which again was not an option.my job does not pay enough even though i work 48 hours a week with vulnerable/autistic and challenging individuals

we have finally been offered a house and can start rebuilding our life after an absolutely hellish year for us

another point to note is that people who think that people who have more and more kids are in some way rewarded by the council are wrong. the council have specific policys to deal with this and children are expected to share a room regardless of sex up until 5 years old in my area.

Social housing is for people in the most need, everyone is entitled to apply regardless of your circumstances it just means you may have to wait a long time. A welfare state can be open to abuse, but if we took it all away, what would we be left with. vulnerable people in the gutter.

Just thought id give my two penneth as not everyone who applies for social housing is a low life scum

davsidipp

wrightk wrote: »

would just like to say after being involved with council and housing that anyone who thinks getting a council house is easy is completely wrong. even if you have children.

from our own experiences we spent two years on the waiting list. a large proportion of that was spent homeless, as our landlord decided to kick us out for complaining about the dreadful state the property was in. we had to live in one room for us and our child. renting again was not an option as we couldnt afford it, bond schemes are ok as long as they exist in your area but with financial problems in the past we would need 6 months up front or a guarantor which again was not an option.my job does not pay enough even though i work 48 hours a week with vulnerable/autistic and challenging individuals

we have finally been offered a house and can start rebuilding our life after an absolutely hellish year for us

another point to note is that people who think that people who have more and more kids are in some way rewarded by the council are wrong. the council have specific policys to deal with this and children are expected to share a room regardless of sex up until 5 years old in my area.

Social housing is for people in the most need, everyone is entitled to apply regardless of your circumstances it just means you may have to wait a long time. A welfare state can be open to abuse, but if we took it all away, what would we be left with. vulnerable people in the gutter.

Just thought id give my two penneth as not everyone who applies for social housing is a low life scum

good luck to you but i dont think people in council housing are scum i grew up in one its just a lot of the system is abused and some people treat their homes like tips.

paddedjohn

andygb wrote: »

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.

but the people who need the help most get their rent paid/subsidised anyway, if the rents are increased it wouldnt affect this section of society but would force the better paid to pay more.

shadow4

I think more should be done to stop people from losing their homes through repossession.
We lost our home due to myself losing my job and having to take one with much lower pay, my husband being off on the sick from work and our fixed rate ending and going onto a variable rate which increased our payments by £200 a month. Once you start struggling lenders are reluctant to help and heap charges onto your account, we couldnt get help towards the repayments for six months but after only three the mortgage company had started repossession procedures against us.

Luckily we managed to get a council house with only two weeks to go until we were evicted. I was packing our stuff in boxes not knowing where we were going to go. We got a house 4 miles away so had to uproot our children from school. My husband is now back working and im sure if the lender had been more reasonable we could have stayed in our home. Now we are unable to get another mortgage or private rent due to our credit rating.

Wee_Willy_Harris

fabbman wrote: »

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!

If you were homeless as a result of your own actions, the council would have no "duty to house". As for thinking out your actions? That's a choice you have made. Personally, I agree it's the right choice, but it is a choice all the same. You could equally have made the choice not to, if all you aspire to is being a social housing tenant.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ILW wrote: »

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.

Of course they pay for the property and the land it is built on.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fly_Baby wrote: »

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.

I didn't say they should downsize. I said they should be encouraged to by imposing taxation penalties. Let's concentrate the minds of all these single/couple owner occs in their 3, 4, 5+ bedroom empty nests who are clogging up the housing market and keeping prices out of the reach of their own children/grandchildren to play their part in the housing market, either by paying through the nose or downsizing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

fabbman wrote: »

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

My personal circumstances do not dictate my views. Let's try and keep this focused on the bigger picture, rather than the current tenure of individual posters, which proves nothing.

Wee_Willy_Harris

wrightk wrote: »

from our own experiences we spent two years on the waiting list. a large proportion of that was spent homeless, as our landlord decided to kick us out for complaining about the dreadful state the property was in. we had to live in one room for us and our child.

A good point. Rather than reducing the rights of social housing tenants, how about INCREASING the security of tenure for private tenants. Remove the right for a no grounds (S21) eviction. This would give tenants security of tenure AND reduce the number of accidental or short term landlords as well as offering the tenant the opportunity to enforce the LLs obligations without the fear of eviction. Rented housing standards would improve, the security of tenure would reduce demand on social housing and force house prices down as reluctant/accidental landlords sell up whatever the price.

Wee_Willy_Harris

paddedjohn wrote: »

but the people who need the help most get their rent paid/subsidised anyway, if the rents are increased it wouldnt affect this section of society but would force the better paid to pay more.

And increase the burden on the public purse.