Is this right?

sjaypink

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I dont really want one of the rats as a missus.
I would find it quite embarrasing seeing the missus walk to the shops in her pyjamas whilst pushing our little keanus pram with him just wearing a nappy.

Why are you fussed bout them then?
(And, so) why then aren't you out wining and dining some of the finer local produce, or socialising with mates, or... ANYTHING?

Feck me theres some lazy miserable kents on these boards. YOU COULD BE DEAD TOMORROW :eek:

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Why are you fussed bout them then?
(And, so) why then aren't you out wining and dining some of the finer local produce, or socialising with mates, or... ANYTHING?

Feck me theres some lazy miserable kents on these boards. YOU COULD BE DEAD TOMORROW :eek:

Im so fussed because my tax is being wasted on paying them benefits.

Im not out socialising because im saving up a house deposit and emergency fund, we dont all get free houses you know.

Jimmy_31

sjaypink wrote: »

Why are you fussed bout them then?
(And, so) why then aren't you out wining and dining some of the finer local produce, or socialising with mates, or... ANYTHING?

Feck me theres some lazy miserable kents on these boards. YOU COULD BE DEAD TOMORROW :eek:

By the way you could be dead tomorrow.

System

Well this was a fun read.

To save everyone else the bother I'll summarise it:

WAAHH WAAAAH its not fair!!!!

ukcarper

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

No they are not.

I thought they were planning to introduce fixed term tenancies for new tenants.

ukcarper

macaque wrote: »

Perhaps it is because security for private tenants is woefully inadequate and in the case of social housing security is given to people with no legitimate claim.

Charity should be given on the basis of genuine need, not to people with second homes, high incomes or large savings. The size of the council house should reflect the needs of tennant rather than the wishes of the tennant. People who sublet their council homes should be barred for life.

Originally council houses were not thought of as a charity and of course they should be punished for sub letting.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Erm yes we all want security.

Then why do you wish to remove that security?

Wee_Willy_Harris

ukcarper wrote: »

I thought they were planning to introduce fixed term tenancies for new tenants.

They are planning on introducing the facility to grant fixed term tenancies, but there will be no compulsion on social housing providers to stop granting secure tenancies as they do now. They will just have the option.

ukcarper

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

They are planning on introducing the facility to grant fixed term tenancies, but there will be no compulsion on social housing providers to stop granting secure tenancies as they do now. They will just have the option.

What do you think they will do.

Wee_Willy_Harris

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think they will do.

I think actual implementation of the revised legislation will be very limited. The charities commission has already advised social housing providers that they risk losing charitable status (and all the benefits that entails) if they implement any changes that they feel would be uncharitable. Islington council, for one, is already on record as saying that it will not support funding bids from HAs introducing the new market rent regime, for example.

However, the headlines in the Mail/Express will read "The end of lifetime tenancies", which will keep some of the envious posters above happy, while the HAs carry on with business as usual.