Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Should there be a "moral" element the the allocation of social housing?

1246789

Comments

  • quantic
    quantic Posts: 1,024 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    I personally feel that my generation (I'm 25) was robbed by the idiotic idea that was right to buy. Not being able to afford a house that someone who earns massively less than I do, or in some cases has never worked a day in their life. Wow what a kick in the teeth that is. I would never buy an ex council house out of sheer principle.
  • ILW
    ILW Posts: 18,333 Forumite
    I was just wondering if the allocation of housing could be used as a method of encouraging better behaviour. It does seem to encourage bad behaviour in it's current methods.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Kennyboy66 wrote: »
    I don't think tenure should be "inheritable" unless in exceptional circumstances.

    The government "banned" councils from housing people with kids in B&B accomodation in 2004, so it is hardly languishing.

    The only solution is to provide incentives for people to more, so If Auntie Dot has a 3 bed house because hubby has died and kids have grown up, then she should be offered a cash bribe to move. Its the only fair way - you can't go turfing people out of their homes after 30 years just to free it up - its simply immoral.

    I'm not sure that you would need cash bribes just suitable accommodation. My mum lives in a 1 bed flat on an ex council now social housing estate dedicated to older people and there is no shortage of people wanting to move there.
  • Generali
    Generali Posts: 36,411 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    a wrath of problems

    OT I know but what a great phrase!
  • lemonjelly
    lemonjelly Posts: 8,014 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    I think means testing would be a good idea to stop people exploiting the system. However, possible problems would include removing the incentive for people to work if they are happy where they are. This problem might be slightly mitigated by social housing becoming less desirable as those prepared to work would steadily move on to private landlords under this proposal.

    Many HA's/LA's do have a form of means testing in place, though it tends to relate more to the amount of capital, rather than income. This particularly affects people who split up at the time of a relationship breakdown.

    However I do agree that there would be the possibility of a disincentive on ambition, as well as the risk of increased cash in hand type work.
    It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
  • the bigger slag you are, and the more kids you have with different fathers, the bigger house you get. welcome to britain 2011.

    anyone in this position has chosen this lifestyle and must fund it, if they can't - there is a perfectly good pavement waiting for them.

    this is clearly different from a married mother of two or three kids, whose husband leaves her or dies.

    decent people should get help. !!!!less slags and general scum layabouts should get nothing. the end.
  • they should 100% be means tested. some of the people in the HA near me have convertable cars, are going on holidays abroad - meanwhile the decent people are struggling to make ends meet. most people could have decent cars and holidays if the council subsidised their rent/mortgage payments.

    SCUM OUT - Decent people in!
  • lemonjelly
    lemonjelly Posts: 8,014 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    Kennyboy66 wrote: »
    I don't think tenure should be "inheritable" unless in exceptional circumstances.

    The government "banned" councils from housing people with kids in B&B accomodation in 2004, so it is hardly languishing.

    The only solution is to provide incentives for people to more, so If Auntie Dot has a 3 bed house because hubby has died and kids have grown up, then she should be offered a cash bribe to move. Its the only fair way - you can't go turfing people out of their homes after 30 years just to free it up - its simply immoral.

    Agree wholeheartedly with this post.

    Actually, the way to free up a lot mre social housing would involve the withdrawing of security of tenure where properties are under occupied. A couple in their mid 50's being the sole occupants of a 3 bed house do not need a 3 bed house. An LA or HA should be able to downsize them. Currently they cannot. This results in lots of families being stuck in flats, as people are not moving out of houses. This adds to the blockage in the system, as there are less properties following the right to buy.
    It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.
  • also, why are these ha places built near normal people's houses. we don't want their kind near us. they don't work, so why do they need to be near places of work or transport? they should build basic hotel like places for these people (with no views) in the middle of nowhere. real people shouldn't have to see them or live near them.

    they can leave the compound as and when they like, but must be home by curfew at 6.00pm. no need for them to be out after this time if they have no job or money.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    I don't think this (or any other) government has a chance of properly introducing a moral element to social housing. Governments struggle with just trying to categorise people into fit to work and not fit to work - deciding who is an undeserving poor person and a deserving poor person would be impossible in reality. It's easy at the extremes (Jamie Oliver easily found a number of undeserving poor examples for Jamie's Dream School) but impossible at the margins.

    I would have thought that as social housing is allocated based on need then this need could be reviewed every couple of years or sooner. If someone has been accepted for social housing on the basis of need and then later don't need it they should be asked to leave. At the very least someone whose circumstances have changed for the better shouldn't receive any subsidised rent.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.