Council house? Not if you are on over £100k pa

donnajunkie

lemonjelly wrote: »

Is it reasonable for a household of 1 person to occupy a 3 or 4 bed house for years, even decades when you have families being overcrowded in flats or similar?

the thing is if you are a family in over crowded accomodation it may not be the best thing to do to move to a bigger place when you know in a few years time you are going to be booted out of that house for under occupying.

donnajunkie

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm actually pro increased tenant rights, but even I can think of reasons that totally secure tenancies aren't ideal. If some one with antisocial behaviour, for example, believes they can get away with any behaviour in their home towards neighbours....why should neighbours have no remit for complaint. Tenants who habitually cause damage, through slovenliness or wilfulness....why should any landlords....social or otherwise, contend with that and incur costs for it?

there are rules covering those things were if you break them you can be evicted.

leveller2911

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm actually pro increased tenant rights, but even I can think of reasons that totally secure tenancies aren't ideal. If some one with antisocial behaviour, for example, believes they can get away with any behaviour in their home towards neighbours....why should neighbours have no remit for complaint. Tenants who habitually cause damage, through slovenliness or wilfulness....why should any landlords....social or otherwise, contend with that and incur costs for it?

When signing a tenancy agreement all tenants agree to a list of rules so if/when the constantly break the rules they can be kicked out.Its rare granted but it doesn happen.We had a family who were anti social in that they were always argueing,untax cars etc , they were evicted but not for their behaviour but for failing to pay the rent...............for 3 yrs..........Tenancy is only secure as long as people behave themselves...allegedly

donnajunkie

leveller2911 wrote: »

How exactly are you (and me as I'm a tax payer) subsidising me and the many thousands like me?.

i've never understood this issue of the taxpayer subsidising social housing simply because when our council transferred the housing stock to a housing assocation they sold it to tenants by saying the chunk of our rents that currently goes to subsidising under performing councils will be kept and be available for home improvements. so if we were subsidising other people then how were we being subsidised.

sjaypink

donnajunkie wrote: »

i've never understood this issue of the taxpayer subsidising social housing simply because when our council transferred the housing stock to a housing assocation they sold it to tenants by saying the chunk of our rents that currently goes to subsidising under performing councils will be kept and be available for home improvements. so if we were subsidising other people then how were we being subsidised.

The old 'council' housing budgets used to be ringfenced so that income from rent only was used to repair & built homes. However, due to all the different councils across the country having different %s of council homes in their boroughs, and of course all having differing management styles (some estates were well managed, others were left to fall into complete disrepair), each council had varying accounts.

Basically, the councils who were making a profit on their stock, their excess money was sent to the next borough, who were making a loss. So that is why the term subsidised was used.

donnajunkie

sjaypink wrote: »

The old 'council' housing budgets used to be ringfenced so that income from rent only was used to repair & built homes. However, due to all the different councils across the country having different %s of council homes in their boroughs, and of course all having differing management styles (some estates were well managed, others were left to fall into complete disrepair), each council had varying accounts.

Basically, the councils who were making a profit on their stock, their excess money was sent to the next borough, who were making a loss. So that is why the term subsidised was used.

thanks. alot of people seem to think they are paying for it out of their income tax. i am talking about people who dont live in social housing.

leveller2911

donnajunkie wrote: »

thanks. alot of people seem to think they are paying for it out of their income tax. i am talking about people who dont live in social housing.

A perception that the current half wits in charge wish to give purely to get Joe Public to accept their tinkering with the rules. The truth is the difference seen with be almost nil. IMO opinion they are doing it to embarrass a few well off Labourite Champagne Socialists.......

I have said it before and will say it again, until the law changes to make a developer build more affordable/Social Housing the problem will never be addressed.Its not a complete solution but currently developers are only obliged to build 2.8 social/low cost Houses for every 10 and in many cases in my area they aren't building any.

One one local development they have built 3 low cost/starter homes costing £219k plus on a development of 143.......

donnajunkie

leveller2911 wrote: »

A perception that the current half wits in charge wish to give purely to get Joe Public to accept their tinkering with the rules. The truth is the difference seen with be almost nil. IMO opinion they are doing it to embarrass a few well off Labourite Champagne Socialists.......

I have said it before and will say it again, until the law changes to make a developer build more affordable/Social Housing the problem will never be addressed.Its not a complete solution but currently developers are only obliged to build 2.8 social/low cost Houses for every 10 and in many cases in my area they aren't building any.

One one local development they have built 3 low cost/starter homes costing £219k plus on a development of 143.......

they talked about this on the wright stuff today. wrighty was constantly saying why should i subsidise social housing.
edit.
i always get the impression that when they say a percentage of a new development is affordable i always think that means they are cheap enough for first time buyers. i didnt think any of the new housing was social housing.

Graham_Devon

leveller2911 wrote: »

We are lucky enough to live in Social Housing, it was built 20 years ago.The land on which the houses stand belonged to the village.The build cost of the homes was in the region of £35k, so far we have paid around £70K in rent.Even for allowing for inflation not all Social Housing is subsidised forever, there comes a day when the rent they pay is subsidising the newly built Social Housing.

How exactly are you (and me as I'm a tax payer) subsidising me and the many thousands like me?..

Looking on a housing swap site, I see that 3 bed houses down here are available for anything from 75-125 per week.

That equates to £5,200 a year.

A similar house to rent privately will cost you £750 a month, or £9,000 a year.

Thats a difference of £3,800.

There is an argument to be had that if the rents were bought into line with private rents, many would dump their council properties and downsize, allowing us to pay less in housing benefits towards private tenancies, as there would be more stock available for families. Therefore the taxpayer is paying more than is needed to house people, simply because others are allowed to sit in 3/4 beds which they do not need.

donnajunkie

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looking on a housing swap site, I see that 3 bed houses down here are available for anything from 75-125 per week.

That equates to £5,200 a year.

A similar house to rent privately will cost you £750 a month, or £9,000 a year.

Thats a difference of £3,800.

There is an argument to be had that if the rents were bought into line with private rents, many would dump their council properties and downsize, allowing us to pay less in housing benefits towards private tenancies, as there would be more stock available for families.

if more people are moved into the private sector then rents would go up due to increased demand. if many of these people get hb then it means paying more hb due to the higher rents.