Council House sub-letting to be criminalized

michaels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16376455

I can't believe it is not already.

Also council tenants on 100k+ to pay market rates.

Personally I think all council properties should charge market rates or may be 10% below - for those who can't afford this there is housing benefit and why should those who can afford it but were lucky enough to get a council house receive a subsidy that millions of others in the same financial position but who have never got a council house do not get?

RenovationMan

This is great news. The main issues I have always had with council housing were that they were not means-tested after a number of years (i.e. could the people now living in a council house now afford to rent privately and allow more needy people to take on the council house); that they were not reviewed on occupancy (i.e. are elderly couples still living in their original family homes after the kids have moved out); that the kids could automatically keep on their council house once their parents had popped their clogs; that people could sub-let council houses.

A lot of these are now being changed or looked at. Great news for those individuals and families who are really in need of housing.

ILW

Dos make you wonder why it has never been addressed before. I see no reason why offspring of council tenants should have higher priority than those who privately rent or buy.

chewmylegoff

I wouldn't want a council house, Bob Crow might be living next door. The horror!

Spartacus_Mills

The coalition are doing the right thing here. It is obviously Lib Dem influence in government.

vivatifosi

It's the right thing but doesn't go far enough. £100k is far too high a figure at which people should pay market rates and people's housing needs should be reviewed to make sure houses are not under-occupied. Even if it is not politically expedient to change tenancy rights for existing tenants, it should certainly be the case for new ones.

SingleSue

It has always been against the tenancy rules to sublet our HA homes in this area, if you do and are found out, you lose the house.

Our rents are also not too far below market rent either!

Wouldn't mind the 100k income......

The_White_Horse

100k??????? should be 30k - or as a compromise whatever higher rate tax is these days - 38K?

100k is a disgrace.

CLAPTON

well

my betting is that

1. it won't actually be introduced by the next election
or
2. it will be watered down and won't apply to existing tenants

in fact it will be as firm a commitment as 'we have no plans to raise the level of VAT' or the commitment to reduce the number of non-EU immigrant to 10s of thousands

we will see.

PaulF81

The_White_Horse wrote: »

100k??????? should be 30k - or as a compromise whatever higher rate tax is these days - 38K?

100k is a disgrace.

It is WH, but look on the bright side. All those filthy union troughers are now going to have to pay. There should be a subclause for MPs though.

drc

I suppose the only way to crack down on subletting is raise social housing rents to near market levels.

I think it is grossly unfair the way social housing is distributed at the moment. As said earlier, why should someone be priority for social housing just because they get their tenancy passed on by a parent when they might not actually need social housing and be earning well above average. Isn't social housing supposed to be for the very poor and vulnerable? That remit doesn't seem to apply anymore.

And they should lower the rate at which market rate is charged to the higher rate income band (£43,000 or whatever it is).