Council House sub-letting to be criminalized

BobQ

RenovationMan wrote: »

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.

I agree that the processes need to be looked at, including a requirement that there should be a regular means test of whether the council house tenant can afford to rent privately. While tenancies are transferred to others at present, the impression that this happens "automatically" without consideration of the circumstances is a misconception. It usually happens to preserve an existing family unit or to avoid making homeless people who would immediately have a high priority housing need.

ILW

geri1965 wrote: »

Council housing is NOT subsidised. Private landlords just charge more.

It is usually subsidised if the value of the land and property are taken into account.

michaels

Funnily I thought is was with an S but typed it and it looked better with the 'zee' - is this a word more often seen in a US context?

Although looking at it again the zed does look ugly...

purch wrote: »

In English the word is spelt criminalised :eek:



P.S. You can spell Social Housing in anyway you choose

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

It is usually subsidised if the value of the land and property are taken into account.

Wrong, Social Housing rents are set down in law as a "Fair rent" which is set to include the interest that Social Housing Landlords pay for the loans to build the properties. The rent also includes maintenance charges too...If the housebuilding cost is higher the HA mortgage at a longer term.

As an example our house was built 18 yrs ago and the rent that we have paid has already paid off the loan which out HA took out to build the property. They are now making profit from our rent.The houses on our development were built on land donated by the local Council.

The fact is exactly like others have posted Landlords charge higher rents to make long term profit ,Social Housing is "Not for profit"..

Instead of mouthing off Jog on and educate yourself ..........;) Your comparing apples and pears.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

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.

I do, it is their home, the problem came from selling them off in the first place. I do find this 'lucky to have one' quite fascinating, I don't think it was long ago when people couldn't get out of them fast enough. I can't believe it has improved any, when all the best ones have been sold off.

ILW

leveller2911 wrote: »

Wrong, Social Housing rents are set as a "Fair rent" which is set to include the interest that Social Housing Landlords pay for the loans to build the properties. The rent also includes maintenance charges too...

As an example our house was built 18 yrs ago and the rent that we have paid has already paid off the loan which out HA took out to build the property. They are now making profit from our rent.The houses on our development were built on land donated by the local Council.

The fact is exactly like others have posted Landlords charge higher rents to make long term profit ,Social Housing is "Not for profit"..

Instead of mouthing off Jog on and educate yourself ..........;)

So it is subsidised by the fact that the council donated the land to them. By definition, anything that is supplied at below market value is being subsidised by someone. In your case the local council tax payers who could have benefited from the sale of the land.

I am not saying it is wrong, just that it is a fact.

leveller2911

ILW wrote: »

So it is subsidised by the fact that the council donated the land to them. By definition, anything that is supplied at below market value is being subsidised by someone. In your case the local council tax payers who could have benefited from the sale of the land.

I am not saying it is wrong, just that it is a fact.

Local taxpayers did benefit, all the houses went to Local people, who pay tax...;) 2-0


Back on the original thread , I think anyone found to be sub-letting should lose their tenancy forever.

kabayiri

leveller2911 wrote: »

...
The fact is exactly like others have posted Landlords charge higher rents to make long term profit ,Social Housing is "Not for profit"..
...

I think the problem is down to the gap between private rents and rents in social housing. This creates an opportunity for people to profiteer from this disparity.

I'd be interested to know if the subletting issue is purely a problem in areas of the country with high house prices, like London.

ILW

leveller2911 wrote: »

Local taxpayers did benefit, all the houses went to Local people, who pay tax...;) 2-0


Back on the original thread , I think anyone found to be sub-letting should lose their tenancy forever.

Some of the local people benefited, if the land had been sold, all of the local taxpayers would have benefited.

daveyjp

BobQ wrote: »

An early nomination for pedant of the year?

No because they are incorrect. The only time using a 'z' is wrong is for the word 'organise'.

See OED for an explanation!