"High-earning council tenants will face paying full market rate for homes"- Telegraph

drc

Makes me wonder if this is the start of slowly raising the rent of almost all social rented homes to be on a par with the private sector?

From The Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9275686/High-earning-council-tenants-will-face-paying-full-market-rate-for-homes.html

High-earning council tenants will face paying full market rate for homes

Tens of thousands of high-earning council tenants face paying full market rates for their homes under plans to be set out next month.
Some 34,000 council houses are occupied by tenants with a household income of more than £60,000
Photo: PAUL DOYLE
By James Kirkup, Deputy Political Editor7:00AM BST 19 May 2012

Couples earning more than £60,000 could face sharp increases in the rent they pay for social housing.

A consultation will be launched proposing “pay to stay” rules that would allow councils and housing associations to charge higher rents to tenants with higher incomes.

The rules will end what ministers say is an unfair system that sees taxpayers subsidising the rent of tenants who could afford to pay full market prices.

Tenants in social housing can pay rent a fraction of what a similar property would cost on the open market.

There are as many as 34,000 council houses occupied by tenants with a household income of more than £60,000, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Council to spend £10,000 on DIY DVDs for tenants 18 Apr 2012
The public subsidy for those homes is around £122 million a year, the department estimates.

Conservative ministers have frequently highlighted cases they say show the injustice of the current system, such as Frank Dobson, the Labour MP who lived in a council property while he was a Cabinet minister earning more than £100,000 a year.

Bob Crow, the leader of the RMT union who is paid more than £100,000 a year lives in a social housing in London with rent reported to be around £150 a week.

Previously, ministers have suggested an income limit of £100,000. But after figures suggested that would affect only around 6,000 households, a lower limit will be proposed in next month’s consultation.

A £60,000 household threshold could be controversial because it could affect couples composed of two public sector workers: teachers, police officers and senior nurses can all earn more than £30,000.

Conservative strategists have identified perceived abuse of social housing as a key issue among working class voters, and hope the income cap will trigger a political row similar to that over cuts in welfare benefits.

A No10 source said: “It's not right that high earners benefit from taxpayer funded housing subsidy. Just as we have introduced a cap on housing benefit and welfare payments to make the system fairer, now we're acting on social housing too.

Some Conservative-led local authorities are already tightening eligibility rules for new tenants, denying social housing to middle earners.

Hammersmith and Fulham in London is considering denying social housing to applicants with a combined income of more than £40,000.

Westminster council is thought to be planning to adopt a similar policy and planning a higher cap of £50,000 or £60,000.

The new rules proposed in next month’s consultation will take force where councils do not chose to impose their own income limit.

There are around 8 million people living in 4 million council or housing association homes in England and Wales. Councils currently have more than 1.8 million applicants on waiting lists for housing.
According to Government figures, 60,000 council tenants own a property of their own but chose to live in social housing instead.

grizzly1911

drc wrote: »

Makes me wonder if this is the start of slowly raising the rent of almost all social rented homes to be on a par with the private sector?

From The Telegraph;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/9275686/High-earning-council-tenants-will-face-paying-full-market-rate-for-homes.html

Wouldn't seem logical so probably yes.

Question is where will they go?

I don't have a problem, personally occupying social housing, particularly where there are children involved, stability, education, community, family etc. as long as only subsidised whilst on low income. Quite common when I was younger.

Not everyone wants/should have the burden of house ownership. A mix of people also helps stop sink estates developing I would venture to suggest.

The underlying problem, will still remain, that there is insufficient stock of housing whether that be social/private.

As usual a bigger issue for London/SE than elsewhere.

PasturesNew

The real problem is the cost of houses and rent.... making all houses expensive sucks more out of the economy, so everybody has less to spend on stuff, which means less growth, less people taking a chance on starting a new business that might grow.

Make those with big salaries pay a private-equivalent rent, but do something about the cost of housing overall.

Carl31

Why have high earners got social housing in the first place? I thought you had to disclose change in circumstances when you receive benefits? Surely once youre earning over the threshold you no longer qualify?

vivatifosi

Carl31 wrote: »

Why have high earners got social housing in the first place? I thought you had to disclose change in circumstances when you receive benefits? Surely once youre earning over the threshold you no longer qualify?

Because they currently have lifetime tenancies Carl. Personally I think its a good idea. However given there are only 34,000 families affected, my sense is that it is purely tinkering, aimed at showing that they do hit "high earners" too. Oh, and I'm sure making Labour MPs and trade union leaders pay more will warm the cockles of Conservative hearts too.

patchwork_cat

Carl31 wrote: »

Why have high earners got social housing in the first place? I thought you had to disclose change in circumstances when you receive benefits? Surely once youre earning over the threshold you no longer qualify?

Social housing does not = benefit. Although it is arguable that it should.

DaddyBear

The fact that couples earning more than £60k are allowed to occupy council housing is rediculous

wymondham

To my mind if you're able to get a mortgage or rent privately then you should not be able to choose social housing as a lifestyle choice.

billybear1

Carl31 wrote: »

Why have high earners got social housing in the first place? I thought you had to disclose change in circumstances when you receive benefits? Surely once youre earning over the threshold you no longer qualify?

This! It's disgusting, how can people earning over the threshold be allowed to remain? It makes a mockery of the system!

Graham_Devon

I can't say anything but "good" on this one really.

drc

vivatifosi wrote: »

Because they currently have lifetime tenancies Carl. Personally I think its a good idea. However given there are only 34,000 families affected, my sense is that it is purely tinkering, aimed at showing that they do hit "high earners" too. Oh, and I'm sure making Labour MPs and trade union leaders pay more will warm the cockles of Conservative hearts too.

I agree but it sets a precedent for further and further tinkering...