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

vivatifosi

drc wrote: »

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

That's the problem with governments of all colours, they do enjoy a good tinker.

drc

vivatifosi wrote: »

That's the problem with governments of all colours, they do enjoy a good tinker.

It's interesting to see how this will end up. Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham are already tightening up eligibility criteria so that are high % of applicants will need to be working or have a strong connection to the area and have ended the practice of placing those in "need" (often families just arrived in the country) at the top of the housing list.

leveller2911

drc wrote: »

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

Hopefully they will introduce rules so that people who have never worked and paid into the system will also be excluded from being allocated Social Housing.

Social Housing should be allocated on the basis of the tenant having already paid into the system.

vivatifosi

drc wrote: »

It's interesting to see how this will end up. Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham are already tightening up eligibility criteria so that are high % of applicants will need to be working or have a strong connection to the area and have ended the practice of placing those in "need" (often families just arrived in the country) at the top of the housing list.

I realise I risk being flamed for saying this, but it has always struck me as odd that people can come to the UK and get a tenancy for life on the grounds of need. We absolutely should provide for people who arrive in absolute need, say from a war zone. But why a house for life when they are in short supply and not readily available to the citizens who are already here? People, irrespective of their country of birth, are for the most part resilient creatures and are unlikely to be those in greatest need for their whole life.

chucky

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.

In principle it's a good thing but like everything the government does, there's an ulterior motive to all of this. Breaking the lifetime tenancy rule won't just affect these 34,000 tenants.

drc

chucky wrote: »

In principle it's a good thing but like everything the government does, there's an ulterior motive to all of this. Breaking the lifetime tenancy rule won't just affect these 34,000 tenants.

Isn't the new lifetime tenancy rule only for new council tenants and not existing ones?

chucky

drc wrote: »

Isn't the new lifetime tenancy rule only for new council tenants and not existing ones?

I don't know.

CLAPTON

social housing is a rediculous concept

by all means subsidise people in need but why ever subsidise a house?

madness

geri1965_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

social housing is a rediculous concept

by all means subsidise people in need but why ever subsidise a house?

madness

It's not subsidised.

CLAPTON

geri1965 wrote: »

It's not subsidised.

social housing is heavily subsidised

it is not let at rents comparable with similar properties and the

tenants are specially selected