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

ILW

Is it breaking the lifetime tenancy rule, or simply saying that if you earn enough you should be paying a market rent?

I see no problem at all with that.

tuggy12

I hope "earnings" will include daily expenses drawn by a member of the Lords, who continues to live in a council house, whilst owning a second property elsewhere!

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

social housing is heavily subsidised

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

tenants are specially selected

I can't be @rsed to keep pointing out the facts on the subject but will go as far as to say (again) that Social Housing rents are set according to the "Fair rent" which is set as a percentage of the average wage.
They have no relation to HPI whereas private rents are set at a level so that the landlord can pay his mortgage,interest and profit margin....

Social Housing rents go to pay off the mortgage in the same way that private sector mortgages but the difference is they don't have to make a profit.

That said by the time that those who buy their homes under the RTB and RTA schemes will have paid for the build costs of the homes 3 times over and in the case of RTA still pay market value when they buy.

geri1965_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

social housing is heavily subsidised

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

tenants are specially selected

It's not subsidised - it pays for itself. The fact that rents for similar properties privately owned are higher is neither here nor there. It certainly does not back up your argument.

SkyeKnight

I'm not 100% sure this is a good idea. I remember when there was that story in the press about Frank Dobson having a council flat which would normally cost £1,000 a week to rent (but he paid way less). Under this plan someone would have to pay rent of £52k a year on a salary of around £60k - not really possible - or be turfed out to make way for someone on minimum wage. That seems pretty unfair too. There are some places where even £60k won't go very far.

slf2

does anyone know what a single parents cap is. i am living alone with 2 children in a council house as a teacher. i could not afford to buy in london on my own and i am concerned that i will be affected by this. can anyone help please?

Daddy-Spendless

i love the way we are being manipulated into believing that some people are paying too low a rent, and those rents must rise. isn't the "full market rate" they talk about artificially high due to the number of BTL investment properties that are being supported by housing benefit?

shouldn't we be saying we need lower rents for all? so housing becomes more affordable.

not suggesting those fortunate enough NOT to have their pockets raped by high rents are somehow getting away with something they shouldn't be able to.

Graham_Devon

Daddy-Spendless wrote: »

i love the way we are being manipulated into believing that some people are paying too low a rent, and those rents must rise. isn't the "full market rate" they talk about artificially high due to the number of BTL investment properties that are being supported by housing benefit?

shouldn't we be saying we need lower rents for all? so housing becomes more affordable.

not suggesting those fortunate enough NOT to have their pockets raped by high rents are somehow getting away with something they shouldn't be able to.

You wouldn't be able to turn a profit, infact, you'd be at a constant loss if you rented the equivalent house as a BTL landlord at those prices.

Hence the subsidy.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

I can't be @rsed to keep pointing out the facts on the subject but will go as far as to say (again) that Social Housing rents are set according to the "Fair rent" which is set as a percentage of the average wage.
They have no relation to HPI whereas private rents are set at a level so that the landlord can pay his mortgage,interest and profit margin....

Social Housing rents go to pay off the mortgage in the same way that private sector mortgages but the difference is they don't have to make a profit.

That said by the time that those who buy their homes under the RTB and RTA schemes will have paid for the build costs of the homes 3 times over and in the case of RTA still pay market value when they buy.

well the 'cost' of much social is ZERO according to your theory i.e. anything build more than 25years ago has zero financing costs


so take three families exactly equal in income and family situation

1. one lives in a 30 year social property and pay virtually no rent (well maintence cost only)

2. one lives in a 10 year old social housing block so pay loads of rent to pay for the mortgage and maintenance

3. one live in a 'private ' property and pays even more


that seems to your utopia paradise

I call it a subsidy and consider it grossly unfair and socially divisive;
ok I accept you don't so we will have to agree to disagree

CLAPTON

geri1965 wrote: »

It's not subsidised - it pays for itself. The fact that rents for similar properties privately owned are higher is neither here nor there. It certainly does not back up your argument.

just explain why it is fair and just that one person in exactly the same general situation should pay less than the other?