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

vivatifosi

macaque wrote: »

Why do you think it is a good idea for high earners to have state subsidised housing whilst people in genuine need go without? I'm puzzled.

I don't, which is why I said the idea was a good one (ie to make high earners pay market rate).

The-Joker

leveller2911 wrote: »

And its totally against any Social Housing tenancy agreement and if exposed the tenants would be evicted . The problem seems to be that there are few if any checks.

There was a panorama program a while back, loads of these council 'tenants' were renting out their flats and living elsewhere, there are more checks coming and bigger fines.

heathcote123

The-Joker wrote: »

There was a panorama program a while back, loads of these council 'tenants' were renting out their flats and living elsewhere, there are more checks coming and bigger fines.

I'm not so sure it is against the rules to won other property though - if the govt have figures of 60k doing it, surely they would be prosecuting.

I'm sure its probably against the rules to acquire social housing if you already have a house, but if you've been given a life tenancy, and then go onto aquire a btl, is that against the rules?

leveller2911

heathcote123 wrote: »

I'm not so sure it is against the rules to won other property though - if the govt have figures of 60k doing it, surely they would be prosecuting.

I'm sure its probably against the rules to acquire social housing if you already have a house, but if you've been given a life tenancy, and then go onto aquire a btl, is that against the rules?

The current rules of our tenancy is that no "Tenant" may own another property whilst they are a tenant of the HA.

I think some people get around this by not having a Joint tenancy.If the wife is the Tenant on the tenancy agreement then the husband can buy a house.Its also the same if a couple co-habit.They should make all tenancy agreements Joint so tit closes the loophole.
If a couple have a Joint tenancy then at anytime they can have one name taken off it and that person is free to buy a house whilst still living in Social Housing.Its been going on for years and should have been stopped years ago.

grizzly1911

leveller2911 wrote: »

I would rather see an immigrant (legal) who moved here , worked and paid into the system be given priority for Social Housing over someone born here, 4 kids and claimed dole money from their 18th birthday....They should have their card stamped "no recourse to welfare benefits".

Trouble is with a card duly marked they don't disappear unless we exterminate them.

They will still be there tomorrow and will still need somewhere to live, in a civilised society, in what is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world - apparently.

Candy53

CLAPTON wrote: »

two families equally worthy

one lives in social housing for 25 years and then is given it for free

the other is unlucky enough not be live in social housing and it given nothing

a fair and just society?


the subsidy comes from the comparative value of the product.
if market rents were charged for all properties and only the actual people subsidised (based on need and not simply where they live) we could build massively more housing for the benefit of all.

One lives in social housing for 25 years then is given it for free? What do you mean?

Candy

CLAPTON

Candy53 wrote: »

One lives in social housing for 25 years then is given it for free? What do you mean?

Candy

It is relevant to the sub-thread in which it occurred

Candy53

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is relevant to the sub-thread in which it occurred

It isn't relevant to anything as it isn't true, neither is it true that someone who lives in a council property for 30 years pays next to nothing in rent.

CLAPTON

Candy53 wrote: »

It isn't relevant to anything as it isn't true, neither is it true that someone who lives in a council property for 30 years pays next to nothing in rent.

Indeed so, which is why I added a '?' mark because I don't think it makes sense either.
It was a rhetorical comment make in the context of the exchange.

Have you actually read the thread? Personally I wouldn't bother if I were you but if it is of interest I'ld be happy to explain the debate in detail if you wish.

Candy53

Yes, I did read the thread, all of it, and would never post if I hadn't.

Whatever context a statement is put in, if it isn't fact, can give the people reading it the wrong information, or leave them confused as to what the law is if they are in that particular situation.

Your posts do read as if you are stating facts. This isn't good for tenants who are paying quite highish rents for their properties.
No, I don't need you to explain anything, I have been credited with a certain amount of intelligence. It's what you said on the 'face of it' that makes it look so.

Candy