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

edgex

Idea;


why not scrap all 'council housing', so its all owned & managed by various housing trusts & landlords

instead of actually providing housing, the state pays a benefit or gives a tax credit based on your actual need
then people could choose where to live, & arrange their own housing & financial affairs


housing trusts would be free to let their properties to anyone, at the rates needed to fund the trusts operations
you would then get a mix of tenants on the various estates

CKhalvashi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I’m with you on this one.

As an NQT with 2 young children, the subsidised rent was ‘useful’. (I’m 29, so this was about 8 years ago)

We moved out 2 years later when our part-time business took off (which has now become one of 4 companies we have absolute control in) and I gave up teaching, which was around the £80k mark (although we’d earned around £40k the year before.)

Another one that there are (or if not, should be) plans in the pipeline for is to stop parents ‘kicking out’ children that cannot fend for themselves onto the councils. This is one of the main ones that is now becoming a trend.

All I’m hoping is that nothing is done for us few ‘for-profit social landlords’ who do rent to DSS being taxed beyond belief.

CK

vivatifosi

Interesting CK. I wasn't aware of this one. So if we add these measures together, what have we got?

1) Charging market rent to those who earn over £60k per household.
2) Removing house for life status for new occupants.
3) Reducing payments for social housing for families classed as under-occupying (eg two children under 10 in 3 bedroom house).
4) Not allowing parents to kick out children for the state to care for.

What other changes are there?

CLAPTON

edgex wrote: »

Idea;


why not scrap all 'council housing', so its all owned & managed by various housing trusts & landlords

instead of actually providing housing, the state pays a benefit or gives a tax credit based on your actual need
then people could choose where to live, & arrange their own housing & financial affairs


housing trusts would be free to let their properties to anyone, at the rates needed to fund the trusts operations
you would then get a mix of tenants on the various estates

the vast majority of 'social' housing is already run by housing trusts

housing trusts are unaccountable bodies reporting and controlled only by themselve;
at least with council housing tenants could complain to their local councillors, now there is no-one to regulate the trusts
trust generally have a very opaque accounting and management organaisation that pays the top people very well indeed.

personally I consider it quite wrong that huge amounts of publicly funded housing has been transferred to these unaccountable bodies.

perthperson

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I’m with you on this one.

As an NQT with 2 young children, the subsidised rent was ‘useful’. (I’m 29, so this was about 8 years ago)

We moved out 2 years later when our part-time business took off (which has now become one of 4 companies we have absolute control in) and I gave up teaching, which was around the £80k mark (although we’d earned around £40k the year before.)

Another one that there are (or if not, should be) plans in the pipeline for is to stop parents ‘kicking out’ children that cannot fend for themselves onto the councils. This is one of the main ones that is now becoming a trend.

All I’m hoping is that nothing is done for us few ‘for-profit social landlords’ who do rent to DSS being taxed beyond belief.

CK

How exactly can that be done?

CKhalvashi

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting CK. I wasn't aware of this one. So if we add these measures together, what have we got?

1) Charging market rent to those who earn over £60k per household.
2) Removing house for life status for new occupants.
3) Reducing payments for social housing for families classed as under-occupying (eg two children under 10 in 3 bedroom house).
4) Not allowing parents to kick out children for the state to care for.

What other changes are there?

This is what I’ve heard through the grapevine as to what’s going on through the Cllr for housing within our district. I’m sure I read it somewhere too (possibly the Times last week) so I’ll dig my iPad out later on.

Further changes is something I’m not completely aware of, however I will keep the NPT advised as I hear more.

perthperson wrote: »

How exactly can that be done?

There are going to be more compelling reasons needed, and currently within our council, priority is given to those leaving care.

The government reforms are trying to save housing benefit money by giving less to unemployed, single people under 25 (or possibly 35), by forcing them to move back in with parents.

The difficulty here I’ve seen myself, as I’m currently working with a 19yr old special needs man (X), who has been homeless since last July, with the council being fantastic, but a HA facing delays on an awarded new-build property. This is causing major problems in this young mans life.

Brother in the family also has severe problems (he is 16), and there have been problems in the family. X has passed around several family members, faced several (unproven) allegations of fraud etc., and seems a nice bloke, even phoned me earlier and asked if I’d like lunch (not realising I’m in the wrong country).

X needs to have his life turned around and wants to build a business of his own, but this is going to have to be done slowly. As I have business experience, this is why I’m dealing with this, as well as Cllr for housing.

There are many flaws in any system, however he now has 2 Cllrs working with him, Housing in the short term, and I’m happy to help him do what he wants to do. I sat down a few weeks ago with him, built a business plan, discussed how he wants to finance this (and may actually put some of my own money into it, as he needs something to get started with), and am here to help him, when his family wouldn’t.

The worst thing is that he approached a neighbouring council (where he originally lived) after 2 days on the streets, and they refused to help as they didn’t believe he was genuinely homeless.

This becoming more common is my main concern.

CK

N1AK

geri1965 wrote: »

It's not subsidised.

They are subsidised (the rent is lower than the market rate thus the government is providing a subsidy by allowing them to have it below that rate). What you mean is that social housing doesn't actually cost tax payers money, which is often claimed but actually a little harder to prove (though I am not saying it is not true).

The point people forget with any benefit change, tax change etc is that you can't look at one change in a vacuum. If the councils raised an extra £100,000,000 in rent that's money they can spend on holding down council tax, building or buying new houses etc.

N1AK

leveller2911 wrote: »

Subsidised? behave If the tenants didn't work and received Housing Benefit then yes that would be subsidised but the majority of tenant probably work and pay their way in life.It may be difficult to grasp but they do, try and look past the stereotypes and if we ever met you may like me......:D

The vast majority of households/people don't 'pay their way in life'. The break even point (where you pay sufficient tax to cover your proportion of government spending) is something like £35-40k per person. Given that council tenants have lower average incomes than average it seems unlikely they will be.

I'm all for councils setting up as tenants and offering competitively priced housing if they think they can do it and make a profit though.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

I'm all for councils setting up as tenants and offering competitively priced housing if they think they can do it and make a profit though.

Why profit , why not at a lower overall cost than providing Housing Benefit subsidy to pay private rental costs?

paulmapp8306

Personal opinion - if you earn circa £60k you should NOT be n a social home. Either buy one, or privately rent one. There is a biug shortage of social homes with many people who NEED them.

Personally I think circa £40k and you should be moving .... Certainly if you applied for a social home with that income you wouldnt get one so why be alloud to stay when you start earning that.

I think you should be told to pay full - ie private - rent levels at £40k+ or move out. That extra rent could then fund the building of new social homes for others, while allowing families to stay in their homes (i do understand the want/benefits of that).