Gaining social housing when working.

PippaGirl_2

I went and looked it up. Cameron has talked about time limiting all social housing tenancies to 5 years so they can be reassessed as to their need, if they have managed to get good jobs and their income is ok they would then be given notice to leave. As yet, it hasn't happened but is still being talked about. Obviously it seriously disincentivises anyone getting a better job or more hours or getting promotion because that might mean you lose your home! These new tenancies would only be for new social housing tenants, not the ones already in secure tenancies.

Pippin12

Things just keep getting worse. This is going to turn council estates even more into ghettos of the underprivileged. What we need is a programme of local authority house building so that the root of the problem is addressed. Controversially too, I believe the Right To Buy should be abolished. If someone wants to buy a home then they should move into the private sector to do so.

Chrissiew

PippaGirl wrote: »

I went and looked it up. Cameron has talked about time limiting all social housing tenancies to 5 years so they can be reassessed as to their need, if they have managed to get good jobs and their income is ok they would then be given notice to leave. As yet, it hasn't happened but is still being talked about. Obviously it seriously disincentivises anyone getting a better job or more hours or getting promotion because that might mean you lose your home! These new tenancies would only be for new social housing tenants, not the ones already in secure tenancies.

Yes we sort of have that in our area for unsociable tenants, if they have been moved due to complaints about their behaviour then their tenancies are on a 2 yearly thing, they are renewed every 2 years if they behave in a good way, if not then they will not be renewed, they are also all put in one area, I don't know if that is a good or bad thing, good as they are all together away from everyone else but bad because you have a whole heap of unsociable, trouble making tenants all together.

seven-day-weekend

stallion4u wrote: »

Wouldn't you think that those with no one working and a few kids would deserve social housing before you?

At least you have a job and are able to rent privately. Those that live on benefits have no choice.

I personally don't agree with that. I don't see why only 'poor' people should be able to have security of tenure. They can have their rent paid in a private rental as well as in social housing.

In the 'olden days' you went on a list and when you got to the top of the list and there was a suitable place become vacant, you were offered it, it didn't matter what your personal circumstances were.

Of course there was far more social housing then, but I still don't see what your income should have to do with anything.

fawd1

haven't read the whole thread, but I was in a similar situation, married 2 kids under 2, 1 earner and we weren't given a council house. We were put on the list and there we stayed until we realised that we were better off renting privately and claiming some HB. Yes, we had a very limited budget, 950 MAX, which in our area, is really not much at all ( I appreciate it sounds loads, but really anywhere in London is not). HOWEVER, we found somewhere that was a bit grotty, but could be fixed up and rented it. We negotiated a 3 year contract, bought some paint, and went to work. In terms of refurnishing, a bit of creativity will get you everywhere. For example, I'm currently writing on a desk that has been built into a chimney alcove. Cost: Zero. I saw some relatively decent wood sticking out of a skip and my OH and FIL built it. Almost every bit of our furniture has been free. Gumtree, Freecycle, etc. I whack out a paintbrush and do it up. I currently have 3 enormous rose bushes plus various pots of hydrangea and lavender etc in the teeny garden. The roses came from the pound shop (bare root and grew a treat) and everything else is from cuttings.

I estimate we spent in total about 150 pounds on making this place a home. It looks like we spent about 2000. If it's to be your home, make the effort. Even if it's rented, dont you want it to look like yours?

Yes, it might feel unfair that you don't get the council house. But, maybe take the house that needs some work, negotiate a lower price and put some effort into making it your own.

marybelle01

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I personally don't agree with that. I don't see why only 'poor' people should be able to have security of tenure. They can have their rent paid in a private rental as well as in social housing.

In the 'olden days' you went on a list and when you got to the top of the list and there was a suitable place become vacant, you were offered it, it didn't matter what your personal circumstances were.

Of course there was far more social housing then, but I still don't see what your income should have to do with anything.

Actually I agree with you, but for different reasons! Since the late 1970's (it wasn't really the case before) we have increasingly seen a concentration of poverty and disadvantage in areas of social housing at an unprecedented level. The sole reason for this was a shift in the priorities for housing combined with an explosion of unemployed families (the current multi-generational "claimant family" largely derives from the late 1970's / early 80's), and an increase in single parents households - only partly explained by an increase in unmarried parents, and largely a result of greater freedom to (justifiably!) divorce.

As these priority groups became more of a social pressure (and I am definitely not judging anyone here - this was just a period of massive social and economic change), they became prioritised for social housing alongside an almost complete stop in the house building programe for social housing. Finance was diverted into the "new dream" - home ownership for working class families. The mortgage, and the lifelong set of "chains" for ordinary workers. People easily forget that in the 1950's and '60's very few working class people owned their homes or could get a mortgage. Moving into social housing was the dream because home ownership wasn't achievable for most people.

As a result, much of the early social housing (the typical "council estate") was high quality housing for working class families, most of whom actually worked. The social mix wasn't planned, but it worked. Those who were out of work lived next door to three people in work, and word of mouth generally meant that the next job going down at the works was the out of work neighbours job! If you happened to be out of work, then pride wouldn't let you let the garden look worse than the neighbours gardens. You did everything you could to make sure your kids looked and dressed the same at school as those next door who were in work. And I graphically recall my hand-me-downs (some of which were hand me downs to me, and my dad was in work!) being quietly recycled to a friends mum a few doors up the street, because they were ut of work and couldn't sfford the uniform at school, or a new dress. These were different times and different "morals".

Study after study after study has proven that this concentration of disadvantage in social housing creates problem areas - the modern day slum. "Mixed housing" - or what is called social engineering (a phrase that is terribly out of fashion, but nevertheless has value) - where people with different social and economic statuses can live together, still shows the best prospect for improving living conditions and social and economic outcomes for everyone. It can't solve the problems of the country, or of housing - but it can go a long way to solving the problems of where and how people live. There is utterly no sense at all in sticking all the unemployed, the single parents, the disabled and the mentally ill in one area of housing (as examples) - which is what current housing policies do - in one geographical area and expecting it to be "nice". It doesn't do them any service and it doesn't do wider society any service.

marybelle01

fawd1 wrote: »

haven't read the whole thread, but I was in a similar situation, married 2 kids under 2, 1 earner and we weren't given a council house. We were put on the list and there we stayed until we realised that we were better off renting privately and claiming some HB. Yes, we had a very limited budget, 950 MAX, which in our area, is really not much at all ( I appreciate it sounds loads, but really anywhere in London is not). HOWEVER, we found somewhere that was a bit grotty, but could be fixed up and rented it. We negotiated a 3 year contract, bought some paint, and went to work. In terms of refurnishing, a bit of creativity will get you everywhere. For example, I'm currently writing on a desk that has been built into a chimney alcove. Cost: Zero. I saw some relatively decent wood sticking out of a skip and my OH and FIL built it. Almost every bit of our furniture has been free. Gumtree, Freecycle, etc. I whack out a paintbrush and do it up. I currently have 3 enormous rose bushes plus various pots of hydrangea and lavender etc in the teeny garden. The roses came from the pound shop (bare root and grew a treat) and everything else is from cuttings.

I estimate we spent in total about 150 pounds on making this place a home. It looks like we spent about 2000. If it's to be your home, make the effort. Even if it's rented, dont you want it to look like yours?

Yes, it might feel unfair that you don't get the council house. But, maybe take the house that needs some work, negotiate a lower price and put some effort into making it your own.

Good for you. Slightly different because I could afford to buy, but I couldn't afford a lot. So I bought a nice big house in a decent enough area and did the same. Built it up over time, did the work myself or with friends, and cheap and recycled was the order of most days. I'm lucky because what I have built is mine - but I could have sat around complainig for a long time about what I couldn't afford. Which included every "nice house" I saw! It's taken years - lack of cash and lack of being the country got in the way of things at times. But you'd have to prize me out of it now!

My neighbours up the road (who rent) have just done a deal with the landlord - they do this he does that, the rent doesn't increase for 10 years (and they are on benefits, so I have no idea why they are haggling over the rent!!!), and they live there for as long as they want to. All in writing of course!

skibadee

samwich1979 wrote: »

I cant get WTC because my husband is unemployed.

Also the forms are so complicated, i dont have all my pay slips for last year so i have no idea in detail what i earned and what percentage was SMP etc.

I guess im scared of getting it wrong and being over paid or something.

Hi, you must of been given a P60 in April/May time this year....you can give those figures to TC.
Definetly ring them on Monday and maybe also make an appointment CAB....they can hep you with the forms etc.,

Definetly put your name on housing list, it may well take a while, but persevere with it.

benefitbaby

PippaGirl wrote: »

I think I'm right in saying secure tenancies are ending either this year or next or was that just talked about and didn't actually happen? Then of course it will be easier for the council to force people to downsize and not just encourage it with a BT

Hi Pippa, you are right the new flexible tenancies came into effect in April 2012.

A flexible tenancy will be for a minimum of two years, but in most cases it will last for five years or more. If you're given a flexible tenancy for a fixed period of time, the council will review your circumstances before the tenancy comes to an end to see if you still need social housing or not.

Councils don't have to offer flexible tenancies, and even if they do, they still have the option of offering 'lifetime' secure tenancies.

Housing associations can also grant shorter tenancies of at least two years, but in most cases they will be for five years or more.

Housing associations and councils may also charge higher rents to new tenants, known as affordable rent. This could be as much as 80% of private rent on the open market. The extra money from affordable rent homes goes towards building more new social housing.

While new tenants may still be able to pass their home to a spouse or partner when they die, it won't always be possible for children or other family members to inherit the tenancy.

FBaby

Marybelle, I agree with you, but I think you've forogotten one aspect, the fact that people didn't feel as hard done by working as they do now, hence building resentment to see those having all their time of the day getting the same that others work for.

I don't know if my feelings is a reflection of the true feelings of many people, but when my parents worked, I remember them quite enjoying their job, owning a sense of belonging to their organisation. They used to organise family gathering, families regularly got together, and even though they had their moaning moments, I always felt that overall, given the choice, they would prefer to have their job then not work at all.

This seems totally different to how many full-time working people feel now. They are over-worked, they are constantly being put through change and under pressure. The employer doesn't care about them as a person, only what they bring to the organisation. They have to commute long ways in traffic or packed trains.

I am probably showing two extremes, but overall, it seems that stress and depression in working people is up and more and more would much prefer not to work, but do because they don't have a choice. Those people grow extremely resentful of those who get the same as them not having worked.

I have a good salary, but there are two precious things that I don't have, time and energy. I have been off one week at home with my children and even though it's been extremely busy, I feel like a different person. I have been able to tackle a number of things that I had to put off for months because i was too tired to contemplate it and just didn't have the time. So yes, when I see people whose disposable income is not that far off from mine, but also benefit from time and energy, I certainly would rather they didn't live next to me to show it off!