why are some people entitled to a council house but others are not?

peachyprice

KnightSmile wrote: »

A small minority of people refuse to move from council houses even if they can afford to rent privately because they don't see why they should have to. At the end of the day getting cheaper/subsidised housing should be seen as helping hand not a permanent perk. There has to be a 'cost' to not owning your own property and that cost means that you should have no choice but to downsize when you no longer NEED a certain amount of bedrooms for example.

If renting privately gave tenants decent rights I'm sure more would do that. But no way should anyone give up a secure council tenancy to put themselves at the mercy of a private landlord who can give you two months notice to leave at the drop of a hat. That would be complete madness.

It's this lack of decent tenants right that has lead to an awful lot of people needing social housing in the first place. People who aren't eligible for a mortgage in these times when lenders just aren't lending to people without large deposit are finding themselves being turfed out of their private rentals, the only place they can find housing with any security for their family is social housing. Would you really want your children spending their childhood moving time, after time, after time?

ostrichnomore_2

Can we please stop the confusion between council housing and housing benefit, that leads to comments like 'social housing (and it's subsidised cost)' and 'free council house'.

The two things are utterly unconnected.

No one subsidises or pays anything towards council housing apart from the tenant. The rents are not lower than market rates (only slightly these days) because any tax/subsidies etc go towards it. The rents charged cover all costs of the housing. It's cheaper because it's not for profit, that's all. Councils and housing associations are required to budget their rents to cover all costs; they are not allowed to use any other source of money towards the provision of social housing.Get it? It's like a fully enclosed system. Rent pays for housing, which creates rent money, which pays for housing, which creates rent money. Full stop. No other input.

So it's in no way 'subsidised' by anyone.

Housing benefit - irrelevant to a discussion on social housing. It's available to any one who qualifies on income, regardless of where they rent their home from: council; housing association; privately; houseshare; lodger; whatever.

Please stop confusing the two and insinuating that council house tenants are somehow getting a free ride or living off other people's money or costing you anything.

That's like saying because working tax credits are paid to some people, everyone who works is being 'subsidised'. Duh.

pukkamum

On our council estate we have a real community, I know most of my neighbours and I know that if I needed help they would be there, most of us work and keep out houses and gardens up to a high standard.
The old chap next door but one lost his wife recently and the whole street turned out to pay ttheir repects when the hearse came.
Since then we have all rallied round, he has had meals, I bake him cakes, the couple opposite do his shopping.
If this were an estate of people only on benefits how long before it became a ghetto?
On the street behind us we have at least 4 empty houses because in previous years this was known as a bad estate and many still see having a council house as some kind of failure.
In years gone by you had council streets full of extended families, all helping each other.
Whilst the government continues to sell off housing stock and not building they are creating resentment for council house tenants, when the anger should be directed at them.
Our houses are now under the control of a non-profit making company, still owned by the local authority but it means that all our rent is put into the upkeep and improvement of the houses.
We are on the verge of buying ours, something I have railed against for many years, simply because camerons insistence that council rents are brought in line with private rent has seen our rent increasing every 6 months we are now 6 years later paying a lot more than we were previously.
The Tories don't want hard working people in council houses and benefit claimants in private houses, they want all the 'poor people'in one place out of sight of 'normal people'which as I said before will only lead to ghettos.
There is also the point that many of us working tenants are service providers, we have nurses, care workers, factory workers etc.
If dh and I were forced into private renting it would not be worth us working, now many in that case would just go onto benefits.
It's the private landlords that need tackling, there should be rent control and secure tenancies.
A friend of mine has had to move 3 times in 3 years with 2 young children, not good for family life or communities, due to ll's selling up.
The answer isn't removing secure tenancies it's building more council housing.

ostrichnomore_2

Can we please stop the confusion between council housing and housing benefit, that leads to comments like 'social housing (and it's subsidised cost)' and 'free council house'.

The two things are utterly unconnected.

No one subsidises or pays anything towards council housing apart from the tenant. The rents are not lower than market rates (only slightly these days) because any tax/subsidies etc go towards it. The rents charged cover all costs of the housing. It's cheaper because it's not for profit, that's all. Councils and housing associations are required to budget their rents to cover all costs; they are not allowed to use any other source of money towards the provision of social housing.

So it's in no way subsidised by anyone.

Housing benefit - irrelevant to a discussion on social housing. It's available to any one who qualifies on income, regardless of where they rent their home from: council; housing association; privately; houseshare; lodger; whatever.

Please stop confusing the two and insinuating that council house tenants are somehow getting a free ride or living off other people's money or costing you anything.

That's like saying because working tax credits are paid to some people, everyone who works is being 'subsidised'. Duh.

paulineb_2

time2deal wrote: »

That's just a lazy populist argument. The top 1% of earners pay 22% of the total tax take. The top 10% pay almost 50% of total tax.

And that is the group that uses the least public services. How much more should they pay? And remember that increasing the tax rate REDUCES the total amount of tax paid as people just don't bother trying to earn more, or they leave or retire. If you have to work hard to pay 50% of your money away, then I know people who just retired instead. Therefore the vast majority of the tax they paid before is gone. Even people who earn a lot of money should be allowed to keep some of it.

According to you it is, my argument is that people living on the breadline already shouldnt be paying anything between £7 and £30 a week in this housing benefit reduction.

Its causing hardship and real misery and as I said before, the Govt spends millions and billions on other things, theres no need for it and whats a lazy argument is that the one being repeated by the Govt that all will be solved if all the people in the big houses swap with people in the small ones.

Oops, but there arent enough smaller ones to go round, didnt really do their homework on that one, did they?

pukkamum

Exactly pauline not to mention how much it is going to cost in chasing arrears evicting non payers etc, the whole thing is an ill thought out exercise in futility, brought in to appeal to daily mail voters who think people in need are scum and should be put in their place.
Since when was being in need reason for punishment?

paulineb_2

Mojisola wrote: »

And so another answer has to be found to use a scarce resource in the best way.

It's quite bizarre that someone can be given a council house as, say, a young couple with a baby when their housing need was desperate and yet, years later, that same family can be still in a council house even though there may be three or four adult wages coming into the house. Meanwhile the new generation of struggling new families can't get help.

If lifetime tenure is to continue, then rents should be reassessed regularly and, if the tenants can afford to pay the same as local private rents, they should do so.

Or maybe local private rents should be as expensive

Maybe they should be brought in line with council housing and social housing rents

Because a private let where I live can cost up to 3 times and more what I pay in rent to the council, when I pay full rent

The issue is, if someone is on housing benefit and not paying rent and living in private let, their circumstances will be much the same as if they were in council housing

Ie, they wont pay rent or they wont pay much rent. And it is people in work who suffer, because if they cant get council housing and are paying £700 or £800 out a month in rent, thats a massive chunk of their wage away. But it goes back to the problem being, not enough affordable housing and limited options, ie private renting.

But until this housing benefit cap was brought in, silly money was being paid to private landlords. I certainly dont think private landlords should have profited as much as they did from renting out flats or homes (and yes Im aware that letting out a flat or house can involve costs).

Unless we means test council and social housing for every single person in that house to see what they can afford to pay, then its obvious that some people are going to do better and others are going to be worse off, by virtue of their earning power.

I actually think you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. If you sit on benefits people tag you as lazy and not wanting to work, if you are in council housing and work you should move to make way for people who cant afford it ie people on benefits

As I said before, its never occurred to me to sit down and say, I wonder what my neighbour earns, are they earning too much to stay in this council flat, its absolutely none of my business

Its also my view that people should have security of tenure, because if people had rolling short term contracts you are just promoting the insecurity of tenancy that people in private lets have, where they can be asked to leave at very short notice

Peoples financial circumstances will fluctuate over their lifetime as I said before, just because someone is in a secure well paid job doesnt mean they always will be.

Blackpool_Saver

ostrichnomore wrote: »

The rents are not lower than market rates (only slightly these days)

absolute nonesense:rotfl:

pukkamum

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

absolute nonesense:rotfl:

I have just looked and found 3 private rented houses in my area that are cheaper than my council house.

paulineb_2

Ive touched on this before as well. In some areas where I live, more than one geographical area, there were so many voids at some point that you could have walked into the local housing office and picked up a set of keys for a flat or house that day.

But some people didnt want to, because the areas that were on offer were areas such as the one I live in where theres quite a lot of anti social behaviour and people didnt want to live in areas that had a bad reputation.

This wasnt offered to me, because Ive been here 18 years but in order to get some people to take up the offers, the council were furnishing some of the homes (I got my home unfurnished as generally is when I took it)

Probably around 2 or 3000 voids over the local council area I live in. But a lot of people didnt want those areas and still dont. If I had waited for an allocation of a flat in one of the better areas, Id have waited 15 years, easily.

I do think that areas should have a mix of people who work and on benefits as I said before, because if that isnt the case, you turn areas into problem areas where everyone who has been evicted from other properties get dumped (and thats another argument about housing people after theyve been evicted) or they become areas where almost 100 percent of people have no job and communities just turn into places where people have !!!!!! all to do all day than cause mayhem. (Because thats reality around here).

Sometimes people who are desperate for a council home need to consider taking a property in an area thats hard to let. And I think that there should be a greater emphasis on community, a lot of volunteer groups in my area have tried to do positive work for the community and for the area and its still ongoing.

Id never sit down and say, so and so shouldnt have this house or so and so should move out of this house.

When my mum bought her house around 20 years ago, there was no great big sign outside the front door that was put up that said, Im now an owner occupier and there are people in the area I live in who have also bought their flats from the council.

But I wouldnt be able to identify those people just from looking at the outside of the flats. Unless you know someone really well and know every single bit of income and outgoing that they have, its wise not to judge.