BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

if they don't need it then make them pay full wack for it and reinvest the surplus.

Could do. What are the chances of it happening?

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Could do. What are the chances of it happening?

Probably about as much as the government actually building the houses.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Could do. What are the chances of it happening?

ukcarper wrote: »

Probably about as much as the government actually building the houses.

Probably as much chance as housing demand being met by the private sector and the HB bill not increasing.

leveller2911

wotsthat wrote: »

You won't find a politician that will charge market rents

The system runs on the assumption that all social tenants should be subsidised.
I honestly don't know why that that is the case but it's always been the case
and seems unlikely to change.

Since 2011 Housing Associations have had the power to charge "Market rate" rents for their properties and when a house becomes empty our Housing Association (Sanctuary Hereward) do charge full market rents to the new tenants.

If tenants fall behind with rents then the tenants in question will be taken to court and if they do not keep up with the rent they will be evicted. I can take a lot longer to evict a Social Housing tenant but it does happen. It happend in my road about 5 years ago.

The following makes interesting readng....http://timburness.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/are-housing-associations-above-the-law/

"Sanctuary is largely funded by the taxpayer (housing benefit, the government), tenants include some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and poor people in Britain. Sanctuary Group (fingers in many pies) made £72 million profit during 2012-2013. The Chief Executive is on £310,000".

"Sanctuary being an “exempt” registered charity means that the Charity Commission has no monitoring role whatsoever – it’s a tax break. Not only do they not pay tax, Sanctuary appear to be largely unaccountable to anyone at all. The Audit Commission has been abolished. The Homes And Communities Agency, the new social housing regulator since 2012, deals with financial regulation only".

Theres a lot of back scratching going on between Housing Associations the great and the good.

Loughton_Monkey

leveller2911 wrote: »

Since 2011 Housing Associations have had the power to charge "Market rate" rents for their properties and when a house becomes empty our Housing Association (Sanctuary Hereward) do charge full market rents to the new tenants. ....

Without commenting on the cowboy charlatons in this particular case, I was struck by the apparent contradiction.

You seem to be countering wotsit's assertion that such housing is subsidised, and you advocate that they can charge "market" rents.

If we talk about the vast majority (I assume) of responsible Housing Associations, they have absolutely obscene amounts of taxpayer subsidies. Doesn't this imply that either:

(a) They are subsidised, and Wotsthat is right.

Or

(b) They charge "Market Rents" in which case they will turn out huge profits....

... large gin & tonics all round....

The only other possibility I can think of is that (c) they charge market rents, and are so inefficient, overpaid, ineffective, wasteful, on a gravy train, and so don't turn in a profit.

leveller2911

Housing Associations were never set up to be profit making, ie a "not for profit organisation" and have/had Charity status. If you read the link and google it you will now find that many HA are profit making but still have charitable status (tax dodge).

Its not a contradiction at all, it just shows how HA have changed from being non profit making to profit making. They lost some of their government funding and now have to source funding from other streams.In 2012-13 Sanctuary Housing made £72 million profit but they most definately are inefficient and wasteful.HA receive housing benefit in the same way that private landlords do ,only they don't charge so much for the rents.


We can argue till the cows come home about subsidised rents and open market rents. I don't drink G&T but I will have a Rekorderlig cider with ya.

We have lived at our current house since it was built. We have paid more in rent than the total cost of mortgage taken out by the HA to build the house.We will continue to rent the house and the HA has a money making asset for decades to come which should be used to build more Social housing.... But I'm sure it won't be.

Loughton_Monkey

leveller2911 wrote: »

........We can argue till the cows come home about subsidised rents and open market rents. I don't drink G&T but I will have a Rekorderlig cider with ya.......

I'd rather not argue. I just cannot believe other than that the rents are subsidised. Whether that's good or bad is a different debate.

I don't drive a Volvo and therefore never drink Rekorderlig cider.

When entertaining a bunch of attractive Swedish ladies, take my recommendation and use the best brand of all. Dicken's Cider.

[Highly recommend googling it to see the Youtube song.]

John_Pierpoint

leveller2911 wrote: »

We have lived at our current house since it was built. We have paid more in rent than the total cost of mortgage taken out by the HA to build the house.We will continue to rent the house and the HA has a money making asset for decades to come which should be used to build more Social housing.... But I'm sure it won't be.

Where is the profit going?
Into the salaries and other terms and conditions of the "techno-structure" running the organisation ?
The directors and the senior staff of most large "secure" organisations end up running it for their benefit, not that of the "customers".

wotsthat

leveller2911 wrote: »

Since 2011 Housing Associations have had the power to charge "Market rate" rents for their properties and when a house becomes empty our Housing Association (Sanctuary Hereward) do charge full market rents to the new tenants.

The % of HA's charging market rents must be negligible especially if they're meant to allocated based on need. The push still seems to be more towards charging 'affordable rents' - 80% of local market rent. Wonder if the HA still receives a government payment for the people who do pay market rents?

Link makes interesting reading. Confirms what we know - when there's government cash floating about whole industries will develop to chase it rather than do something productive.

We're a nation of rent seekers. The tenants are being castrated by removal of personal responsibility and the taxpayer money floating provides an incentive for many to keep it that way.

wotsthat

leveller2911 wrote: »

We have lived at our current house since it was built. We have paid more in rent than the total cost of mortgage taken out by the HA to build the house.We will continue to rent the house and the HA has a money making asset for decades to come which should be used to build more Social housing.... But I'm sure it won't be.

You're, probably, paying a below market rent, the taxpayer will be making a payment to your HA from a different pot, your HA will be inefficient (rent seekers can afford to be) etc. etc.

In the real world you're describing an inefficient allocation of capital. It's a disincentive for the private sector to get involved - the reality is that if accounted for properly the allocation of social housing is not even breaking even for the taxpayer - irrespective of what the HA accounts may show.

The private sector won't get involved because a loss is almost guaranteed and neither will the taxpayer for the same reason.