BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"

leveller2911

wotsthat wrote: »

You're, probably, paying a below market rent, the
taxpayer will be making a payment to your HA from a different pot,

Well thats news to me .Can you post a link to back up your post Wotsthat?....

I'm not even going to bother debating market rents and subsidised housing as we will never agree... But I will look forward to your link to back up your point.

wotsthat

leveller2911 wrote: »

Well thats news to me .Can you post a link to back up your post Wotsthat?....

I'm not even going to bother debating market rents and subsidised housing as we will never agree... But I will look forward to your link to back up your point.

Housing associations are part funded by the Homes and Communities Agency. Read the accounts - the word 'grant' appears at least 50 times.

How else do you think your house got built - I'm guessing the residents didn't put up the cash and don't manage to cover ongoing costs between them through money out of their own pockets either.

leveller2911

wotsthat wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

Housing associations are part funded by the Homes and Communities Agency.
Read the accounts - the word 'grant' appears at least 50 times.





How else do you think your house got built - I'm guessing
the residents didn't put up the cash and don't manage to cover ongoing costs
between them through money out of their own pockets either.

Because some HA houses were/are built with grants you think ALL HA houses must be the same. You are very ignorant to how it actually works and seem to be rather bitter towards HA tenants ,the majority of whom are not spongers, they work hard,contribute to society and many pay their way in life.

Its a shame you don't put a bit more of your energy into putting property rampers on the spot more. Its house prices,lack of supply and private sector landlords who are rooking the taxpayer with charging high rents and coining it in from housing benefit that are the real problem in this country.

Our house is a typical HA house in a semi rural location.It was built in 1993, it was built on land donated by the local Council who stipulated that the houses must be occupied by local people. The HA gained mortgages to build the houses. The mortgages were paid off about 5 years ago and now the majority of the rent we pay is "profit" for the HA.

We pay a "fair " rent worked out by Government , its private housing tenants I feel sorry for who are being [STRIKE] fleeced [/STRIKE]charged high rents by private landlords who want to maximise profit and they can't see beyond the £ at the harm they are doing to Society as a whole. You concentrate on the term "subsidised" with HA tenants but I suspect a fair percentage of private sector landlords would go bust tomorrow if housing benefit was withdrawn, all those landlords who take housing benefit tenants are being subsidised by the taxpayer , but you never seem to moan about that. Is it because you see landlords as being somehow superior?.


People should not be spending so much of their income just to keep a roof over their heads.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

wotsthat wrote: »

Because some HA houses were/are built with grants you think ALL HA houses must be the same. You are very ignorant to how it actually works and seem to be rather bitter towards HA tenants ,the majority of whom are not spongers, they work hard,contribute to society and many pay their way in life.

Its a shame you don't put your energy into putting property rampers on the spot more. Its house prices,lack of supply and private sector landlords who are rooking the taxpayer with charging high rents and coining it in from housing benefit that are the real problem in this country.

Our house is a typical HA house in a semi rural location.It was built in 1993, it was built on land donated by the local Council who stipulated that the houses must be occupied by local people. The HA gained mortgages to build the houses. The mortgages were paid off about 5 years ago and now the majority of the rent we pay is "profit" for the HA.

We pay a "fair " rent worked out by Government , its private housing tenants I feel sorry for who are being [STRIKE] fleeced [/STRIKE]charged high rents by private landlords who want to maximise profit and they can't see beyond the £ at the harm they are doing to Society as a whole. You concentrate on the term "subsidised" with HA tenants but I suspect many private sector landlords would go bust tomorrow if housing benefit was withdrawn, all those who take housing benefit are being subsidised by the taxpayer , but you never seem to moan about that. Is it because you see landlords as being somehow superior?.


People should not be spending so much of their income just to keep a roof over their heads.

maybe if the land had been sold at a market price and the properties rented out at a market price, the resulting money could be better used i.e. to support new house building, towards subsidising poor people not lucky enough to have subsidised HA property, schooling, NHS, child social services, local amenities etc etc

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

maybe if the land had been sold at a market price and the properties rented out at a market price, the resulting money could be better used i.e. to support new house building, towards subsidising poor people not lucky enough to have subsidised HA property, schooling, NHS, child social services, local amenities etc etc

Much of the land in rural/semi rural areas can't be sold for housing due to the covenants placed on the land if it was donated in wills etc but it doesn't stop the local councils from using the land. "Market price" is part of the problem, many people can't afford inflated house prices and IMO developers will never build the housing stock we need, they will drip feed developments onto the market to keep the house prices high. Land is a finite resource in this country and developers have landbanked for one reason and that is to restrict supply and in doing so keeps their profit margins high.

We do feel fortunate in having a HA house and its my childrens generation I feel sorry for. All because of the greed of people who see a house as an investment and not a home.

System

I will never understand what's so hard about quoting.

Loughton_Monkey

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I will nover understind what's so hrad about quiting.

It's a piece of cake.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

Much of the land in rural/semi rural areas can't be sold for housing due to the covenants placed on the land if it was donated in wills etc but it doesn't stop the local councils from using the land. "Market price" is part of the problem, many people can't afford inflated house prices and IMO developers will never build the housing stock we need, they will drip feed developments onto the market to keep the house prices high. Land is a finite resource in this country and developers have landbanked for one reason and that is to restrict supply and in doing so keeps their profit margins high.

We do feel fortunate in having a HA house and its my childrens generation I feel sorry for. All because of the greed of people who see a house as an investment and not a home.

Why can't anyone start a building company?
Skilled but not high tech
No real barriers to entry and not particularly expensive.

Is it because all local government officials and members have formed a conspiracy against the working class and agreed not to grant planning permission to these people?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

maybe if the land had been sold at a market price and the properties rented out at a market price, the resulting money could be better used i.e. to support new house building, towards subsidising poor people not lucky enough to have subsidised HA property, schooling, NHS, child social services, local amenities etc etc

Just curious.

State owns land.

Why would the state charge full market rate for the land, if it it is primarily there to provide affordable housing? There is little point in charging out full cost to yourself if you then have to pay the majority of it back to yourself.

These are primarily cost centre . Chasing wooden dollars is not cost effective. We should be seeking to provide such necessary homes at the least cost to the tax payer.

That does not mean to say the market rent for a property cannot be charged oout to those that are not in need of assistance. The additional revenue (profit element) could then be reinvested.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

Housing associations are part funded by the Homes and Communities Agency. Read the accounts - the word 'grant' appears at least 50 times.

How else do you think your house got built - I'm guessing the residents didn't put up the cash and don't manage to cover ongoing costs between them through money out of their own pockets either.

This is primarily social housing and will therefore end up subsidised one way or another. This is primarily because the tenants can't by and large can't afford a full market rent for all sorts of reasons. There doesn't seem much logic in charging a rent from one side of government to then be paid in full or part by another part of government.

Those that can afford to pay should pay a full market rent with the profit being reinvested in more social housing.

If the residents put up or borrowed the development cash and covered the full ongoing cost they would all be groin thrusting instead.