Who do you feel is entitled to a Council House

Gigglepig

I think housing at less than market price rent it should be allocated to those who need it most at a given time.

If there are more applicants than houses, In order to ensure the limited stock of housing at a subsidised rent is at any time given to those who need it the most, I think it makes sense to re-assess the need annually or every couple of years. ( If the below market price rents are 'for life' but there are not enough for everyone, some people get subsidised for years while others who may be in greater need get nothing. ... This does not seem fair to me.)

Since public housing is there to benefit "all", as long as there is a shortage I don't think it is fair to sell it on below market price either, for a lucky few to profit in the form of free equity.

Bazey

This thread would be better in Discussion Time...unless you are having an affair with your married Lecturer.

samtoby

I have had to write about entitlement of Council housing and how that fuctions currently.

I work in Housing and we have many tenants who for exmaple:

- Were nominated to large council properties say 3-4 bed and have since had more children and now come back wanting to be rehoused because of the living conditions.
- Are now subject to the under occupancy penalty (or as everyone else knows it bedroom tax and have to move from what they felt was their 'lifelong' home.

But previosly when I worked for Local authority we had applicants who:

-Approached as homeless as they had been kicked out by a parent and as they had got pregnant and had no where to go
- Disabled persons who had waited years to move from private rented to a adapted property to suit their need (can not adapt private rent accom for example)
- Families who become homeless due to repossession
- Retirement age persons who need sheltered accomodation

I know this does not cover all avenues but it is an example. I was just interested in who you feel should be entitled? Who should get the most priority a young female who is pregnant or a young Mum working full time struggling in private rent who is waiting to be offered a property.

Should you be able to refuse if you are found to be entitled or if you are offered should you be taking it no matter what it is?

It is all very subjective; I for one feel that some Social Housing should be kept back for families or working people. There are many working families that live on the breadline not just people who claim benefits. I don't disagree with the bedroom tax but do feel possibley its administration has not been the best - but should a single person be receiving full housing benefit for example if they do not need that size property? I do believe people support the basic principle that you should only get benefit for what you need?

samtoby

avogadro wrote: »

Anybody is entitled to apply to the council for housing. Whether an applicant is successful in getting a house or flat will depend on their circumstances compared to others on the list, and the amount and type of housing the council happens to have available at the time.

In the majorty of areas now you can apply but chances are for the below reasons you will not be accepted onto the lists:

-No local connection to an area you are applying in (i.e you have not lived there for a certain amount of time
-Income too high
-Status in the UK
-Severe previous Anti Social behavior - abuse of properties in previous social housing
Might be more in different areas

Also - if you are evicted for rent arears chances are you will be on the lowest banding i.e unlikely to be ever offered a property

samtoby

I don't know how to move a thread - and no I am not having an affair with my married Lecturer.

Gigglepig

If the choice was between two deserving people, i would try to help the one who did not choose to be in the situation they are in. Having children is a choice but disability is usually not, so I would prioritise those with disabilities.

Having children when already in too small public housing is a choice so I would prioritise families struggling due to unforeseen circumstances such as redundancy.

Nobody in the private rental market is guaranteed a lifelong home, moving out due to under occupancy is no different (but one is in a better position to save up if one has had the privilege of paying below market for several years), so I would prioritise those in need at the moment.

HappyMJ

samtoby wrote: »

I am currently at University (first year) and I have a question around entitlement for a Council House. I have of course written with evidence but I was just interested -

Who do YOU think should be entitled to a Council house?

A lot fewer people that seem to be getting them now. I'd offer basic appropriately sized accomodation at LHA rates on short term 6 months agreements guaranteed by a housing association to anyone regardless of the applicants affordability or creditworthiness. i.e offer a single person a bedsit in the private rental market with the rent paid by the housing association recovered directly from the applicants benefits or salary....and I'd offer a 4 bedroom house to a family with a minimum of 5 children with the rent paid by the HA. There is no need for the council to be in the house building industry. Councils tend to build estates of social housing which seem to be deprived...I'd rather see social/public housing tenants mixed in with neighbouring private tenants and privately owned housing. It just makes for a better neighborhood.

Person_one

Whoever needs a place to live most urgently at the time the property becomes available.

That should be it, no moral judgements, no racism, no hierarchy of who is more deserving, just plain and simple need.

DevilsAdvocate1

I'm probably being a bit thick, but why is council housing needed at all? Is it because there is not enough private rented to go around? I thought benefits covered your housing cost anyway? So would it not be cheaper to encourage private landlords rather than building swathes of council homes.

The one big problem I see in council areas is that many people view the house as not their responsibility and thus they don't look after it. You end up with huge areas which look a mess and are probably not a healthy place to live in.

An ex was brought up on a local council housing estate. A shop closed down and teenagers took it apart brick by brick. I guess they were selling the bricks. Within a week the building was totally demolished!

System

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I'm probably being a bit thick, but why is council housing needed at all? Is it because there is not enough private rented to go around? I thought benefits covered your housing cost anyway? So would it not be cheaper to encourage private landlords rather than building swathes of council homes.

Looking at it from the other angle, you could equally argue: why is private rented accommodation needed at all when the state could be helping to provide something that is an essential commodity for everybody.

The state provides our education (usually, unless you go to a private school) and it usually provides our healthcare. Housing is just as important, if not more so. And yet there does not tend to be the same stigma attached to state education and healthcare as there is to 'social housing'. Why is that?