Do you support social housing?

gazter

Jason74 wrote: »

This is also very true. I actually read a piece today, that suggested that something like 35% of all properties sold under RTB are now in the hands of private landlords. That is a shocking statistic, especially when you consider that in many cases, councils will now be paying full market value rent from HB to access an asset that they previously owned and sold off at a whacking great discount.

There's lots of talk on this and other threads about efficiency. It surely doesn't get much more inefficient than that!

Really? How much do you think the rent subsidy per property is? It might not be as inefficient as you think. Social Housing is *expensive*, a gigantic pit in which you pour huge amounts in and get very little out in return.

For private tenants as far as the council/government are concerned it is easy. There is an allowance based on a percentile of the average rents, with number of rooms dependent on size of household. The tenant can claim no more. It is an end sum. If that sum is £450 a month, then that is what it is, there are no hidden subsidies or extra costs.

In RSL/Council (registered social landlord) properties though, it doesnt end there. The total cost of a tenant isnt just the housing benefit award, for example likely to be maybe £320 for a similar property. There are a whole series of costs.

For a multitude of reasons it is much more expensive to manage properties for social tenants. A secure tenancy makes tenancy agreements difficult to enforce, lack of desirability of stock means voids can be common in many areas, even with high demand.

The rents dont cover the day to day maintenance and running of the housing association/council department. On average £3,500 a year per property is the revenue cost. Which comes from central government.

Even this doesnt cover capital investment which again almost always comes from central government funding.

So private tenant: housing benefit award
Social tenant: housing benefit award, rent subsidy and capital investment costs.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

This is also very true. I actually read a piece today, that suggested that something like 35% of all properties sold under RTB are now in the hands of private landlords. That is a shocking statistic, especially when you consider that in many cases, councils will now be paying full market value rent from HB to access an asset that they previously owned and sold off at a whacking great discount.

There's lots of talk on this and other threads about efficiency. It surely doesn't get much more inefficient than that!

What is so shocking about real people living in a property? Where would they live if this property wasn't available?
Is it because they are non British or in some way inferior?

gazter

globalds wrote: »

But that is not Social housing.

The term used was 'affordable social housing'.

People dont want the old council estates. That isnt what is necessary and it isnt what is built. You are thinking about the past.

The average working family dont want to rent for the long term. They want to own. In the past it might have been a council waiting list they went on, now they would prefer a home from barretts.

Local planning regulations allow councils to require builders to sell a number of properties at cost.

You may long after the mixed communities on council estates, but many others dont.

MrsE_2

wymondham wrote: »

Yes, but it has to be TRUE social housing, supplied by the Government and not other organisations. It also has to be means tested and it has to be basic - possibly maximum of two bedrooms.

I had a thought that if all councils built the same standard 3 bed house & 1 bed bungalows (for OAPs) exactly the same. Think how cheaply they could do it.
Everything could be bought in bulk, huge bulk, standard issue, bought en mass.
I don't think we need anymore flats in this country, I don't think it's very healthy for people to live in flats, people need their own bit of space, not stacked in & racked up.

[Deleted User]

i`d go one further and nationalise all privately owned rented housing,might cost a few bob short term but long term would save billions in LHA

gazter

MrsE wrote: »

I had a thought that if all councils built the same standard 3 bed house & 1 bed bungalows (for OAPs) exactly the same. Think how cheaply they could do it.
Everything could be bought in bulk, huge bulk, standard issue, bought en mass.
I don't think we need anymore flats in this country, I don't think it's very healthy for people to live in flats, people need their own bit of space, not stacked in & racked up.

You really have such a high opinion of your local council that it would manage to outflank a competitive market place and build properties that people want at a rate cheaper, and not lose a pile of money?

Have you ever commissioned work within a local authority? It is *expensive*. Places like Barratts and Persimmon homes make their money by ruthlessly squeezing every stage in the supply chain, every trade is sub contracted out, every cut is made, every economy is achieved.

Can you imagine your local council managing that?

MrsE_2

gazter wrote: »

You really have such a high opinion of your local council that it would manage to outflank a competitive market place and build properties that people want at a rate cheaper, and not lose a pile of money?

Have you ever commissioned work within a local authority?
Can you imagine your local council managing that?

Yes, lol, I work for the local gov, finance dept :-)

I understand exactly what you mean about the likes of Barrett's, I'm not suggesting councils can squeeze every £ in the same way Barrett's can, but they could adopt some of the model.
We could also have a standard factory fit 3 bed house, that's replicated all over the uk & a 1 bed bungalow.
You would make savings on buying such huge numbers of materials & fittings.

globalds

gazter wrote: »

The term used was 'affordable social housing'.

People dont want the old council estates. That isnt what is necessary and it isnt what is built. You are thinking about the past.

The average working family dont want to rent for the long term. They want to own. In the past it might have been a council waiting list they went on, now they would prefer a home from barretts.

Local planning regulations allow councils to require builders to sell a number of properties at cost.

You may long after the mixed communities on council estates, but many others dont.

Of course housing evolves, peoples demands in the 19th century the 20th century and the 21st century are bound to be different.

The average working family is competing against speculative property investors and cash rich individuals who wish to turn the house that is an opportunity of a home for a working family into a cash cow.
Social housing should be a real alternative to families and individuals who are not in a position to access that Barrett's home.


There is a huge demand for social housing ..I shall stick with facts rather than listen to any spurious thoughts you post on what people do or don't want.

zagubov

woodbine wrote: »

i`d go one further and nationalise all privately owned rented housing,might cost a few bob short term but long term would save billions in LHA

Singapore apparently did just that to a chunk of the private sector that formed a cartel and bumped up the rents. Quite right too.

zagubov

MrsE wrote: »

I had a thought that if all councils built the same standard 3 bed house & 1 bed bungalows (for OAPs) exactly the same. Think how cheaply they could do it.
Everything could be bought in bulk, huge bulk, standard issue, bought en mass.

Yes!

MrsE wrote: »

I don't think we need anymore flats in this country, I don't think it's very healthy for people to live in flats, people need their own bit of space, not stacked in & racked up.

No!