Two thirds of private rental landlords will leave sector if Labour win

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I agree, I wish the government thought the same thing too though. Not everyone can be or wants to be a high flyer.

I agree. The problem is the high fliers pay the taxes for the rest of us dumb schmucks.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

I accept that the standard of private rentals have improved but I still know people living in old council stock which is now housing association and the properties are well maintained. My experience might be anecdotal but it's not just the odd person. Personally I'm not against BTL and realise they serve a useful function, but some people on here seemed to be just as blinkered against council/social housing as others are against BTL.

Maybe that's a result of anecdote, maybe it's a result of far fewer people being housed in the public sector.

It would be fascinating to understand how the quality of public and private sector housing has changed over the past 40 years.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Maybe that's a result of anecdote, maybe it's a result of far fewer people being housed in the public sector.

It would be fascinating to understand how the quality of public and private sector housing has changed over the past 40 years.

I have some experience of both over that period and think the overall quality of rental properties is better now that it was 40 years ago probably because of the changing in renting law over time. As for council/social housing in the area I know I think the quality of housing and maintenance is good. But the quality of life on those estates is not as good as it was 40 years ago, I that is possibly just a symptom of modern society which is made worse by the loss of social housing the way it is allocated.

CLAPTON

The issue of the quality of council housing is mixed bag.
Much council housing is a good standard and typically is better spec'ed that equivalent private sector (i.e. room sizes, bathrooms etc).
Try looking on rightmoves for london flats : the one's with bigger rooms tend to be ex council propoerty.

The real problem are those with subsidising property rather than people.

-ghetto-isation
-allocation policies of the property
-lack of mobility
-under occupation of expensive housing
-negative incentives to work or progress
etc.

subsidised social housing is a bad idea both in principle and in practice.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue of the quality of council housing is mixed bag.
Much council housing is a good standard and typically is better spec'ed that equivalent private sector (i.e. room sizes, bathrooms etc).
Try looking on rightmoves for london flats : the one's with bigger rooms tend to be ex council propoerty.

The real problem are those with subsidising property rather than people.

-ghetto-isation
-allocation policies of the property
-lack of mobility
-under occupation of expensive housing
-negative incentives to work or progress
etc.

subsidised social housing is a bad idea both in principle and in practice.

Most of those problems do not need to exist in social housing but carry on with your blinkered view.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Most of those problems do not need to exist in social housing but carry on with your blinkered view.

It may indeed to true that there are untried models of social housing that would avoid these issues but currently I am unaware of them.


The many references to building more social housing on these boards make no mention of 'new operating models' and just say build more social housing.

purch

Generali wrote: »

Council housing was, when aimed as being where pretty much everyone should live in the post-WW2 period, lousy. Councils did manage to put up a lot of housing very quickly in the 1940s and early 50s which was of variable quality but better than living on a pile of blown up bricks. After that things very quickly went bad.

My first HID lived in one of those pre-fab council houses in Dagnum donated by Sweden after the war....they were only meant to last a few years until real houses were built but they are still there. Her Gran lived in a tower block very similar to Ronan Point, and only about 1/4 mile away from it...........disgusting place. Her other grandparents lived in a flat right next to the Boleyn Ground......I bought it for them from the Council in 1988 for about 11 grand. (2 years before we split....another one of my terrific deals :eek:). You can still see it in the gap between the stands (rhs behind the corner flag if watching on TV)

Council Housing served a purpose, but it was of it's time, and the world has changed. Social housing itself is a good and necessary thing but the gap between social and market rents is hard to justify in many cases.

I think people should be able to choose to live in social/council housing if it is available, but the rent charged should be as close as possible to market rents.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

Another thing that they could do (in addition to providing more social housing) would be to remove people that obviously do not need it. Unfortunately the person I am going to use as an example died recently, but nevertheless Bob Crow was on a salary of approx. £145k. I find it ridiculous that was allowed to continue to benefit from social housing when there are much more needy cases than him.

I think that is a problem and something needs to be done about that and under occupation. It would have to be carefully thought though so as not to disincentivize people from trying to improve there position and I don't believe the current stock lends itself to avoiding under occupancy.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

It may indeed to true that there are untried models of social housing that would avoid these issues but currently I am unaware of them.


The many references to building more social housing on these boards make no mention of 'new operating models' and just say build more social housing.

They worked perfectly ok in the 60s and 70s when the mix on tenants was different to now and I think if you had spent time on council estates then you would be surprised how nice they are. BTL can cause some of the problems you mentioned in your earlier post especially in areas when the density of BTL is high.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

The issue of the quality of council housing is mixed bag.
Much council housing is a good standard and typically is better spec'ed that equivalent private sector (i.e. room sizes, bathrooms etc).

My mother lives in Somerset (West Somerset...the smallest and most useless council in the country) and there have been a few mixed developments built in the area recently. They are typically 50% social housing, and 50% affordable housing usually sold at a discount to local people or those that qualify. On all the developments the social housing is of far higher quality than the stuff that is sold...far more sq footage for the same number of rooms, usually with solar panels or heat exchangers, burglar alarms, wired up for digital stuff with much nicer bathroom fitments and kitchens with built in appliances.

It has caused quite a bit of commotion locally with a few stories in the local rag, especially as they have struggled to sell the affordable housing even with the discount and quite a few of these houses have ended up being sold to people who don't qualify at the same discount and then rented out privately.

Section 106 ??

Yeah like anybody cares !!!!