Tory housing association policy was condemned by their own minister 18 months ago!

wotsthat

Is it that controversial to wonder why we subsidise houses rather than properly assess the needs of the occupants?

The current social housing system is a lottery where a winning ticket secures a lifetime of subsidised housing whether the circumstances of the occupants change or not.

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

that is clearly the case

.........and I don't think you do either.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Is it that controversial to wonder why we subsidise houses rather than properly assess the needs of the occupants?

The current social housing system is a lottery where a winning ticket secures a lifetime of subsidised housing whether the circumstances of the occupants change or not.

I'm not sure that is the case now and most new tenancies are fixed term.

the_flying_pig

every developed country that there is or ever will be has lots & lots of public housing, for exceptionally good reasons.


the idea of a "total elimination" of it is almost on a par with the total elimination of publicly funded roads, street lighting, armed forces, education, or similar.


what should be changed about uk social housing imo are things like rates of building [we need lots & lots more], qualification to get a house & stay in a house [current model is way too daft & arbitrary], prices paid by tenants, etc.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case now and most new tenancies are fixed term.

do you approve of fixed term social housing tenancies?

what happens at the end of the tenancy?

chucknorris

IMO there has to be some subsidised housing, and I am happy to pay tax towards it. What I am not so happy about, is to pay tax to contribute for people who don't deserve to be receiving housing subsidy (like Bob Crowe was, he was on a salary of just under £100k). I don't necessarily mean cut the subsidy either, just do a better job of making sure that the right people receive it.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case now and most new tenancies are fixed term.

At the end of the fixed or trial term there is no reassessment of the occupants needs. Assuming they've paid the rent and haven't been a nuisance they'll be handed an assured (for life) tenancy.

No one ever got evicted from social housing or had the subsidy removed because they fell on good times.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you approve of fixed term social housing tenancies?

what happens at the end of the tenancy?

From what I understand they is a review towards the end. I'm not against changes to system in fact I think they need to be made. I also think that in the more expensive areas most tenants will still be eligible at the end of fixed term.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

At the end of the fixed or trial term there is no reassessment of the occupants needs. Assuming they've paid the rent and haven't been a nuisance they'll be handed an assured (for life) tenancy.

No one ever got evicted from social housing or had the subsidy removed because they fell on good times.

That's not the case these new rule came in in 2013. Not all councils are offering fixed term tenancies but they can and I see no reason for them not to.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not the case these new rule came in in 2013.

Good to hear that, presumably it would only affect tenancies after the date that it was introduced, or did it also include existing tenancies?