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

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

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

From what I can tell it's only new tenants and not all councils and housing associations are offering them.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

Going by what Shelter have on their site in relation to housing associations.

It doesn't much matter. At the end of the shorthold tenancy it'll just be rolled over whether or not the tenants meet the criteria that would be applied to new occupants.

I don't think anyone, other than rent seekers, would object to the provision of social housing only for the period of need identified. It would, however, be highly disruptive to evict someone who had just found their feet which evidences just how ridiculous it is to subsidise a fixed location rather then a person.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

Going by what Shelter have on their site in relation to housing associations.

It doesn't much matter. At the end of the shorthold tenancy it'll just be rolled over whether or not the tenants meet the criteria that would be applied to new occupants.

I don't think anyone, other than rent seekers, would object to the provision of social housing only for the period of need identified. It would, however, be highly disruptive to evict someone who had just found their feet which evidences just how ridiculous it is to subsidise a fixed location rather then a person.

I've read a couple of councils sites and it says there will be a review as none of the tenancies will have come to an end yet we will have to wait. But judging by how difficult it is to get a council house now I would imagine the vast majority of new tenants will still be eligible at the end of tenacy .

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I've read a couple of councils sites and it says there will be a review as none of the tenancies will have come to an end yet we will have to wait. But judging by how difficult it is to get a council house now I would imagine the vast majority of new tenants will still be eligible at the end of tenacy .

We'll be waiting a while in my neck of the woods - the council still only issue lifetime tenancies to all new tenants.

Our view is that although there could be some advantages to be gained from the use of FTTs, on balance the risks and potential negative effects outweigh any positive benefits. Our policy therefore is to continue to offer lifetime tenancies to all new tenants - subject to the usual introductory tenancy period.

Even where they are being used it appears 5 years is seen as a suitable fixed term.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

We'll be waiting a while in my neck of the woods - the council still only issue lifetime tenancies to all new tenants.



Even where they are being used it appears 5 years is seen as a suitable fixed term.

I think 5 years is reasonable and yes not all councils are using them but they can.

A better system might be to charge council and social housing tenants market or near and give them housing benefit although that creates it's own problems.

purch

The only reason "Social" Housing rents are lower than the market is due to the lack of such housing.

If there was sufficient social housing, then supply and demand would mean that the rent charged would be the market rent, and private rentals would likely reduce.

The hostilitity shown towards social housing by some posters says far more about the poster and their narrow minded attitudes than it does about anything else.

Why, or how we have got ourselves into this position where actually getting social housing is such a lottery, and where the demand for rented accomodation can only be met by private landlords is the question that should be looked at.

As has been said previously, Publically owned housing is not unique to this country, but badly managed public housing probably is.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I think 5 years is reasonable and yes not all councils are using them but they can.

A better system might be to charge council and social housing tenants market or near and give them housing benefit although that creates it's own problems.

I don't see why the treatment of housing benefits is so different to others. Someone could qualify for social housing in day one, get a decent job on day two that would allow them to pay a market rent but they've been gifted a minimum 5 year subsidy (probably lifetime).

I can't think of a similar approach being used with any other benefit. If someone qualifies for a benefit and their circumstances change then their claim is reassessed.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't see why the treatment of housing benefits is so different to others. Someone could qualify for social housing in day one, get a decent job on day two that would allow them to pay a market rent but they've been gifted a minimum 5 year subsidy (probably lifetime).

I can't think of a similar approach being used with any other benefit. If someone qualifies for a benefit and their circumstances change then their claim is reassessed.

With the present shortage of social housing how often do you think that happens. I can't see paying someone market rate indefinitely in a private rental property is a good way to spend taxpayers money.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

With the present shortage of social housing how often do you think that happens. I can't see paying someone market rate indefinitely in a private rental property is a good way to spend taxpayers money.

currently the system is that the people of the country are subsidising the full market rent for the life of the people in social housing whatever their income and whatever their circumstances, instead of subsidising people in need.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

With the present shortage of social housing how often do you think that happens. I can't see paying someone market rate indefinitely in a private rental property is a good way to spend taxpayers money.

Not often because it's an extreme example to make a point. At the other extreme should we judge that people who qualify for social housing on a certain date will never again be able to find/ fund their own housing for the rest of their lives? That's an extreme example too - the difference being it's the reality in my city.

Subsidising people who no longer meet the criteria for social housing isn't a great way to spend taxpayers money. The shortage of social housing is hardly helped by allowing people to occupy them who don't need them either.

It's like allocating someone a hospital bed for two months for an overnight stay and wondering why there aren't enough beds for people in need. You might argue that's less expensive than paying for private hotel rooms instead but it doesn't mean the situation is anything else but absurd.