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

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

I suppose it depends where you are, where I am a couple one earning £25k and the other £5k with 2 kids would still be able to claim LHA.

NYM

Out of curiosity and not for any other reason, would someone kindly explain how they would 'solve' the lack of social housing that we undoubtedly have ?

How many new homes would be needed ?

What about the children of those tenants, when they are of an age they want to move out into their own place. How would we cater for them ?
Build more ?

What of those that are in receipt of LHA living in private rentals. Are they not also entitled to a social home ?

The Thatcher government may have allowed the sale of Council houses but presumably, those that bought them are possibly still living in them today as they would if they hadn't been bought. If they've died since, they may have passed them onto their children thus those people would now not need a social home of their own. They could buy their own with the inheritance.

As I said, I'm just curious.....

ukcarper

NYM wrote: »

Out of curiosity and not for any other reason, would someone kindly explain how they would 'solve' the lack of social housing that we undoubtedly have ?

How many new homes would be needed ?

What about the children of those tenants, when they are of an age they want to move out into their own place. How would we cater for them ?
Build more ?

What of those that are in receipt of LHA living in private rentals. Are they not also entitled to a social home ?

The Thatcher government may have allowed the sale of Council houses but presumably, those that bought them are possibly still living in them today as they would if they hadn't been bought. If they've died since, they may have passed them onto their children thus those people would now not need a social home of their own. They could buy their own with the inheritance.

As I said, I'm just curious.....

Apparently one third of ex council houses are now rented privately.

NYM

Haven't some people always rented privately though?

ukcarper

NYM wrote: »

Haven't some people always rented privately though?

Yes in the 60s more people rented privately that change in the 70s in the 80s the percentage in social housing started to fall and those in private started to rise. In 2011 the numbers were equal.

Better_Days

ukcarper wrote: »

Apparently one third of ex council houses are now rented privately.

So am I right in thinking that prior to the sale of the council house the tenant was subsidised by way of lower than the market rent, and for the third that are now rented privately the tenant is now subsidised via housing benefit? Which is the more expensive?

ukcarper

Better_Days wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that prior to the sale of the council house the tenant was subsidised by way of lower than the market rent, and for the third that are now rented privately the tenant is now subsidised via housing benefit? Which is the more expensive?

That would be true if all of the third that are now rented are rented to people who are on housing benefit.

Better_Days

ukcarper wrote: »

That would be true if all of the third that are now rented are rented to people who are on housing benefit.

Sorry I didn't phrase that clearly - I wasn't assuming all of the third were on HB (but a proportion will be, and that is a identifiable cost), I was just ruminating on which is the more expensive option.

The maintenance of the council owned property would be a cost that would need to be taken into account which wouldn't be a factor in the private rentals.