How Many Spare Houses Would We Have If ....

missbiggles1

mumps wrote: »

Well I can't see anything that says ex prisonrs, drug addicts, immigrants take priority. I suppose the thing with children is they are more likely to be overcrowded than a single person.

To be honest with you, as a tax and council tax payer I don't see why I should be subsidising housing for healthy adults.

I also understand that in the area I live in being a priority doesn't mean you get council housing, you might be allocated b & b or they find you a private tenancy which you could find yourself if you wanted to.

I have relatives that we are providing housing for. They have two children but when the children were born they had a business. It went bankrupt and they lost their home. The children weren't born to give them a chance at council housing. The council told them they would provide housing, b & b where the four of them would have one room, they would likely be there for at least a year and they would have to get rid of their dog. The chances were they would get a house or flat but it could be a private tenancy with a landlord who worked with the council, I think they could turn down one offer but if they turned down a second one they would then be evicted and regarded as intentionally homeless, so obligation for the council to do anything. The housing they would be offered would take no account of children's schools so it might result in them changing school twice. Doesn't sound that great to me.

According to the Shelter website people without permanent residency in this country can't even go on the list. People with anti social behaviour won't get a tenancy. It seems to me it is another one of those things that people like to kick the disadvantaged about but that family is the only one I have personal knowledge of.

I believe that social housing isn't actually subsidised.

mumps

PasturesNew wrote: »

And in my experience a single person is behind couples in the queue. Couples without issues have two incomes coming in - singles have one - yet couples get to the head of the queue. That always seemed nuts to me.

Good point. I would think a couple could save a deposit but maybe not for where they want to live.

There are government schemes to help with deposits as well.

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I believe that social housing isn't actually subsidised.

How is it so cheap then? I understand the local housing association took over the local housing stock for a nominal fee, if you want to give me a house for a £5 I will regard it as a subsidy that allows me to charge a lower rent.

seven-day-weekend

mumps wrote: »

I can understand why people with children get a priority and surely they would be looking for different accommodation to a single person or couple without children but is it official policy that people on benefits, or with a criminal record, or an immigrant or on drugs actually get an advantage? I am never sure if this is real or not and I have never seen any actual evidence.

People leaving prison are classed as having social 'needs', addicts are classed as having medical, and possibly social, 'needs', and these are grounds for being moved up the list to a higher banding than those without those 'needs'.

I worked in the Housing Department in our Council for a while (admittedly about twenty years ago). and have seen it first hand.

missbiggles1

mumps wrote: »

How is it so cheap then? I understand the local housing association took over the local housing stock for a nominal fee, if you want to give me a house for a £5 I will regard it as a subsidy that allows me to charge a lower rent.

Because, unlike private rentals, social housing doesn't have to make a profit and providers don't have to repay mortgages.

CLAPTON

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Because, unlike private rentals, social housing doesn't have to make a profit and providers don't have to repay mortgages.

social housing is massively subsidised because
-if a market rent was charged then the government could reduce our taxes or spend the money on the NHS or building more homes or reducing HB etc.

by not charging a market rent we all pay extra tax : it is a subsidy.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

social housing is massively subsidised because
-if a market rent was charged then the government could reduce our taxes or spend the money on the NHS or building more homes or reducing HB etc.

by not charging a market rent we all pay extra tax : it is a subsidy.

Or spend it on housing benefit and associated admin costs.

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Because, unlike private rentals, social housing doesn't have to make a profit and providers don't have to repay mortgages.

So who pays the mortgage? If the council borrows money to build houses the money must come from somewhere. If the mortgage is paid off shouldn't the "owners" of the house i.e. council tax payers, get a return on their investment. I think it depends how you define subsidy.

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

People leaving prison are classed as having social 'needs', addicts are classed as having medical, and possibly social, 'needs', and these are grounds for being moved up the list to a higher banding than those without those 'needs'.

I worked in the Housing Department in our Council for a while (admittedly about twenty years ago). and have seen it first hand.

Maybe it depends on the area, in my area they wouldn't have properties to allocate them so like the family I referred to they would end up in b & b or private rental.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Or spend it on housing benefit and associated admin costs.

I don't understand what you are saying