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

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

Why are we talking about people who have needs to live somewhere when there are bucket loads of flats standing empty in London?

This is just a poorly understood factor of the housing market.

The first point is that very few systems are 100% efficient.
We lose about 7% of all the electricity generated through the cables
We throw away about 33% of all the food bought
A plumber spends a lot of his time driving from job to job
etc

in the UK the empty flats and homes number about 300,000 which means only about 1% of the housing stock is empty its already being used 99%. And even of those 300,000 that are long term empty a good portion will be so for very good reasons. House on my street has been empty for over 5 years as it has a big structural problem that needs fixing before it can be sold (which will probably cost £100k to put right) someone has finally baught it and is doing the work needed which is good.....but elsewhere in tje country that is a hiuse that is becoming dilapidated due to poor care and maintenance so there is a constant churn


So we don't have many empty homes
and the 300,000 or so that we do have are often empty for v.good reasons

cells

mumps wrote: »

I think underoccupation could be a problem. One of my kids and two friends found a house they wanted to rent but apparently they can't as it isn't an HMO and three friends can't rent a house. I was surprised as all of my kids have lived in shared houses but I didn't know that they needed permission. Why would three young adults sharing a house be problem?

Because the local council have decided to try and extort money from landlords on their patch by requiring licencing of that type of property.

Get licenced and pay £500 (which needs renewal) or risk a big fine (£20k?).
also the can possibly impose dumb regulations like having to fit self close fire doors interconnected smoke alarms and whatever else which further puts landlords off

the net result is fewer landlords willing to let to the likes of your kids and less supply equals higher prices.....all in the name of protecting tenants....nowt to do with the millions collected in 'licencing fees'

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

all property that is successful rented out, is by definition affordable to the person who is living in it.

'affordable' like 'sustainable' and 'hard working families' seems to have lost any meaning what so ever.

Its quite shameful how they use propaganda to change the meaning of words themselves.

Often in housing 'affordable' actually means subsidised.

So when the local plan for an area calls for 40% 'affordable' housing it isn't saying 40% should be affordable and 60% unaffordable. What it means is 40% should be subsidised and let out at a given rent (council/HA rent levels)

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't actually like the idea much either, but I think if there is going to be 'allocation' of rented affordable housing, and there is not enough to go round, then 'names out of hats' is a much fairer system than one based on some housing officer's idea of 'need'. At least everyone stands the same chance of their name being pulled out of the hat. Under the 'needs-based' allocation, many people will stand no chance whatsoever.

I would make exception for those who need specialist housing.

The people who aren't successful? There will be those who are not successful under needs-based allocation too. No difference there.

The only way is to build enough suitable housing, and also by encouraging those who wish to, to house-share.

Perhaps we should look at the needs of the community rather than individual needs when it comes to allocating social housing? Particularly in London and most of the south east.

mumps

cells wrote: »

Because the local council have decided to try and extort money from landlords on their patch by requiring licencing of that type of property.

Get licenced and pay £500 (which needs renewal) or risk a big fine (£20k?).
also the can possibly impose dumb regulations like having to fit self close fire doors interconnected smoke alarms and whatever else which further puts landlords off

the net result is fewer landlords willing to let to the likes of your kids and less supply equals higher prices.....all in the name of protecting tenants....nowt to do with the millions collected in 'licencing fees'

It is madness isn't it. If she, or the other girl, were in a relationship with the guy then apparently it would be OK. The exact same three people in the exact same house only presumably two bedrooms in use not three. It beggars belief. The house has three good bedrooms, not two and a box room so no reason to leave one empty. Very annoying and as you say they will pay more for a house that is a HMO even though it probably won't be as nice.

cells

in some countries they have subsidised bread at state bakeries. There is no shortage of bread but there are lines at the state bread bakeries....

pretty much the same applies for council homes. Its not the homes people want its the subsidy

Councils should perhaps just rent out their flats and homes in the exact same way as private rentals. At market rent and do viewings until someone takes it. Start the price high and lower it until someone bites. The low yielding ones can be sold off and replaced by higher yielding ones.

cells

mumps wrote: »

It is madness isn't it. If she, or the other girl, were in a relationship with the guy then apparently it would be OK. The exact same three people in the exact same house only presumably two bedrooms in use not three. It beggars belief. The house has three good bedrooms, not two and a box room so no reason to leave one empty. Very annoying and as you say they will pay more for a house that is a HMO even though it probably won't be as nice.

I know one older couple who have a BIG 6 bed 3 bathroom detached house who were looking into renting out all but one of the rooms. When they looked into the HMO regs they just thought.....meh why go through the hassel of converting a lovely home into a council approved ghetto with sinks in every bedroom and self closing fire doors and fire extinguishers and make a home a hostel.

result is less supply and higher rents.
supposedly protecting tenants.....by reducing supply and pushing rents up

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Perhaps we should look at the needs of the community rather than individual needs when it comes to allocating social housing? Particularly in London and most of the south east.

The problem as I see it with needs-based lettings, is that it never gets given to anyone without a 'problem' of some description or another (just because there are not enough to go round). It means that a young couple, without children, without a disability, not on Benefits, without a criminal record, not on drugs, not an immigrant, but not being able to afford to buy, never get a look in and it does does not seem fair to me that these people should be perpetually doomed to the insecurity of private renting. Why should they not have the luxury of a secure tenancy also?

I can also see that people with 'needs' will always get the priority whilst social housing is in such short supply, I just feel sorry for those low-paid workers who stand no chance.

moneyistooshorttomention

stator wrote: »

Haven't read this thread but agree with the OP.
If there was a shortage of food you would ration it. If there was a shortgage of water you would ration it.
Housing is such a basic need that it should be rationed too.

I'd agree with that.

It's so clear that its very difficult/impossible to fully "get a life together" for yourself if you haven't got a fixed base (which you own). You cant make a social circle if you might have to move area. You cant cultivate the garden if there isn't one or you might have to move on. You haven't got a fixed address friends/etc can contact you at and so on and so on.

So I'd certainly like a second house (not that I could afford it anyway) - but, in an overcrowded country like Britain, then I don't think I could justify it to myself. Living in one of the Scandinavian countries I probably could (as city and country homes are common there and their population is a lot lower than here). But in an overcrowded country = then nope....

moneyistooshorttomention

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The problem as I see it with needs-based lettings, is that it never gets given to anyone without a 'problem' of some description or another (just because there are not enough to go round). It means that a young couple, without children, without a disability, not on Benefits, without a criminal record, not on drugs, not an immigrant, but not being able to afford to buy, never get a look in and it does does not seem fair to me that these people should be perpetually doomed to the insecurity of private renting. Why should they not have the luxury of a secure tenancy also?

I can also see that people with 'needs' will always get the priority whilst social housing is in such short supply, I just feel sorry for those low-paid workers who stand no chance.

I've been in that position - ie low-paid worker and wanting a home of my own, but knowing I had to have public sector housing whilst I waited/hoped for that home. First of all I couldn't get allocated one because I wasn't either pregnant or a pensioner and it was seriously upsetting to know a f*ckless person could jump ahead of me by using a child/children as their mealticket to one. Then rules changed so that people who were needy/but not f*ckless could get in and I managed to leap into one during that (very brief) window of opportunity before it changed back to only the f*ckless could get one again.

It was very hard to think "But I'm trying/holding down a job/not getting pregnant/looking after my money and its been hard enough finding I couldn't buy a home after my own...without being denied public sector housing too". I did seriously contemplate having a marriage of convenience (ie marrying the best available man for me - like some others) in order to get to buy a house. However, I held out and didn't feel it would be fair to either a Mr Second Best or myself to marry just in order to have a house - so I was well stymied on trying to get my housing sorted out...

Thank goodness I had my very brief window of opportunity. I'm genuinely not sure how I could have coped with being a tryer and getting nowhere and seeing the f*ckless powering ahead of me (many of whom wouldn't have expected to own their own home anyway - so wouldn't have had the difficulty to start with of coping without something that is absolutely the norm for everyone you know).

Fast forward to now and I managed, in the end, to buy a house of my own (though still single and poorly-paid) but...whew...that shouldn't happen to people..