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

CLAPTON

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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..

that seems to make no sense

you seem to be saying that a single person on low wages can buy a property if they try

why shouldn't that happen to people?

seven-day-weekend

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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..

Yes...you are exactly the sort of person I mean.

People go on about me helping my son with a deposit for his flat, but he and his girlfriend would have been in that bracket too otherwise.....doomed to perpetual insecure renting, even though they both worked and could have paid the rent themselves. They would never have been able to save enough deposit to make a mortgage affordable.

Also, they are both on the Autistic Spectrum, with Asperger's Syndrome (my son only mildly), but apparently that doesn't affect their housing needs, whereas being a criminal or a drug addict does .

moneyistooshorttomention

CLAPTON wrote: »

that seems to make no sense

you seem to be saying that a single person on low wages can buy a property if they try

why shouldn't that happen to people?

I mean "it shouldn't happen to people" that they CANT buy a property even if they try. It shouldn't happen to people that they are in the position that they need public sector housing because they cant afford to buy - even though they are trying, by holding down a job/being good with money/etc.

It shouldnt happen to people that they cant get given public sector housing because the f*ckless have leapt the queue in front of them and squeezed them out.

People should be able to buy a home for themselves. Those who are genuinely trying should get given public sector housing first - ie before the f*ckless.

mumps

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 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.

lisyloo

and the 300,000 or so that we do have are often empty for v.good reasons

Can I ask for a source and date for your figures?
My udnerstanding is that a lot of the new build in London e.g. Battersea powerstation are being marketed and sold abroad in large numbers.

Would be interested to know if your figures are bang up to date, because it's a fairly recent phenomem that it's happening in large numbers e.g. people actually going to china to market these properties.

I actually live in one of the blocks with a lot of lights off, so I'm not making it up - I live there.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

Can I ask for a source and date for your figures?
My udnerstanding is that a lot of the new build in London e.g. Battersea powerstation are being marketed and sold abroad in large numbers.

Would be interested to know if your figures are bang up to date, because it's a fairly recent phenomem that it's happening in large numbers e.g. people actually going to china to market these properties.

I actually live in one of the blocks with a lot of lights off, so I'm not making it up - I live there.

it would be good to know how many of the new flats are being (or planned to be) kept empty
it would also be good to know how many flats wouldn't have been built at all except for foreign investors

one is conscious that Battersea power station sat virtually empty for 30 years before the current building commenced.

PasturesNew

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

... never gets given to anyone without a 'problem' of some description or another .... young couple....Why should they not have the luxury of a secure tenancy also?

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.

PasturesNew

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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..

Me too ... by the skin of my teeth I managed to get something eventually.

Where I lived, working single people didn't stand a chance. Nothing built for them in the villages, all 1-bed places were OAP bungalows and you'd not get one of those until you were about 65-70. I was on the list over 10 years and spoke to the council to ask "how long?" and they said "In about 20 years' we might be able to get you into a shared house".

missbiggles1

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.

That's a policy which ensures that people without children will rapidly becione people with!

This is the banding criteria for one area I know, not sure if these are universal.

https://www.islandhomefinder.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/32.aspx

mumps

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's a policy which ensures that people without children will rapidly becione people with!

This is the banding criteria for one area I know, not sure if these are universal.

https://www.islandhomefinder.org.uk/Data/ASPPages/1/32.aspx

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 no 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.