Social housing after the budget

mejaa

Also someone has informed me that tenancies signed before the first pay to stay announcement in 2013 will not include the clause about being able to change rent on income over £60000 - not sure of the truth behind this though, need to dig out my agreement.

nannytone_2

bigadaj wrote: »

Which is why the system has to be changed to stop people playing it.

This has started to happen, but there will be more to come, and we're still not far from the situation where work doesn't pay for many people with children, who aren't particularly skilled and don't live in a prosperous area.

That situation is totally unsustainable that people's choice is not to work, and if that means that they have to suffer more hardship then it is going to happen, the argument is that it got too good for too many people for too long, and we can't continue to boorrow anymore to sustain it.

but this 'pay to stay' isn't actually saving any benefit money, as most of the affected either don't get any, or get very little .
it is raising money via an additional charge.
i dont understand where 30k becomes a 'higher' income.
with 2 children, a family on this income would be entitled to tax credits, because the system views them as 'needing help'
yet overnight, they no longer need help, but earn so much that they need to gave their rents raised!
its kicking the same people twice.

i have never been a fan of tax credits, and am broadly supportive of what is being done regarding them.
but it really isn't fair to hit people twice.
the system was flawed, but it isn't the fault of the people that are caught up in the system. they are the ones that have to feel the pain for former governments errors. it should be done gradually and at a reasonable speed.
take the tax credits... but don't raise their rents at the same time!

mejaa

Can somebody explain what this means please

Clauses 19 and 20 of new Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015/2016 provide, subject to exceptions, for registered providers of social housing to have to 'secure that the amount of rent payable in a relevant year by a tenant of their social housing in England is 1 per cent less than the amount that was payable by the tenant in the preceding 12 months'

Feral_Moon

mejaa wrote: »

Can somebody explain what this means please

Clauses 19 and 20 of new Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015/2016 provide, subject to exceptions, for registered providers of social housing to have to 'secure that the amount of rent payable in a relevant year by a tenant of their social housing in England is 1 per cent less than the amount that was payable by the tenant in the preceding 12 months'

Social housing rents will be reduced by 1% each year for the next 4 years. It was in the budget. The exceptions will no doubt be those with income over the stated threshold of £30,000 and £40,000 (London) that will face an increase in rent and/or maybe the Pay to Stay policy which has yet to be implemented for those with income over £60,000.

beecher2

The exceptions refer to the housing rather than the tenant

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0051/cbill_2015-20160051_en_1.htm

Lioness_Twinkletoes

mejaa wrote: »

I agree Maisie, we don't mind paying our way but would like to see increment levels and other factors eg number of dependants taken into consideration.
How could they compare mr & Mrs x with no kids earning £40k between them and paying full market rate to Mr and Mrs y earning £35k but with 3 kids.
I really hope more clarification comes to light in the next few days. I feel sick thinking about it

Whereas I entirely disagree that a family earning £35k a year (or £41k in London) with three kids should be treated any differently to a couple without children or whose children are adults.

Personally, I am sick and tired of subsidising other people's children.

rogerblack

mejaa wrote: »

"When renting accommodation from a local authority, housing association or other social landlord, they must not discriminate against you because of your disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. "

Surely charging people more rent as they earn more is classed as discrimination ???

Discrimination only applies to the narrow categories above.
It is not illegal to discriminate against people earning over 30000 pounds a year, or redheads, or chelsea supporters.

It is also explicitly permitted for the government to discriminate in the protected categories - if it is for a wider public purpose - saving money can be enough.

TheGardener

I'm a single parent with one child at school and one who is older with a job who has been forced to come home because he cant afford market rents. I earn around the national average wage. My sons income will push our household income above £30K so he will have to find the extra rent - rather than save so he can his own place again.
This move effectively made social housing a 'means tested benefit'. Call me a cynic but I suspect any young couple/family currently on a waiting list who earn >£30K between them will be kicked of the waiting lists and at £15K each - we are not talking about people with pots of money.
I can not get a mortgage on my council house, not least because I am too old so buying it isn't an option.
In my experience SH tenants who work are the ones who invest their own money in maintaining/improving the properties and keep the demographics of the estates balanced - drive them out and estates will go back to being ghettos for the unemployed and low paid and to be frank - that's likely to cost the SH providers and gov way more than they will get in from charging "hard working families" more.
This might also be about making social housing an attractive business proposition for private landlords ready for the big sell off - not 'savings' for the public purse...I suspect this another step along the road to the end of social housing full stop.

Feral_Moon

I have to agree with the above. I own an ex-council property in an area which has since been bought out by a HA. My neighbours either side are still tenants. Possibly a couple of the very few remaining HA tenants in the street.

I think everyone else bought their house under RTB whilst still council properties in the 80s, and lots have since sold up and moved onto far better properties thanks to the profit they made. I know people who bought for less than £30,000 and sold for £175,000 less than 10 years later.

The HA removed this clause, although I gather it has now been re-instated which might just put an end to the very small SH this village has, hence why all our kids have to move away as local housing is currently unaffordable.

Sorry, got sidetracked for a moment. To come back to the point...

One neighbour consists of parents both working and two adult children, both working, with a combined income of almost £100,000. The other neighbour is a single parent with one adult child at university and one child still in school. She works PT but also claims benefits due to illness/disability. I have no idea what her combined income might be. I would never intrude into her private business. I know she pays at least partial if not full rent though as she recently showed me a letter threatening eviction due to rent arrears, which is having a devastating effect on her health.

silverwhistle

mejaa wrote: »

Surely charging people more rent as they earn more is classed as discrimination ???

No. Being rich or poor is not a protected group.

Particularly under this government both are targeted groups, just one benefits and the other doesn't...!