Social housing after the budget

mattcanary

How would the council or housing association know how much their tenants are earning?


Norwich City Council have never asked me what my income is. Even since the £60 000 annual earnings rule came in. Not that I was even aware of this - it has never been published by the council, (and the council send out newsletters to tenants informing them of changes; newsletters that I read).

bloolagoon

mattcanary wrote: »

How would the council or housing association know how much their tenants are earning?


Norwich City Council have never asked me what my income is. Even since the £60 000 annual earnings rule came in. Not that I was even aware of this - it has never been published by the council, (and the council send out newsletters to tenants informing them of changes; newsletters that I read).

They could easily charge market price unless you provide evidence you are exempt like they do with council tax. People are quick to provide those details when they gain. They may already have a lot on the system due to council tax

Feral_Moon

They can get details from HMRC.

GirlFromMars_2

mattcanary wrote: »

How would the council or housing association know how much their tenants are earning?


Norwich City Council have never asked me what my income is. Even since the £60 000 annual earnings rule came in. Not that I was even aware of this - it has never been published by the council, (and the council send out newsletters to tenants informing them of changes; newsletters that I read).

The £60K Pay to Stay scheme was optional for Housing Associations. From what I can tell from google nobody implemented it as Housing Associations (Housing Charities) weren't keen.

Seems the Government are making the £30K Pay to Stay scheme mandatory.

Sweetpea53

GirlFromMars wrote: »

The £60K Pay to Stay scheme was optional for Housing Associations. From what I can tell from google nobody implemented it as Housing Associations (Housing Charities) weren't keen.

Seems the Government are making the £30K Pay to Stay scheme mandatory.

I hope that when more information comes out about this, some revisions are made, as £30,000 as a blanket threshold for everywhere in England other than London is simply wrong when the market rent varies so much from one part of the country to another.

mattcanary

I don't agree with it as you should pay the same for the home you live in as the next person would, regardless of your income (ignoring state help if you are on a very low income or benefits).


And I speak as a low earner.

bloolagoon

mattcanary wrote: »

I don't agree with it as you should pay the same for the home you live in as the next person would, regardless of your income (ignoring state help if you are on a very low income or benefits).


And I speak as a low earner.

That's the issue

A) next door could be private rented so one person is already paying more
social housing is a form of benefits. This government recognise that those in social housing receive a form of state funded subsidy - which private renters do not. They are now saying that the income is too high to recieve that benefit - just as they do with many other benefits.

You can argue that housing isn't a benefit but the govt state the tax payers subsidy towards the housing should be means tested.

bigadaj

When you look back at the origins of social housing one of the intentions was doe people to then move onto owning their own house. The subsidised housing costs would allow people to save for a deposit and then purchase in time.

Personally I don't understand why social housing shouldn't be subject to long term fixed contracts, say five or ten years,; we now have a situation where council housing seems to be inherited which isn't logical.

antrobus

bigadaj wrote: »

When you look back at the origins of social housing one of the intentions was doe people to then move onto owning their own house. The subsidised housing costs would allow people to save for a deposit and then purchase in time....

No, if you look back at the origins of 'social housing' the sole intention was to provide homes for the working class to live in.

And 'working' would be the key thing; you actually needed a job to be able to afford the rent, (otherwise it was back to the slums). It's only in recent years that the idea has arisen that social housing should only be provided for the disadvantaged.

mattcanary

bigadaj wrote: »

When you look back at the origins of social housing one of the intentions was doe people to then move onto owning their own house. The subsidised housing costs would allow people to save for a deposit and then purchase in time.

Personally I don't understand why social housing shouldn't be subject to long term fixed contracts, say five or ten years,; we now have a situation where council housing seems to be inherited which isn't logical.

Not true.
The aim of social housing was never to help toward pay toward deposit for a deposit to be placed on buying a home until perhaps Maggie Thatcher came into power in 1979.