Should better off council tenants receive subsidy

FBaby

The point is that as rent continues to be much lower in council hones people who could afford to rent privately chose not to do because of the increase disposable income and that will be worth the compromises such as location.

If however rent is equivalent then they might choose location over security.

Concerned75

So in terms of cost - how is this administered then? So you get a family to move out - 18mths later the main earner is made redundant/killed in an accident/gets cancer - the family cant afford the rent/mortgage so they end up back on the housing list - it would just become a revolving door for some. Once you had council housing - then you can't ever apply again then? Well that just creates a load of folk who end up homeless.

I see your point here, but this is not strict 1940s when only the man went out to work. Everyone is free to contribute to the household income, though some choose not to. In a circumstance like that, it might work out cheaper in the long run for that family to rent something smaller or in a cheaper area if possible. Just because a family member dies, doesn't mean you automatically end up in poverty or your first port of call is getting a council house. (Sorry I'm not bothered about PC. That's what they'll always be called to me) Used to be a stigma or 'shameful' for someone to be living in one, when I was at school. These days it's almost revelled!! That said, it was low earners living in them more so back then.

Chrysalis

MEM62 wrote: »

Social housing should absolutely be available for those that need it. And it should be provided based on need.

There should be sufficient social housing stock in this country so that Councils are not forced to waste £££ millions putting families into privately rented properties. It is a farce.

There should be a system whereby those in social housing who's finances improve should have the rent increased (perhaps based on some kind of affordability scale) until it reaches market levels for similar properties.

Couples that have large social housing properties because they once had large families should not be allowed to rattle around in 4 or 5 bedroom houses years after the kids have flown the nest.

Just my opinion.

I only agree with the first paragraph.

Market rates are not reasonable rents, when rents are higher than what a mortgage costs it is not reasonable.

Since private landlords wont let out for less then their mortgage costs, the only real solution is a mass social house building program which only the greens and corbyn's labour are willing to do.

Of course such a program would upset all the private landlords out there and also possibly trigger a house price crash and as such governments have avoided it to protect those people.

The reason you see people under utilising properties is that there is a massive shortage of properties for single people or childless couples, council's have less demand for their larger properties vs their stock levels, and thats why the situation has come about. When properties do get built it is nearly always 2 or 3 bed properties as they trying to satisfy families with children's needs.

The Local Housing Allowance system recognises market rates are unreasonable as they refuse to cover full rent's in the private sector.

As an example I pay more for my one bed flat than the mortgage costs on my sister's house for a 3 bed house with a large garden and driveway.

daveyjp

So OP. What is the policy you want to put forward? How will you manage this policy? How much will it cost to manage the policy? How much will it save?

They tried a 'pay to stay' policy to charge social tenants rents based on their income. Until they realised someone would have to assess household incomes and this would cost money.

As its not a cost effective policy so it was dropped.

Private_Church

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Social housing is subsidised housing. That's the whole point.

Providers are funded by local authorities and the government, and thus obviously tax payers are ultimately funding social housing.

Some may be but many aren't. In the case of many Housing Associtaions their funding comes from the money markets and not Government or councils.

Social housing should be reserved for the poorer and anyone whose income then rises above a threshold should be asked to leave.

Tricky one because if someone is asked to vacate once they reach an income ceiling many will make sure they never reach it and also their income may fall soon after leaving .Who decides what the income ceiling amount is?..... Can't agree with you there, sorry.:)

phill99

We would never have had this discussion if it wasn't for the implementation of the Right To Buy scheme. This policy has now come home to roost and is biting the government and society on the backside. It took good quality, well built affordable housing away form the people that needed it. Those that bought their council houses have profited handsomely.


Allied to this we had a moratorium on the building of council housing for decades (which The Labour Government supported). So the demand for rented housing has been taken up by profit motivated private landlords who spend the minimum to maintain their investments while happily kicking a tenant out so they can get another £50 a month from another tenant. This market is dreadfully unregulated and is promoted by a group of dead horse and donkey dealers (aka Letting Agents) whose sharp practises take even more money out of the most vulnerable and poorest. And this this the sector that is most subsidised by the tax payer as many of the rents, by the governments own admission, are unaffordable so qualify for housing benefit.


The worst policy by far of the last 50 years.

Miss_Samantha

Private_Church wrote: »

Tricky one because if someone is asked to vacate once they reach an income ceiling many will make sure they never reach it and also their income may fall soon after leaving .Who decides what the income ceiling amount is?..... Can't agree with you there, sorry.:)

So you think it is fine that the lucky ones who get into social housing should be able to stay for ever?

What is the purpose of social housing, then?

The ceiling is a political decision to be taken by the government.

There can be an hysteresis: When your income is less than £x then you qualify for social housing. When your income increases above £x + £y then you must leave.

Social housing is to help the poorest. People should be grateful to have benefited and yield so that others who are now in the situation they once were can also benefit.

AdrianC

phill99 wrote: »

We would never have had this discussion if it wasn't for the implementation of the Right To Buy scheme.

The worst policy by far of the last 50 years.

You do know local authorities have always had the ability to sell their housing, right? By 1972, 40-odd thousand a year were being sold nationally.

Which political party first suggested it? Labour, 1959 manifesto. They lost, so didn't implement it. It was first really pushed by the GLC in the mid 60s. 13 years of a Labour government, from 1997 to 2010, just tickled the edges of it.

Norman_Castle

AdrianC wrote: »

My father pays a LOT less than 10% of market rent for his social housing.

Would be interested to know what his situation is and how he got there. Decades old tenancy with capped fair rent increases in an area where market rents have increased massively?

AdrianC

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Would be interested to know what his situation is and how he got there. Decades old tenancy with capped fair rent increases in an area where market rents have increased massively?

No. Housing association, low income, housing benefit, pension credit etc etc. He pays virtually nothing.