Should better off council tenants receive subsidy

sevenhills

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Council housing is managed through councils but not funded by them. Councils and housing associations borrow money to build properties which is repaid over time through rental income. The rental income also covers all costs including repairs and admin.

The reasons given for the failure of councils to build more houses, is that they are not allowed to borrow.

Pupnik

I wonder how many of you live in a social housing complex? Because I do and I like that people have security – many people have lived here for decades, some are living in homes their parents lived in before them. They care about their community and keep their gardens maintained and watch out for each other and say hello to each other in the street. As far as I’m aware no one secretly has a yacht. Obviously there are a few undesirables with drug dealing/prostitution/feral children etc but vastly watered down compared to other estates.

Perhaps some of the homes are paid for by the taxpayer as there are a few single mums and pensioners (as they would be if those people lived in private) but a lot of people here are workers, I believe at 80% rent which the housing association claims is used to fund building more social housing. They’re a non-profit organisation but people still pay their way without having to be held over a barrel for private sector rents which are appalling, especially in an area that’s actually comparatively cheap in terms of property prices (and one of the most impoverished in Kent). I own my flat as it was a right to buy from a previous tenant some years ago and my mortgage repayments were a quarter of what I had been paying in private rent (and my flat is much larger and with a garden). Considering this housing complex was built in the 1920s so has long since been paid for even if a tenant were to pay 10% there is still no need for them to be ‘subsidised’ by anyone.

Social housing is a long game whereas private rental is all about making a quick profit, we definitely need more affordable housing, particularly for key workers such as nurses and teachers, and people need to stop resenting anyone living in social housing and direct their anger at the system that has allowed private landlords to receive much more in rent from benefits. Imagine if all the money paying for people to live in private rentals and B&Bs was used to build social housing instead? In the long term it would be far more beneficial, despite the initial outlay of buying the land and building work. My local doctor surgery is being shut down and the land sold to developers – presumably the land is owned by the NHS or council but we’ll see if that land now passes to a construction company to build luxury flats or a housing association to build affordable housing – depends on what happens on June 9th I suppose!

Guest101

Pupnik wrote: »

I wonder how many of you live in a social housing complex? Because I do and I like that people have security – many people have lived here for decades, some are living in homes their parents lived in before them. They care about their community and keep their gardens maintained and watch out for each other and say hello to each other in the street. As far as I’m aware no one secretly has a yacht. Obviously there are a few undesirables with drug dealing/prostitution/feral children etc but vastly watered down compared to other estates.

Perhaps some of the homes are paid for by the taxpayer as there are a few single mums and pensioners (as they would be if those people lived in private) but a lot of people here are workers, I believe at 80% rent which the housing association claims is used to fund building more social housing. They’re a non-profit organisation but people still pay their way without having to be held over a barrel for private sector rents which are appalling, especially in an area that’s actually comparatively cheap in terms of property prices (and one of the most impoverished in Kent). I own my flat as it was a right to buy from a previous tenant some years ago and my mortgage repayments were a quarter of what I had been paying in private rent (and my flat is much larger and with a garden). Considering this housing complex was built in the 1920s so has long since been paid for even if a tenant were to pay 10% there is still no need for them to be ‘subsidised’ by anyone.

Social housing is a long game whereas private rental is all about making a quick profit, we definitely need more affordable housing, particularly for key workers such as nurses and teachers, and people need to stop resenting anyone living in social housing and direct their anger at the system that has allowed private landlords to receive much more in rent from benefits. Imagine if all the money paying for people to live in private rentals and B&Bs was used to build social housing instead? In the long term it would be far more beneficial, despite the initial outlay of buying the land and building work.


My local doctor surgery is being shut down and the land sold to developers – presumably the land is owned by the NHS or council but we’ll see if that land now passes to a construction company to build luxury flats or a housing association to build affordable housing – depends on what happens on June 9th I suppose!

99.9% of GPs are private companies, it's likely the surgery was a privately owned building, owned by "Dr X and Partners ltd."

teddysmum

Our council is actively buying private houses.


They bought the bungalow next to my sister's , which is in a small group of six pairs of semis, facing three to three with just a path between front gardens.


Unfortunately, the first tenant has let the property get into a mess,with lawns never mown and weeds running riot, in a very short time and though the couple living joined to this bungalow have complained to the council (all other eleven properties are well kept) they don't want to know.


My sister is buying another bungalow nearby (cash purchase) , but hasn't put hers on the market yet, so the selling price could well be affected. (Another in the group sold at a very good price last year)


This will be good for the council tenants , as if they go to right to buy (most council bought private homes are snapped up by the occupier), the property will be cheaper,even before the huge discount. ( This could well be the reason for the messiness.)

phill99

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

But not at 20% of their market value!!

gycraig_2

phill99 wrote: »

But not at 20% of their market value!!

Massive difference between having the ability to vs being forced to sell for a small potential of what they could even build a house for nvm the value of the house

Norman_Castle

phill99 wrote: »

But not at 20% of their market value!!

Maximum discount is 70% or £78,600 across England and £104,900 in London boroughs.

phill99

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Maximum discount is 70% or £78,600 across England and £104,900 in London boroughs.

OK 30% of the market value.

Chrysalis

MEM62 she has only lived there 2 years which was when the mortgage was taken out, I dont know how much of a deposit was paid. Currently her partner's parents own the property and they rent it of them. But the plan is to move the mortgage over at some point.

Also to people who are concerned about so called subsidies. In the long term the housing benefit system covering private rents will drain taxpayer resources more than social housing building, think about it, if someone is getting housing benefit in a council house, that money is a paper transaction to a council so the money stays in the system. Whilst for a private tenant its an actual hard cash transaction as it goes to a private landlord, not to mention private rents are of course higher. Then you have the additional costs of dealing with people that are homeless etc. due to unstable private rental and those people are really expensive to deal with, sticking them in b&b's and hotels.