renting out a rtb council house

TheGardener

gomer wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting entire communities should be old, poor, vulnerable etc. Only that if you can afford to rent privately or buy outright then perhaps you don't really need a council property


I think that makes sense. .

But that's the point! if everyone who has the wherewithal to move on does so then all that's left behind are the vulnerable/sick etc! and then you advocate that more vulnerable/poor etc take their place. Its a)the complete antithesis of what social housing was intended to be and b)that's how sink estates are formed.
How is that even close to 'common sense'?

How is social housing subsidised? because the poor/vulnerable claim housing benefit? Well what are the figures for HB going into the pockets of private landlords? Is that not just subsiding the property owners - perhaps the private landlords should be as egalitarian and public spirited as you advocate better off social housing tenants should be then - maybe the landlords could do their bit and reduce the rents to 'affordable' levels? - No? - no because that not how the market economy works is it.

Cakeguts

I think what people are trying to say is that if you can afford to buy on the open market then you shouldn't be renting a council house at the expense of someone much worse off than you are. People who stay in council houses when they can afford to move out are staying there at the expense of someone worse off than they are.

gomer

Like I said, that's where we differ. There are lots of less we'll off people not on benefits who are not sick, old, vulnerable etc who still cannot afford to buy so the diversity does still exist.

Was social housing intended for people who didn't need it because they could afford to buy, or for those who couldn't?

TheGardener

If you can afford to buy a house on the open market - there is almost zero chance you will be allocated a council/HA house in the first place.
Using the argument that folk earning over £100K (Bob Crow's) should move on will have a negligible impact simply because there are so few folk in that position (<0.1%)
If all the families that progress (benefiting from the stability of a secure tenancy) then leave - then you will be left with those that can't make progress due to low income/ill health/disability etc. That will lead to imbalance in the community and lead to ghettos. I don't understand how that is hard to understand.

I am also not a fan of RTB. However, the reality is that it has been the making of some estates that sank so low they were almost bulldozed anyway (because homeowners care about their house/street and invest in them) Where RTB is wrong is a) the size of the discounts b) that they then invariable end up in the hands of private landlords that then charge way more than the council tenants are paying. An easy fix for this is that HB on ex council homes should not be paid to private LL's at a higher rate than the Council get) c) that the government wouldn't let councils use the money to build new social housing - something that is now thankfully beginning to change.

gomer

Cakeguts wrote: »

I think what people are trying to say is that if you can afford to buy on the open market then you shouldn't be renting a council house at the expense of someone much worse off than you are. People who stay in council houses when they can afford to move out are staying there at the expense of someone worse off than they are.

^^^^^^^this.

gomer

TheGardener wrote: »

If you can afford to buy a house on the open market - there is almost zero chance you will be allocated a council/HA house in the first place.
Using the argument that folk earning over £100K (Bob Crow's) should move on will have a negligible impact simply because there are so few folk in that position (<0.1%)
If all the families that progress (benefiting from the stability of a secure tenancy) then leave - then you will be left with those that can't make progress due to low income/ill health/disability etc. That will lead to imbalance in the community and lead to ghettos. I don't understand how that is hard to understand.

And I don't understand how you cannot see the moral issue.

FBaby

Using the argument that folk earning over £100K (Bob Crow's) should move on will have a negligible impact simply because there are so few folk in that position (<0.1%)

What you do get though is the poor single mum who gets a nice two or three bedroom, then meets Mr perfect who is working and a home owner and instead of her and the kids moving into his house, they have him moving into hers, him letting his house, and after a few years, they buy the council at a big discount whilst he sell shis at top wack or continue to let and grow his investment.

seven-day-weekend

Comms69 wrote: »

Oh please, RTB is an awful policy, taking homes from those in need.


You RENTED for 30 years, you didn't buy anything.


Unfortunately this abysmal system allowed you to buy a property very cheaply; at the expense of the tax payer.


And you have the audacity to call someone 'son'.


I hope the council have thought of this and you cant let out the property. Frankly with £22k in the bank I have no idea why you were even in social housing.

Maybe because Social Housing was never intended originally to house 'the poor'? It was for working people who could pay the rent.

I know policy has changed now, but maybe the OP WAS poor and needy when they were allocated the property.

I have friends where the woman was allocated the house when she was a single parent with three children. She then met the man who became her husband and they lived together in the house and had another child. They have just bought their house for cash. They have the wherewithall now, but when she was first allocated the house, they didn't.

seven-day-weekend

Murphybear wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how long you have to be on the waiting list for most council houses? No matter how great your need there are many people with needs just as great if not greater. In some areas there are hundreds of people for each property.

There are many reasons people who want/need social housing can't get private housing eg not working, claiming housing benefits, can't get references, not earning enough, can't afford deposit, can't afford referencing, have pets, smoke to name a few

Theses things are a choice and shouldn't be included in the criteria of whether or not someone qualifies for a social house!!

Comms69

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Maybe because Social Housing was never intended originally to house 'the poor'? It was for working people who could pay the rent.

I know policy has changed now, but maybe the OP WAS poor and needy when they were allocated the property.

I have friends where the woman was allocated the house when she was a single parent with three children. She then met the man who became her husband and they lived together in the house and had another child. They have just bought their house for cash. They have the wherewithall now, but when she was first allocated the house, they didn't.

I don't see how the intention is relevant to the present.


Prison was not intended as the punishment when it was created; things change.