Discussion
rover 623gsi said:
back in the day I grew up in a social housing property - mum thought we were posh because everyone else lived in a council house...
anyway, my dad was a telephone engineer. Neighbour one side was a postie. Neighbour the other side was a bus driver. The council estate near us was full of people like that. I didn't know anyone who's dad was unemployed. There were even teachers and policemen that lived there.
But nowadays, because we build less, the bus drivers, the posties and the telephone engineers like my dad would struggle to get social housing and would end up renting privately. It's a real shame. imho of course.
Like you my father was telephone engineer, like you, our next door neighbours (father and both sons) were post men, most of the men in our street were working men on the tools, with a couple of managers and teachers thrown in. Just about all the wives at the time were house wives.anyway, my dad was a telephone engineer. Neighbour one side was a postie. Neighbour the other side was a bus driver. The council estate near us was full of people like that. I didn't know anyone who's dad was unemployed. There were even teachers and policemen that lived there.
But nowadays, because we build less, the bus drivers, the posties and the telephone engineers like my dad would struggle to get social housing and would end up renting privately. It's a real shame. imho of course.
I had a good childhood, and just like pretty much everyone else in our street we didn't have holidays away, and thing like school trips had to be saved up for.
The people who lived in the council houses up the road were all of a similar skill set to my neighbours, yet they benefited from cheap rents and having their homes maintained for them.
Why should a working household be given social housing when many others on similar wages get by paying their own way?
rover 623gsi said:
yes, there are plenty of 1 and 2-bed properties in the private sector relative to the social sector.
The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
I agree, but whether we can afford the capital subsidy on top of the housing benefit ia a bigger question.The problem is that in most cases a 1 or 2 bed private place is more expensive to rent than a 3-bed social place so if someone affected by the 'bedroom tax' downsizes from the social to the private sector it will not only NOT save any money it most probably cost money.
typical private rents where I live
1-bed £450-500pcm
2-bed £650-700pcm
3-bed £750-850pcm
and for the HA I work for.
1-bed £300pcm
2-bed £400pcm
3-bed £500pcm
the most cost-effective way of reducing the Housing Benefit bill is to build more social housing.
It would be better to disintermediate the private rented sector and use cheap institutional capital to build housing stock, in my view.
RYH64E said:
God forbid they have to consider cancelling their Sky subscription, giving up smoking, cutting back on the booze, getting rid of the dog... I bet they could find the money if they had to, but they won't have to because they know the chances of getting evicted are slim to none.
Do you think all these people have all these attributes?I know the chap I have direct experience with
a) gave up smoking a couple of years ago
b) has never had Sky or any TV service apart from standard terrestrial
c) never had a dog or pet of any sort
eccles said:
Why should a working household be given social housing when many others on similar wages get by paying their own way?
Do you think the whole notion of social housing should be abolished?If so, what happens to those who CANNOT afford market rates?
Do you think the "free market" of the rental sector should be controlled by the state, with tighter regulations regarding security of tenure and a reduction of the tax reliefs available to those who invest in land and buildings.
Eric Mc said:
eccles said:
Why should a working household be given social housing when many others on similar wages get by paying their own way?
Do you think the whole notion of social housing should be abolished?Bob Crow said he had no moral duty to leave his low rent gaff while being paid, rather than earning, a six figure sum. Beneath that height of parasitical behaviour there are many levels.
Eric Mc said:
If so, what happens to those who CANNOT afford market rates?
Question is N/A as nobody afaics has suggested abolishing social housing.Eric Mc said:
...should be controlled by the state...
A sound principle is to have as little as possible controlled by the state as it is collectively incompetent and wasteful. It won't always be possible or desirable to remove or prevent state control but adding to a costly mess isn't something to do lightly.in terms of reform
for social housing
for social housing at social rent you MUST meet the following criteria
-household is eligible for the property - if people move out permanently , that triggers a full review of eligibility
- income at a very low level at application and onn review
- no inheritable tenancies
- no indefinite tenancies - review at 1 year ( primarily ASB issues) then review at 5 years and every 5 years subsequent unless household size changes.
- for social housing at less than market rent
- eligible on moving in , if eligibility lost - move or pay market rent
- household income limit ( possibly slightly higher income limit for key workers)
- for shared ownership / HA at low market rents
- eligibility criteria apply if HB to be claimed for rented
-if ineligible must pay full rent from income no HB
- income limit
for private rental
statutory regulation and oversight of letting businesses ( any person or organisation letting 2 or more properties on tenancies - i.e. the exemption would only apply to 'accidental' landlords or people with one rental proerty in addition to their home .
letting by licence for more than 2 or 3 continuous weeks would also require registration or having 5 or more propperties let on short licences - allows an exemption for small holiday let businesses - as they don;t tend to be involved in throwing people out on the street -)
beef up the TDS - no exemptions - existing tenancies predating the TDS to be brought into the TDS
statutory maximum for 'application fees' given that the fees charge can range for 50 gbp / application to several hundred pounds per person someone is taking the pee somewhere whether it;s agents / landlords or organisatiosn providing the vetting/ credit checks
Statutory limit on 'inspections' and other interuptions to quite enjoyment and a tribunal system which is fairly strongly weighted to the tenant here as a lot of landloards and agents take the pee on this and clearly don;t understand what a tenancy is.
for social housing
for social housing at social rent you MUST meet the following criteria
-household is eligible for the property - if people move out permanently , that triggers a full review of eligibility
- income at a very low level at application and onn review
- no inheritable tenancies
- no indefinite tenancies - review at 1 year ( primarily ASB issues) then review at 5 years and every 5 years subsequent unless household size changes.
- for social housing at less than market rent
- eligible on moving in , if eligibility lost - move or pay market rent
- household income limit ( possibly slightly higher income limit for key workers)
- for shared ownership / HA at low market rents
- eligibility criteria apply if HB to be claimed for rented
-if ineligible must pay full rent from income no HB
- income limit
for private rental
statutory regulation and oversight of letting businesses ( any person or organisation letting 2 or more properties on tenancies - i.e. the exemption would only apply to 'accidental' landlords or people with one rental proerty in addition to their home .
letting by licence for more than 2 or 3 continuous weeks would also require registration or having 5 or more propperties let on short licences - allows an exemption for small holiday let businesses - as they don;t tend to be involved in throwing people out on the street -)
beef up the TDS - no exemptions - existing tenancies predating the TDS to be brought into the TDS
statutory maximum for 'application fees' given that the fees charge can range for 50 gbp / application to several hundred pounds per person someone is taking the pee somewhere whether it;s agents / landlords or organisatiosn providing the vetting/ credit checks
Statutory limit on 'inspections' and other interuptions to quite enjoyment and a tribunal system which is fairly strongly weighted to the tenant here as a lot of landloards and agents take the pee on this and clearly don;t understand what a tenancy is.
Eric Mc said:
eccles said:
Why should a working household be given social housing when many others on similar wages get by paying their own way?
Do you think the whole notion of social housing should be abolished?If so, what happens to those who CANNOT afford market rates?
Do you think the "free market" of the rental sector should be controlled by the state, with tighter regulations regarding security of tenure and a reduction of the tax reliefs available to those who invest in land and buildings.
It absolutely should be for people who can't afford the market rate.
Do you think it's fair that if you and I were in similar situations (income location and family etc) I get a subsidised house that's maintained for me and you have go and find a house for yourself and pay the market rate and have all the disadvantages that the private sector has?
years ago i worked for a large food packaging company, we were on the edge of the city, next to a council estate, quite a few people had been taken on the production lines, and the company had sent them to collage, they had worked up over 10 years into good highly paid position, but they still lived in the council houses, this is not social housing
Walford said:
years ago i worked for a large food packaging company, we were on the edge of the city, next to a council estate, quite a few people had been taken on the production lines, and the company had sent them to collage, they had worked up over 10 years into good highly paid position, but they still lived in the council houses, this is not social housing
inbb4 Bob Crowe comments ... this is why Social housing needs an income limit or increasing rents if the household income exceeds a certain figure ( suddenly not as attractive if you are paying market rate for your RSL house rather than the social rent subsidised by the rest of use to the tune of 30%)
yes
and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
rover 623gsi said:
yes
and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
As mph1977 has suggested, if social housing was only subsidised up to a certain income limit this would reduce the housing benefit bill and perhaps encourage some people to seek private housing, thereby freeing up houses for those that genuinely need it...and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
sidicks said:
As mph1977 has suggested, if social housing was only subsidised up to a certain income limit this would reduce the housing benefit bill and perhaps encourage some people to seek private housing, thereby freeing up houses for those that genuinely need it...
i don't know where some people get the idea that there are loads of 'rich' tenants living in social housing.there are 4 million households living in social housing - around 60% of these households are headed by people over the age of 60
the most recent estimate suggests that 34,000 social housing households have a total income of £60,000 per year - that's about 0.8% of the total (and nearly all of them live in London). The average household income of the 7,000 properties we manage is £20,000 a year. Social housing is already for those that genuinely need it.
rover 623gsi said:
sidicks said:
As mph1977 has suggested, if social housing was only subsidised up to a certain income limit this would reduce the housing benefit bill and perhaps encourage some people to seek private housing, thereby freeing up houses for those that genuinely need it...
i don't know where some people get the idea that there are loads of 'rich' tenants living in social housing.There are 4 million households living in social housing - around 60% of these households are headed by people over the age of 60.
there are some over-60s that are very comfortably off, but they tend not to be in social housing
however it is fair to say that quite a few of the older people in social housing are doing fine, even if their actual income is not that high. Most of them will have had many years of reasonably low rents which they can either manage to pay themselves - or if they are in receipt of HB they are not liable to pay the 'bedroom tax'.
And at the risk of sounding contradictory - as I am opposed to the 'bedroom tax'. If it is going to be applied, it ought to be applied to everyone, and of course, there quite a few pensioners in social housing properties that are too big for their current needs.
however it is fair to say that quite a few of the older people in social housing are doing fine, even if their actual income is not that high. Most of them will have had many years of reasonably low rents which they can either manage to pay themselves - or if they are in receipt of HB they are not liable to pay the 'bedroom tax'.
And at the risk of sounding contradictory - as I am opposed to the 'bedroom tax'. If it is going to be applied, it ought to be applied to everyone, and of course, there quite a few pensioners in social housing properties that are too big for their current needs.
turbobloke said:
but aren't people over 60 the most affluent group there is at the moment? Certainly one of the most, if not the most.
Depends on how you look at it.I'm over 60, I live in social housing but only £15916 income. I/we used to own our own home but, due to the
wife's ill health and the and the local health authority sticking their oar in we had to move. Living on a boat was
not 'ideal' conditions
Finished up in social housing, stuck with paying the moorings for the boat as well as finding the rent for the house. To save mounting mooring fee's - made a loss of £12500 on the asking price
for the boat. After paying outstanding bills/debts + commissions on the sale, finished up with £11998 in my hand.
Yes I do get housing/council tax benefits BUT, if left alone as we were I/we would still own and live in our own home.
As to your statement 'but aren't people over 60 the most affluent group there is at the moment - I don't think so.
If you think about it, being home all day we use more electric/gas and water than a working family would, so a so
called 'affluent' pensioner has higher overheads than a working family.
You should try it some time - its great fun trying to stretch money you don't have
109er said:
As to your statement 'but aren't people over 60 the most affluent group there is at the moment - I don't think so.
If you think about it, being home all day we use more electric/gas and water than a working family would, so a so
called 'affluent' pensioner has higher overheads than a working family.
I think for a lot of old people, using more electricity from being home all day pales into insignificance when compared to massive gains in property prices which can now be downsized, and/or final salary pension schemes.If you think about it, being home all day we use more electric/gas and water than a working family would, so a so
called 'affluent' pensioner has higher overheads than a working family.
rover 623gsi said:
yes
and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
We keep seeing this guff about there not being enough housing being built, rents going up etc. It's just a few hotspots around the country where more people want to live (London, South East, Manchester etc), so why shouldn't they pay a premium to live in these areas?and the main reason why private rents are so high is that we are not building enough houses to meet demand
and of course as private rents go up, so does the housing benefit bill - so if you want social rents to go up to match private rents the HB bill will be even more astronomical than it is now
This constant fixation with the South East will have to end some time as the infra structure is already overloaded and space is getting tight.
Meanwhile in the rest of country there are enough houses and rent rates have barely moved in the last 7 years I've been renting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff