Enfield housing experiment
Discussion
The Don of Croy said:
RedTrident said:
Rather you need decent social housing that remains in the hands of the State. Where people can live with dignity and when able to can be supported with a small grant to go and put towards a deposit for their own home bought on the private market.
Nice idea - except for people like the late tube drivers' union leader, earning >£100k plus benefits but seemingly unwilling to vacate his long term council house. Until he died, of course.Probably to be handed on to the next generation too.
Social housing does have a point, and in a civilised society that we live in, we can't have people living on the streets.
But the question is, why does the social housing have to be in the same area the person is asking for? Why can't we give them a suitable place elsewhere in the country and let them live there? Or is it that a right to social housing also includes a right to live where you want?
But the question is, why does the social housing have to be in the same area the person is asking for? Why can't we give them a suitable place elsewhere in the country and let them live there? Or is it that a right to social housing also includes a right to live where you want?
TTwiggy said:
As pointed out, at length, on the 'RIP Bob Crow' thread, social housing was never meant to be exclusively for the 'poor'. Also, Bob, with a 6-figure income, would be a rarity among council tenants, and unlike those on income support, would be paying his full rent. He's not the only high-earner in council housing of course, and some of the others might even be employed in the private sector.
It's a shame that full rent in such cases doesn't mean full market rate rent rather than the significantly lower full council rent.I'm a fan of council housing, providing low cost, affordable housing to those on modest incomes is a good thing and we should be building more such properties. I'm less of a fan of proving such houses to either never worked and never likely to work slackers, or those in receipt of a good income who don't need low cost housing (such as Bob Crow).
s1962a said:
Social housing does have a point, and in a civilised society that we live in, we can't have people living on the streets.
But the question is, why does the social housing have to be in the same area the person is asking for? Why can't we give them a suitable place elsewhere in the country and let them live there? Or is it that a right to social housing also includes a right to live where you want?
I don't so much think that it's a right to live where you want, but rather a right to live where you were brought up and where you have ties to.But the question is, why does the social housing have to be in the same area the person is asking for? Why can't we give them a suitable place elsewhere in the country and let them live there? Or is it that a right to social housing also includes a right to live where you want?
I accept that this causes problems, particularly in expensive areas of inner cities, but equally, can you imagine the NIMBYism if they shipped 250,000 council tenants out to the Cotswolds?
Derek Smith said:
It was a political decision. The real desire to to get a significant number of people out of the rented market and into the demographic that would vote tory.
Odd that would be the logical end game for wanting to implement right to buy - considering it was originally a labour idea.RYH64E said:
TTwiggy said:
As pointed out, at length, on the 'RIP Bob Crow' thread, social housing was never meant to be exclusively for the 'poor'. Also, Bob, with a 6-figure income, would be a rarity among council tenants, and unlike those on income support, would be paying his full rent. He's not the only high-earner in council housing of course, and some of the others might even be employed in the private sector.
It's a shame that full rent in such cases doesn't mean full market rate rent rather than the significantly lower full council rent.I'm a fan of council housing, providing low cost, affordable housing to those on modest incomes is a good thing and we should be building more such properties. I'm less of a fan of proving such houses to either never worked and never likely to work slackers, or those in receipt of a good income who don't need low cost housing (such as Bob Crow).
RYH64E said:
It's a shame that full rent in such cases doesn't mean full market rate rent rather than the significantly lower full council rent.
I'm a fan of council housing, providing low cost, affordable housing to those on modest incomes is a good thing and we should be building more such properties. I'm less of a fan of proving such houses to either never worked and never likely to work slackers, or those in receipt of a good income who don't need low cost housing (such as Bob Crow).
Couple of points;I'm a fan of council housing, providing low cost, affordable housing to those on modest incomes is a good thing and we should be building more such properties. I'm less of a fan of proving such houses to either never worked and never likely to work slackers, or those in receipt of a good income who don't need low cost housing (such as Bob Crow).
A high proportion of tenants receive full or partial HB. Increasing the rent would simply increase the HB subsidy which is funded by taxpayers. It would also probably mean that those tenants who do NOT get HB would move into private sector housing, increasing the number of tenants in council houses on HB increasing the taxpayer's bill etc etc.
Point 2 - If we don't provide housing for slackers they, and their offspring will live on the streets and starve. They won't suddenly think "I need to get off my ar5e, do some work, contribute towards society" Some of these people are genuine parasites. Other have mental or physical issues that mean they aren't able to provide for themselves.
You may agree or disagree - I think the fact that our society tries its best to look its feckless, poor, indolent, and incapable members of society is something we should be proud of.
TTwiggy said:
RYH64E said:
TTwiggy said:
As pointed out, at length, on the 'RIP Bob Crow' thread, social housing was never meant to be exclusively for the 'poor'. Also, Bob, with a 6-figure income, would be a rarity among council tenants, and unlike those on income support, would be paying his full rent. He's not the only high-earner in council housing of course, and some of the others might even be employed in the private sector.
It's a shame that full rent in such cases doesn't mean full market rate rent rather than the significantly lower full council rent.I'm a fan of council housing, providing low cost, affordable housing to those on modest incomes is a good thing and we should be building more such properties. I'm less of a fan of proving such houses to either never worked and never likely to work slackers, or those in receipt of a good income who don't need low cost housing (such as Bob Crow).
Plus, are landlords really squeezing the maximum out of desperate people? That's pretty emotive language; I can't be convinced tenants are desperate. You may as well say food retailers and sellers of water are preying on people's desire to eat or drink lest they die. There is a choice of housing and if rents are too high, then no one will pay it. In fact, it's housing benefit that may keep rent high, hence the sensible decision to cap it.
TTwiggy said:
Councils, due to their larger infrastructure, are able to charge a lower rent. The 'market rate' for rent seems to be whatever landlords can squeeze out of desperate people.
Rents are high because house prices are high, margins are too low for me to be interested, typically 5% gross which after financing costs and other expenses netts down to virtually nothing.Guybrush said:
Councils may be able to charge a lower rent because the rents charged are subsidised by council tax income - i.e. the real costs are hidden.
I used to work in Finance in Social Housing. Council rents are categorically not subsidised by the Taxpayer. In fact they actually make a profit.The simplest way of showing this is Housing Associations - completely independent of the Council and yet able to cover their costs quite easily. Another way is to look at the many PH'ers who are successful BTL landlords. A social housing provider knows far more about renting out houses efficiently than your average BTL landlord.
Countdown said:
Couple of points;
A high proportion of tenants receive full or partial HB. Increasing the rent would simply increase the HB subsidy which is funded by taxpayers. It would also probably mean that those tenants who do NOT get HB would move into private sector housing, increasing the number of tenants in council houses on HB increasing the taxpayer's bill etc etc.
Point 2 - If we don't provide housing for slackers they, and their offspring will live on the streets and starve. They won't suddenly think "I need to get off my ar5e, do some work, contribute towards society" Some of these people are genuine parasites. Other have mental or physical issues that mean they aren't able to provide for themselves.
You may agree or disagree - I think the fact that our society tries its best to look its feckless, poor, indolent, and incapable members of society is something we should be proud of.
People's behaviour changes due to the incentives on offer. Before the post war social housing boom there wasn't mass homelessness. The poor lived in private rental housing (often of poor quality) and worked to pay for it.A high proportion of tenants receive full or partial HB. Increasing the rent would simply increase the HB subsidy which is funded by taxpayers. It would also probably mean that those tenants who do NOT get HB would move into private sector housing, increasing the number of tenants in council houses on HB increasing the taxpayer's bill etc etc.
Point 2 - If we don't provide housing for slackers they, and their offspring will live on the streets and starve. They won't suddenly think "I need to get off my ar5e, do some work, contribute towards society" Some of these people are genuine parasites. Other have mental or physical issues that mean they aren't able to provide for themselves.
You may agree or disagree - I think the fact that our society tries its best to look its feckless, poor, indolent, and incapable members of society is something we should be proud of.
There isn't an automatic causation in my mind that as a society grows richer it will have, by necessity, millions who will spend their lives dependent wholly, or mostly, on the state.
It is just a matter of designing a welfare system that rewards work, bringing in changes gradually, and reform in other areas (like immigration policy).
JagLover said:
Countdown said:
Couple of points;
A high proportion of tenants receive full or partial HB. Increasing the rent would simply increase the HB subsidy which is funded by taxpayers. It would also probably mean that those tenants who do NOT get HB would move into private sector housing, increasing the number of tenants in council houses on HB increasing the taxpayer's bill etc etc.
Point 2 - If we don't provide housing for slackers they, and their offspring will live on the streets and starve. They won't suddenly think "I need to get off my ar5e, do some work, contribute towards society" Some of these people are genuine parasites. Other have mental or physical issues that mean they aren't able to provide for themselves.
You may agree or disagree - I think the fact that our society tries its best to look its feckless, poor, indolent, and incapable members of society is something we should be proud of.
People's behaviour changes due to the incentives on offer. Before the post war social housing boom there wasn't mass homelessness. The poor lived in private rental housing (often of poor quality) and worked to pay for it.A high proportion of tenants receive full or partial HB. Increasing the rent would simply increase the HB subsidy which is funded by taxpayers. It would also probably mean that those tenants who do NOT get HB would move into private sector housing, increasing the number of tenants in council houses on HB increasing the taxpayer's bill etc etc.
Point 2 - If we don't provide housing for slackers they, and their offspring will live on the streets and starve. They won't suddenly think "I need to get off my ar5e, do some work, contribute towards society" Some of these people are genuine parasites. Other have mental or physical issues that mean they aren't able to provide for themselves.
You may agree or disagree - I think the fact that our society tries its best to look its feckless, poor, indolent, and incapable members of society is something we should be proud of.
There isn't an automatic causation in my mind that as a society grows richer it will have, by necessity, millions who will spend their lives dependent wholly, or mostly, on the state.
It is just a matter of designing a welfare system that rewards work, bringing in changes gradually, and reform in other areas (like immigration policy).
Countdown said:
Guybrush said:
Councils may be able to charge a lower rent because the rents charged are subsidised by council tax income - i.e. the real costs are hidden.
I used to work in Finance in Social Housing. Council rents are categorically not subsidised by the Taxpayer. In fact they actually make a profit.The simplest way of showing this is Housing Associations - completely independent of the Council and yet able to cover their costs quite easily. Another way is to look at the many PH'ers who are successful BTL landlords. A social housing provider knows far more about renting out houses efficiently than your average BTL landlord.
Countdown said:
I used to work in Finance in Social Housing. Council rents are categorically not subsidised by the Taxpayer. In fact they actually make a profit.
The simplest way of showing this is Housing Associations - completely independent of the Council and yet able to cover their costs quite easily. Another way is to look at the many PH'ers who are successful BTL landlords. A social housing provider knows far more about renting out houses efficiently than your average BTL landlord.
There are different ways of calculating your profit. If I take an example of a house I've had rented out for 16 years (to the same tenant!), that's un-mortgaged and doesn't go through a letting agent, the rent achieved is about 15% of original purchase price per annum, which is not bad even before the capital appreciation of nigh on 200% is considered. Howver, if I do the same calculation based on current value the rent works out at 5.3% per annum gross, so if that property were mortgaged, had void periods, was let through an agent, and needed regular refurbishment it would be a commercial disaster. Also, the chances of substantial firther capital appreciation is, imo, slim, I wouldn't be surprised if it went down in value. Personally, I don't think there's that much money to be made in letting domestic property, rents are too low compared to current house value. The simplest way of showing this is Housing Associations - completely independent of the Council and yet able to cover their costs quite easily. Another way is to look at the many PH'ers who are successful BTL landlords. A social housing provider knows far more about renting out houses efficiently than your average BTL landlord.
All based on South East/London prices/rents.
Countdown said:
The simplest way of showing this is Housing Associations - completely independent of the Council and yet able to cover their costs quite easily.
Oddly I have a some experience (as a commercial supplier) of one or two HA in the UK. One of them had so much moola thrown at them they were struggling to spend it - even setting up a state of the art call centre to respond to residents (guaranteed phone contact in 3 rings or under, 95% of all maintenance jobs completed within 72 hours). They bought kits of tools for the direct labour force spending up to £1800 per man (not including a van). The number of trades they employed - purely for the benefit of their own residents - was in some cases 10 times the number operating generally in the UK (number of trades / population). So good for their residents and good for employment of local trades...except the trades were underutilised and prone to bunking off to fish/play footie/sell tools on ebay.Naturally I'm pleased I benefitted from the sales, but it opened my eyes to what really went on.
So where does the money for housing associations come from? Us.
Housing assocations get nearly all of their income from the rents they charge.
most modern HAs were created by a stock transfer of houses previously owned by a local authority. Usually the properties were transfered for a peppercorn fee.
In hast 20 years or so new houses built by HAs have been subsidised by a govt grant (delivered through a QUANGO such as the HCA) - usually the amount was equal to an amount somewhere between a third and half of the built cost. The remaining build costs were met by the HA through borrowing and/or their own reserves. In recent years the level of subsidy has fallen dramatically to around 10-20% of the buld cost on average. Therefore HAs are borrowing more (and/or building less). Some HAs have decided to not bother asking for govt grant at all and are now funding new developments entirely on their own - through borrowing. The advantage in not getting govt grant is that you can build pretty much what you want.
most modern HAs were created by a stock transfer of houses previously owned by a local authority. Usually the properties were transfered for a peppercorn fee.
In hast 20 years or so new houses built by HAs have been subsidised by a govt grant (delivered through a QUANGO such as the HCA) - usually the amount was equal to an amount somewhere between a third and half of the built cost. The remaining build costs were met by the HA through borrowing and/or their own reserves. In recent years the level of subsidy has fallen dramatically to around 10-20% of the buld cost on average. Therefore HAs are borrowing more (and/or building less). Some HAs have decided to not bother asking for govt grant at all and are now funding new developments entirely on their own - through borrowing. The advantage in not getting govt grant is that you can build pretty much what you want.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Thursday 4th September 13:19
A local building firm I know has a contract for replacing bathrooms and kitchens for a housing association, the sums of money involved are huge but some of the stories they tell about the tenants they deal with are shocking. Another company had a contract for fitting double glazing, again at significant cost. The amounts of money involved are enormous and can't be covered by the rent, anyway, a lot of the tenants don't actually pay their own rent it's covered by housing benefit.
RYH64E said:
A local building firm I know has a contract for replacing bathrooms and kitchens for a housing association, the sums of money involved are huge but some of the stories they tell about the tenants they deal with are shocking. Another company had a contract for fitting double glazing, again at significant cost. The amounts of money involved are enormous and can't be covered by the rent, anyway, a lot of the tenants don't actually pay their own rent it's covered by housing benefit.
Social housing construction/refurb contracts are typically high value due to the bulk nature of the things, but profit margins are generally not the best Guybrush said:
In your experience, who purchased the properties that the councils rent out at a 'profit'? Housing associations probably don't purchase properties at full market price (do they?).
Historically the properties were built using PWLB money. Nowadays RSL may borrow money either from the Govt. or from banks and use this to build houses. Or Councils will use receipts from the sale of RTB properties. Govts also have periodic "initiatives" such as Empty Homes (which aim to bring Empty Homes back into use).It tends to be more "build" than "buy".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff