London mansions for those on benefits
Discussion
sparta6 said:
Can’t see it. What is the gist of this ? SS427 Camaro said:
Can t see it. What is the gist of this ?
My mate chatgpt had a go, just for you, and it only cost one orangutan...The gist is that the article is less about “benefit claimants getting mansions” in a simple scandal sense, and more about the huge gap between social housing rents and private rents in London. It uses striking examples, such as large homes in expensive areas being advertised for relatively low monthly rents, to show how valuable secure social tenancies can be compared with the private rental market.
Should you care? A bit, yes — but probably not because of the individual examples. The real issue is whether the housing system is fair: some people with social tenancies are protected from London’s brutal market rents, while private renters nearby may pay more for a single room than a social tenant pays for an entire house. That feels unfair, especially to taxpayers and people stuck in expensive private rentals.
But it is not necessarily evidence of widespread abuse. It mostly shows that the UK has too little social housing, very high private rents, and a messy rent-setting system. So the thing worth caring about is not “someone got a cheap mansion,” but whether public housing support is being targeted fairly, whether enough homes are being built, and whether the system gives help based on genuine need rather than historical luck.
bigandclever said:
My mate chatgpt had a go, just for you, and it only cost one orangutan...
The gist is that the article is less about benefit claimants getting mansions in a simple scandal sense, and more about the huge gap between social housing rents and private rents in London. It uses striking examples, such as large homes in expensive areas being advertised for relatively low monthly rents, to show how valuable secure social tenancies can be compared with the private rental market.
Should you care? A bit, yes but probably not because of the individual examples. The real issue is whether the housing system is fair: some people with social tenancies are protected from London s brutal market rents, while private renters nearby may pay more for a single room than a social tenant pays for an entire house. That feels unfair, especially to taxpayers and people stuck in expensive private rentals.
But it is not necessarily evidence of widespread abuse. It mostly shows that the UK has too little social housing, very high private rents, and a messy rent-setting system. So the thing worth caring about is not someone got a cheap mansion, but whether public housing support is being targeted fairly, whether enough homes are being built, and whether the system gives help based on genuine need rather than historical luck.
You mean the UK has too many people, recently?.The gist is that the article is less about benefit claimants getting mansions in a simple scandal sense, and more about the huge gap between social housing rents and private rents in London. It uses striking examples, such as large homes in expensive areas being advertised for relatively low monthly rents, to show how valuable secure social tenancies can be compared with the private rental market.
Should you care? A bit, yes but probably not because of the individual examples. The real issue is whether the housing system is fair: some people with social tenancies are protected from London s brutal market rents, while private renters nearby may pay more for a single room than a social tenant pays for an entire house. That feels unfair, especially to taxpayers and people stuck in expensive private rentals.
But it is not necessarily evidence of widespread abuse. It mostly shows that the UK has too little social housing, very high private rents, and a messy rent-setting system. So the thing worth caring about is not someone got a cheap mansion, but whether public housing support is being targeted fairly, whether enough homes are being built, and whether the system gives help based on genuine need rather than historical luck.
Mrr T said:
If you cannot read the article here's a key paragraph.
"Social rents are based on the size, location and value of a property, but these values were set in 1999 and are now significantly out of date, which has created distortions in the market."
That's the crux."Social rents are based on the size, location and value of a property, but these values were set in 1999 and are now significantly out of date, which has created distortions in the market."
6 bedroom house in Kensington offered at 1999 price point seems inequitable.
sparta6 said:
6 bedroom house in Kensington offered at 1999 price point seems inequitable.
Who is offering a "6 bedroomed house in Kensington"?My guess is "Nobody" because if there actually were any 6-bedroomed houses in Kensington they would have been purchased under RTB/RTA
And at the risk of stating the obvious - a 7 bedroomed terraced house in Brixton is not a mansion. Terraced houses can be surprisingly large on the inside and quite easy to convert into multiple bedrooms. That doesn't make them a mansion.
I've always wondered what would happen if market forces were given absolute free reign on this.
Housing gets so expensive that your nurses, firemen, binmen, cleaners etc all have to move further and further out. Eventually nobody is prepared to commute into these areas, so housing falls in price or other events happen to start levelling it out (council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it, so more can be paid to those on the public payroll...cleaners get housed in decent conditions by the people with the big houses etc).
Nobody has a "right" to live in a specific area. Let it sort itself out perhaps...
Housing gets so expensive that your nurses, firemen, binmen, cleaners etc all have to move further and further out. Eventually nobody is prepared to commute into these areas, so housing falls in price or other events happen to start levelling it out (council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it, so more can be paid to those on the public payroll...cleaners get housed in decent conditions by the people with the big houses etc).
Nobody has a "right" to live in a specific area. Let it sort itself out perhaps...
Murph7355 said:
council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it
My annual bills (3 bed in SW London) are around £11k a year - it's crazy that you need to earn £19k just cover existence. What will happen is that families leave London and the city just becomes a transient population of workers with no ties to the place, as is slowly happening I think.Countdown said:
sparta6 said:
6 bedroom house in Kensington offered at 1999 price point seems inequitable.
Who is offering a "6 bedroomed house in Kensington"?My guess is "Nobody" because if there actually were any 6-bedroomed houses in Kensington they would have been purchased under RTB/RTA
The website also had a 5 bedder offered in Belsize Park at £790 pcm.
Do you agree with the principle ?
Murph7355 said:
I've always wondered what would happen if market forces were given absolute free reign on this.
Housing gets so expensive that your nurses, firemen, binmen, cleaners etc all have to move further and further out. Eventually nobody is prepared to commute into these areas, so housing falls in price or other events happen to start levelling it out (council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it, so more can be paid to those on the public payroll...cleaners get housed in decent conditions by the people with the big houses etc).
Nobody has a "right" to live in a specific area. Let it sort itself out perhaps...
I agree.Housing gets so expensive that your nurses, firemen, binmen, cleaners etc all have to move further and further out. Eventually nobody is prepared to commute into these areas, so housing falls in price or other events happen to start levelling it out (council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it, so more can be paid to those on the public payroll...cleaners get housed in decent conditions by the people with the big houses etc).
Nobody has a "right" to live in a specific area. Let it sort itself out perhaps...
Have always believed key workers should get first dibs on social housing in Zones 1/2, and not the long term unemployed .
fido said:
Murph7355 said:
council tax gets higher but people are OK to pay it
My annual bills (3 bed in SW London) are around £11k a year - it's crazy that you need to earn £19k just cover existence. What will happen is that families leave London and the city just becomes a transient population of workers with no ties to the place, as is slowly happening I think.That's what I was saying though, let it find its level. That 11k pays for the services you need ("need" according to the govt/council). Once that becomes an issue, you move out (as I did for example) and either wealthier people move in for whom it's not an issue or property sales stall, people pay less for their housing and service costs come down/become more bearable in the round.
What we seem to do at present is try to interfere with the market....often with good intent...often for stupid ideological reasons...but as a result things can't find a level and you then get significant inequity as is being mentioned on this thread (haven't read the article, not had chance to unpaywall it, and am certainly not paying subs to the Telegraph...or Guardian etc).
sparta6 said:
One such example was highlighted on TV news.
sparta6 said:
The website also had a 5 bedder offered in Belsize Park at £790 pcm.
Belsize Park isn't Kensington and "5 bedder" doesn't mean it's a "Mansion"sparta6 said:
Do you agree with the principle ?
What principle? Providing cheap housing to people on low incomes? If the alternative is thousands of families being homeless then yes, I do.Countdown said:
sparta6 said:
One such example was highlighted on TV news.
sparta6 said:
The website also had a 5 bedder offered in Belsize Park at £790 pcm.
Belsize Park isn't Kensington and "5 bedder" doesn't mean it's a "Mansion"sparta6 said:
Do you agree with the principle ?
What principle? Providing cheap housing to people on low incomes? If the alternative is thousands of families being homeless then yes, I do.
tele_lover said:
bigandclever said:
My mate chatgpt had a go, just for you, and it only cost one orangutan...
The gist is that the article is less about benefit claimants getting mansions in a simple scandal sense, and more about the huge gap between social housing rents and private rents in London. It uses striking examples, such as large homes in expensive areas being advertised for relatively low monthly rents, to show how valuable secure social tenancies can be compared with the private rental market.
Should you care? A bit, yes but probably not because of the individual examples. The real issue is whether the housing system is fair: some people with social tenancies are protected from London s brutal market rents, while private renters nearby may pay more for a single room than a social tenant pays for an entire house. That feels unfair, especially to taxpayers and people stuck in expensive private rentals.
But it is not necessarily evidence of widespread abuse. It mostly shows that the UK has too little social housing, very high private rents, and a messy rent-setting system. So the thing worth caring about is not someone got a cheap mansion, but whether public housing support is being targeted fairly, whether enough homes are being built, and whether the system gives help based on genuine need rather than historical luck.
You mean the UK has too many people, recently?.The gist is that the article is less about benefit claimants getting mansions in a simple scandal sense, and more about the huge gap between social housing rents and private rents in London. It uses striking examples, such as large homes in expensive areas being advertised for relatively low monthly rents, to show how valuable secure social tenancies can be compared with the private rental market.
Should you care? A bit, yes but probably not because of the individual examples. The real issue is whether the housing system is fair: some people with social tenancies are protected from London s brutal market rents, while private renters nearby may pay more for a single room than a social tenant pays for an entire house. That feels unfair, especially to taxpayers and people stuck in expensive private rentals.
But it is not necessarily evidence of widespread abuse. It mostly shows that the UK has too little social housing, very high private rents, and a messy rent-setting system. So the thing worth caring about is not someone got a cheap mansion, but whether public housing support is being targeted fairly, whether enough homes are being built, and whether the system gives help based on genuine need rather than historical luck.
If governments / councils and so you let anyone - UK residents, / companies / overseas residents buy up as much of London's property as possible and then allow them to rent that out without any kind of restriction or rent controls then prices will rise. The only distortion is that commerical rental rates are now so extortionate that turning homes into HMO becomes more and more common as more and more money is squeezed out of people wanting to live and work in the City and space becomes more and more expensive.
At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
AbbeyNormal said:
If governments / councils and so you let anyone - UK residents, / companies / overseas residents buy up as much of London's property as possible and then allow them to rent that out without any kind of restriction or rent controls then prices will rise. The only distortion is that commerical rental rates are now so extortionate that turning homes into HMO becomes more and more common as more and more money is squeezed out of people wanting to live and work in the City and space becomes more and more expensive.
At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
What's happened to the 1.5 million new homes promised ?At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn82xnze9l4o
AbbeyNormal said:
If governments / councils and so you let anyone - UK residents, / companies / overseas residents buy up as much of London's property as possible and then allow them to rent that out without any kind of restriction or rent controls then prices will rise. The only distortion is that commerical rental rates are now so extortionate that turning homes into HMO becomes more and more common as more and more money is squeezed out of people wanting to live and work in the City and space becomes more and more expensive.
At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
Prices will only rise so far.At some point it will go pop.
The fact that social housing is seen as "cheap" isn't the issue, It's the fact that the private rental market is so out of step with reality. And people are still able to pay the rents.
And Councils have it within their gift not to allow conversion to HMOs etc.
The City isn't the only place people can work. If it gets too expensive, go and work somewhere else. A bit more even spreading away from the South East would be no bad thing. And if people started to move abroad in droves then other measures should be used to look at that.
As I said, if all the service personnel could no longer afford to live or commute into an area, services would stop happening and the desirability of the area would drop. Prices would soften and it would all find a level.
fido said:
My annual bills (3 bed in SW London) are around £11k a year - it's crazy that you need to earn £19k just cover existence. What will happen is that families leave London and the city just becomes a transient population of workers with no ties to the place, as is slowly happening I think.
Can appreciate that you may not want to go into exact details but for a non-SE Midlander could you give a bit more detail on how bills rack up to £11k ? Unless that includes rent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff