Discrepancy between social housing rents verses private sector rents - how is this legal/fair?

Coming back to this thread, I thought I could give a little perspective:

We bid on a council house on 08/02/2012. We were asked for documents on 13/02/2012, and told we were the preferred choice on 17/02/2012.

The council house was classed as a 'void'. The previous tenant had left the property and the council had to do lots of work on it to bring it up to standard.

It needed full clearance; new boilers and radiators, with an extension of the heating system; garden landscaping to make the garden safe (previous tenants had 'stepped' the garden, which meant that there were 3 levels of grass, with a 1 metre drop at the end of the garden; new screed flooring; new kitchen units.

On 02/03/2012 we were told the property was going to be ready on 12/03/2012. We have a one month notice period for our current tenancy. We were told that we had to take the keys on 12/03/2012, despite the fact that our tenancy in the current house will not expire until 02/04/2012. We also would be charged rent from 12/03/2012, despite also paying rent on our current home.

We got the keys on 12/03/2012, stripped the wallpaper, and found that the plaster beneath it has lifted away from the wall in numerous places on every wall in every room. The house is not habitable, and all the walls need replastering.

The council has accepted that they need to fix it. But they initially told us that we still had to pay rent because 'we accepted the property as it was'. I had to point out that we were not given an opportunity to inspect, and we informed them of the problem less than 24 hours after sign up.

I also asked if there was any help with the fact that we now would have to pay two rents for longer than we were told, and was told 'no, there's no help'.

I had to write a formal letter requesting abatement to the Property Services Manager to plead my case. Fortunately, he was fantastic, and said that it should have been part of the original job. He is sorting it.

We are lucky that my landlord is understanding, and has agreed to extend the tenancy by two weeks. The tenant who is due to move in here isn't too pleased.

To move in to the council house we will have to pay for:

Fencing - the entire garden must be secure because my DD has no sense of danger. The council are only responsible for marking the position of the boundary - the tenant is responsible for all fencing.

Flooring - Whenever a tenant moves out of council housing they must lift all flooring and leave the property as it was. The new tenant has to pay to floor the whole house.

Furninshing - All council houses are completely unfurnished. No white goods, no curtains, no furniture of any sort.

I am still very grateful, but I do think that sometimes people get the impression that council tenants get handed everything on a plate. It isn't so.

Social housing profit, they invent new ways each year to Justify service charge, they bring in contractors to lay pavement where it is not needed mainly over patches of land and plant in areas where a charge is not been given so they can maintain it through a service charge and pay their staff well above nmw while people living in these properties just get by on the basics, what does social hosing stand for?

chickenlickn - www.insidehousing.co.uk/subsidy-withdrawal-heavily-criticised/6512262.article

from 2010 would appear to disagree with that. something that makes a profit does not need a direct subsidy.... or am i missing something?

will start one.... just need to think of a suitable title, but will come up with something....

TheRealityMillyTinto, It would be interesting to discuss, but would need a whole thread to itself.

Social housing pays for itself and has been making a profit since 2008 IIRC.

When people pay their rent it pays for the cost of building the house. Then the money can be reinvested in more houses! Yay! Happy! Clever! Non-homeless people!

Dione - arent people in poor countries often victims of us?

A diversion of funds from non essential govt. initiatives such as Free Schools and NHS reform would provide the money. Labour is cheaper now than in boom times. Money is saved as the building jobs will take people off benefits. The cash injection from salaries will support existing jobs, thereby boosting the economy. NEETs will be able to find apprenticeships. Long term, less HB is paid to landlords and B&B owners.

Bradbourne, people in poorer countries are often the victims of corrupt, violent leaders and businesses that support them. I would love for all to live in a fairer society.

who provides the money for the new social housing?

Because as its been explained numerous times away on the thread it can't work. People let their properties for a yield, once the yield is reduced other forms of investment are preferable.

Any chance we could not want to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Social housing rents are fair rents. In some case private sector rents are ridiculously high because of greedy landlords who have no constraints put on them. So instead of knocking those in social housing why not fight to get private sector pay restraint.

'In countries in Europe, where renting is more popular, the law protects tenants, not landlords.

The rent can only go up by the rate of inflation

The landlord cannot, ever, evict a tenant as long as the tenant keeps paying his rent on time'

Not the case in Belgium - the law is all on the l/ls side, and if you get away with paying 1 months rent for damages when you leave (no notion of wear and tear here), you are doing well.

You can also be asked to leave if the l/l wishes to reoccupy the property.
The tenancies are longer, 3 or 9 years, but the tenant is liable for the boiler service, chimney sweeping, garden maintenance etc, that Brit l/ls pay for out of rental income.

bradbourne - i dont think that was the type of fairness other posters had in mind - they wanted the fairness where they get more, not have to share what that they have with people with less.

One last try:

If we are talking about fairness for all, then we have to accept that we in the UK are a damned sight better off than vast swathes of the world's population. That was my point.

But you aren't talking about fairness for all, are you? You are just bleating about how you and yours should have a greater share of society's pot. After all, who wants to believe that if the world were fairer they, personally, would be worse off?

So no, if 100% of the world's resources were shared out equally, not everyone would be worse off. Billions of people in places like Burundi, Afghanistan, Congoa and Liberia would be better off. And we in the UK would undoubtedly be worse off.

Cue posters coming along to whine that we live in a wealthy country - therefore they should be given more....

Bradbourne 100% shared equally would not make all people worse off. I think your opinion is based on your own situation and not on sound economic and political theory.

In the states as ex: 1% of the population hold something like 37% of the wealth/property, richest 10% hold 80%, how can a fairer distribution make all people worse off

I don't like the idea of my 81 year old blind and deaf father being made to move, at the moment he lives next door where I can help to care for him. If he has to move possibly miles away-the state can do it because I have a small business,my own home,2 children and I may even have less to live on because I refuse to beg for universal credit.

I agree that we need more affordable homes and a project to build them would be good for the economy and good for individuals and for young people who benefit from training and employment.

Affordable homes is obviously an emotive issue for many, almost without doubt, people who just see housing as an investment.

bluhing crow

your right I was advised not to say anything to anyone about the fact I was getting a H/A house .As in scale of time I did not wait to long( 9 months after my accident and bearing in mind I had no bathroom or washing faclites to use)

And this was a adapted house as well .As apparentely the houing officer would get a lot of earache

Sorry, all people being a lot worse off? Oops.

Neverknowingly perhaps it could be diverted from NHS reforms or Free School, or any of the other non essential initiatives that are currently being pushed through by the government. A social housing initiative, would not only provide housing, it would provide a much needed cash injection and help the economy grow as the wages of the trades people would support existing jobs. Doing it at this time when salaries are depressed would be much cheaper than waiting. It would also benefit those NEETs in need of apprenticeship places.

Bradbourne how would a "fairer" society result in most people being worse off?

Georgefatcatosborne - I am getting a bit sick of your personal attacks.

If the world were a fairer place we would all be a lot worse off. You only need to look at the billions who live on the brink of starvation in the third world to see that. We are all bl**dy lucky to be able to sit in our homes, with the benefit of electricity and running water, tapping away on our laptops all day long and (in some cases) bleating about the evils of capitalism.

I agree with you Blushingcrow. However I think it is becoming easier and more acceptable to put the boot into those who don't have much.

"claim" for want of a better word "beg" maybe bradbourne, do you want people to beg for a roof?

How many people think they would be worse off if the world was fairer, do you think you are worse off because some of your tax supports people who are less "fortunate" of course you do, that is what your problem is.

Dione where would the money come from to pay the trades,?

I do understand that, and I get that it isn't a simple fix.
I am also aware that it is almost impossible to talk about it without emotion.
I wouldn't ever personally want to see someone have to leave the home that they love and want to be in, I just also know that the resources available arelimited.

I have a great little house (1 bed) that I rent out to an eldery chap and he pays through his housing benefit. He is too fit and young in spirit to be in an old peoples home but he wasn't high on the list for social housing as a single man and had lean resources. There really aren't many 1 bed houses around and that is all he needed and all he could afford.

I just don't think that social housing should HAVE to be the answer for families who are working and earnign a fair/good income.

It always amazes me that people are envious of people with the least.

I'm envious of the richest people in this country not the poorest.

I think it probably helps to know what the purpose of social housing is, and how we got to where we are today. You have to know how the problems we have today happened before you can work out an effective way of tackling them.