to be less outraged that a council tenant built a swimming pool in their garden....

[superv1xen]

....than i am about the fact that it was discovered on google earth by a council employee?

what exactly were they looking for?? are they spying on tenants now, wtf

here

(apols for linking to the sun, have copied it from a link someone posted on fb)

YY I agree Trillian, why would should he get effectively a subsidised rent when others in a similar situation are having to pay off mortgages or rent (which would undoubtedly be more on an equivilant (sp?) sized property). My friend and her five (3 of whom have SN) children were crammed in a miniscule council property for years on a waiting list for years. Properties could be freed up for people who ACTUALLY need them.

Not quite sure why I am subsidizing a heated outdoor pool and her rent. And the money seems to be from the proceeds of crime.
I'd quite like an outdoor pool and pay 80 quid a week rather than a huge mortgage for a smaller house with no pool. Maybe I am just being bitter and envious though. Sometimes wish I knew how to play the system rather than actually work for a living and pay for what we can actually afford.
And to the original point of using google earth- why not? It is just making use of the technology available. The equivalent of sending somebody round to look over the back gate but cheaper and quicker.

This reminds me of when I was having a look nosy on Google earth at at village near to us. I noticed what i thought were swimming pools in gardens and was surprised they were so many

Then I realised they were trampolines

"But once you qualify for a council house you never have to move out, I thought."

Currently true. And very wrong and stupid. I have a theory about council housing, I think I should just save it somewhere to copy and paste every time.

But isnt the "house for life" rule changing now to prevent the cases mentioned above?

Council house envy always a MN regular

Tsk honestly these council house squatters sitting in their houses for their whole entire lives! Why don't we just build a big pit and bulldoze all the scrounging takers into it, then build an enormous swimming pool on top for an RBS or Barclays banker to rejoice in?

Knock em all down I say ..after all the council house people are a different species to every one else

Imagine wanting to continue living in your home! The cheeky fuckers!!!
Usual fortunately the government will be taking this on by the best possible solution- removing all social housing and placing all housing into the private sector. 'Social housing: it just encourages them!'

Yes they are all free you know,council houses, they even give you a bigger house to accommodate your 52 inch plasma tv

34go you talk about wanting to continue living in your home, but why should the government give you a home to live in forever? Give housing to the needy, yes, but why continue to subsidise those who once used to be needy but aren't any longer when they can afford to look after themselves and there are people on waiting lists in terrible conditions?

My plan:

do up all council housing so it is livable but plain/empty

rent out at market rent, but use the extra income to sort out housing benefit so anyone who would qualify for a council house now gets to live in an appropriate-sized house for no more than they currently pay

if you begin to earn more, you get less subsidy

you are renting, not paying for improvements/changes yourself - no assumption that you get to stay forever

this would mean that anyone who was poor would be able to afford to live in a house that was big enough for their family

anyone who earned a lot would not be living in a subsidised house while other people are stuck on a waiting list just because once upon a time they used to be poor - if you earn a lot you pay full rent

unlike the plans to 'reassess after 2 years and maybe chuck you out' that are currently being proposed there is no sudden jump from council house to (much more expensive) private renting - subsidies would gradually decline as your income went up

Personally I think that if you can afford to have a swimming pool installed then you should not be taking a council house. There is a shortage and someone who is in greater need should have it.

On a side note - isn't there something in the Tenancy agreement which would stop you doing something as radical as that??

Or how about the government build more social housing to replace the ones maggie sold off

how does it look like an above ground pool bogey ? - it's sunk into the ground

The problem is secured tenancy. It doesn't matter if your circumstances change later, once you've been given a council house, you've got it for life if you want.

I would have thought she'd need planning permission to build that tho', which is probably why she's being told it might be ripped out.

I don't see a secured tenancy as a problem ..I see unsecured 6 month tenancy as more of a problem tbh

and we're off...

Unsecured 6 month tenancy is a PITA (saying that as someone who has moved twice in the last 5 months). But offering a lifetime tenancy to someone on a massively reduced rent isn't going to help that.

I think the sun have twisted the story.the council's concern would be that it had been built without plaaning permission or the permission of the landlord.

Problem with that Trillian, if you are renting out to a 'deserving', 'needy' family how are they going to afford market price rent? Oh yes, housing benefit.. so they are paying rent to subsidise...themselves!!

I agree the private rental sector needs a massive overhaul but I don't know the answer to that one

Being pissed off with people that are lucky enough to get a council house doesn't help either

and c'mon loads on MN wouldn't live on a council estate if you paid them

I don't think that 'deserving' and 'needy' are the same thing.

Where I live there is a MASSIVE waiting list for council houses and it's full of very needy and vulnerable families and individuals. At the same time, many (not most, but many) council properties are rented out to people whose circumstances have improved since when they were first given tenancies for the properties, but they are staying there.

So even though their circumstances are such that, if they had to apply now, they wouldn't qualify, they can stay there for as long as they want. This is while other people whose need is greater are left on a very long waiting list. How can that abe right?

Right to buy has obviously been the cause of the shortage in supply, but we are where we are, and secured tenancy just isn't do-able now IMO. There just isn't enough social housing.

You're not understanding my maths there stretch - those who earn more (because they are not as needy as they were when they first got the council house) pay more than they would now, which subsidises the rent (via housing benefit) for those who actually need it. Those who actually need it right now pay exactly what they would under the current system.

So the university professor mentioned above pays higher rent to the council (if he is still in that house) and so the council has more money to spend on people in need.

Secured tenancy is not the problem though, the lack of social housing is the problem. What is so wrong with the concept of social housing? How is it in any way worse than exorbitant private rents being subsidised by the taxpayer??

There's nothing wrong with the concept of social housing.

And secured tenancy IS a problem when there is a lack of social housing.

I agree that the should be more housing being built, but, in London at least, there are a lack of sites and a lack of money, so the problem isn't going to be fixed anytime soon.

In the meantime, it can't be right that someone on £50k a year enjoys a secure tenancy in a council house while people who are on the bones of their arse sit on waiting lists for years.