Council housing - move tenants subject to decreasing family size?

[whatever17]

Do you think that tenants in social housing should be moved after their family's have grown?

For instance, a family gets a 3 bed house then the kids grow up and leave. Should the parents be forced into a 1 bed property? SHould they have to leave their family home after 40 years?

If so, surely no one would have any pride in the property. If they feel they have "a home for life" they will beautify the garden and keep everything respectable.

Should the solution be that there is enough social housing for everyone in need?

[smokinaces]

Oh and WRT the housing benefit thing - you can only claim that if your income is below X amount. This isn't true for council housing and IMO it should be. - just stood in the shower thinking about this, and realised I think you mean that council houses should be means tested, like housing benefit is?

Again, if you did this you would end up with more sink estates, higher pockets of deprivation etc. If you had whole estates where ever resident had to earn under £12k for instance, this wouldnt be a good thing neccesarily.

Where would the incentive be for people to work harder?

When I applied for my council house my finances were gone through with a fine toothcomb. I had to justify every incoming and outgoing, prove that I couldnt privately rent and prove that I had no family I could move in with. Every other day we would have another idea from the council put to us, just to try and prevent us needing social housing. It took over a month for us to be "put on the list" as we had to justify being in that position. So at the onset of the tenancy, the council houses are means tested.

Where would you put that cap as well? Would it be like child benefit or child tax credit? Would it be different for different areas, such as London?

[Serenitysutton]

Wouldn't you rather be in a HA place smokin? Far easier to get a place. Well, you're in your home now but ykwim.

I couldn't agree more that areas and estates have to have a good mix of social economic backgrounds. I feel very strongly about that.

[Bottleofbeer]

I dont understand Bottleofbeer?

I live in Council Housing and can only claim a certain amount of housing benefit as I work. My neighbour cant claim anything as she works full time and earns too much.

I dont understand what you mean?

Further up the thread I pointed out council housing rent is so cheap because it's subsidised ragarless of income, somebody mentioned HB. I'm aware not everyone in CH claims HB but my point was that no matter what you earn if tyou are a council tenant your rent is low and not means tested. I think it should be.

[smokinaces]

Round here Serenity they are all the same. You have to be on the council list to get a HA place - all on the same bidding lists etc, you need to have points from the council etc. I chose a council place as its in a rougher area so less people bid on it - it meant I was only up against 10 other people for this place and got rehoused within a month of recieving my points. And I cant argue about the council being my landlord at the moment, 2 years and they've done me no wrong!

[usualsuspect]

I don't think council house rents are too low

I think private rents are too high

[smokinaces]

Further up the thread I pointed out council housing rent is so cheap because it's subsidised ragarless of income, somebody mentioned HB. I'm aware not everyone in CH claims HB but my point was that no matter what you earn if tyou are a council tenant your rent is low and not means tested. I think it should be.

This is being dealt with with new tenancy agreements as well - they are now going to be rents that are more in line with local private rental properties.

Not sure what this will achieve, other than the council paying out more money to itself in housing benefit tbh! For instance, my rent is £75 a week, I pay £50 as they say that is the maximum I can afford. The council pay the other £25 a week in housing benefit. If my rent were to double, I still wouldnt be able to afford more than £50 a week, so the council will end up pay an extra £75 to themselves in benefit money. I'm sure a lot of council residents round here would be in a similar position.

My rent isnt cheap because its subsidised as such - its cheap because it hasnt gone up like mad with the rates of inflation like private rented. My house is nearly 100 years old, the council dont owe any money on it, they pay very little in repairs etc (I would estimate £50 in the last 2 years!!) so the whole £300 a month rent they get. They just dont make a huge profit margain.

[smokinaces]

Actually, £300 per house per month isnt a bad profit

and I agree usual. Council rents arent cheap. Private rentals are high.

[Bottleofbeer]

My rent isnt cheap because its subsidised as such - its cheap because it hasnt gone up like mad with the rates of inflation like private rented. My house is nearly 100 years old, the council dont owe any money on it, they pay very little in repairs etc (I would estimate £50 in the last 2 years!!) so the whole £300 a month rent they get. They just dont make a huge profit margain.

I'm in a similar situation Smokin, although this is privately rented and was built in 1889, because I moved in before house prices and rents went astronomical what I pay is actually very cheap for the area and I'm also fairly secure as people who rent through this landlord (he at one point owned the whole street, now, about half are owned, half are rented) rent through him for years, one neighbour has rented from him then through his son for over 40 years. However, I think it's a fallacy to say it'd turn places into sink estates just because the majority of them claim HB. Claiming benefits doesn't suddenly make you some asbo in the making. But I think you've misunderstood what I was probably badly trying to say.

What I mean is if your earnings go over a certain threshold then the rent should be adjusted accordingly if you continue to live in a council house.

Mr and Mrs Hypothetical moved into their house 25 years ago when they were both 20 and had a boy and girl before they were 25, so needed their three bed house. Master and Miss Hypothetical are now in their 20s and have moved out. Mr and Mrs have had various promotions over the years and their income is now fairly comfortable. Their rent is still only £75 per week (based on the average weekly rent for a CH is this area). Meanwhile under the same council a family of five with mixed sex children are living in cramped, substandard, private accomodation and paying a huge rent for the priviledge.

I think there needs to be rules that state Mr and Mrs Hypothetical move out to make way for Mr and Mrs Desperate to move into a house they desperately need. Yeah over the years it's been their home but they do not own it and as such should have no automatic right to stay there when they can comfortably afford to move out. They had it while they needed it.

[smokinaces]

I think there needs to be rules that state Mr and Mrs Hypothetical move out to make way for Mr and Mrs Desperate to move into a house they desperately need. Yeah over the years it's been their home but they do not own it and as such should have no automatic right to stay there when they can comfortably afford to move out. They had it while they needed it.

Agree. But its where you put these thresholds isnt it? I mean, what is a good salary to say you now have to privately rent on. Would it change yearly? Would you say Mr and Mrs Hypothetical have to move to a 1 bed place if they were in a 2 bed house - or is it just because they have 3 beds when they are only occupying 1? Or are they only occupying one - a lot of older couples I know still live as couples but have separate sleeping arrangements.

And yes, Mr and Mrs Hypothetical have a fairly comfortable wage now. But they have no property to live in their retirement. So what happens when they then retire, and they dont have an income anymore (or a very low pension) and they need that council house again. Do they go through the whole process of moving/applying etc again?

Like I have said before, my council tenancy does say that the council have a right to move you if you are underoccupied at any time. But, they dont uphold that right. Because its "easy" to see a couple in a 3 bed house is underoccupied. But what about the couple in a 2 bed house, or the family of 4 in a 3 bed house.

[smokinaces]

However, I think it's a fallacy to say it'd turn places into sink estates just because the majority of them claim HB. Claiming benefits doesn't suddenly make you some asbo in the making

Its not just antisocial behaviour that makes a sink estate. If you have all low earners or non earners in one estate, that is going to create a pocket of deprivation. With that traditionally, you get rises of depression, higher rates of crime, lower education levels etc. You could end up back in a situation we were in in the 60s/70s where council estates become no-go areas and dominated by crime and lack of funds. Right to buy, and long term residents, has meant a slow step away from these kinds of estates.

[LDNmummy]

I have been following this thread since late last night and it has been very interesting to see others opinions. I also think it is selfish of people to hold on to large family homes when they no longer need it, or to keep their social housing even when their income increases drastically.

What I would like to know is what the new reforms mean in terms of how the council will deal with new tenants once the two year period is up. Someone upthread mentioned that you are highly unlikely to be asked to leave if you have a dependant until that dependant is old enough to leave home. But after having done some research online, I can't find anything that suggests that or that people will be asked to move either. There is hardly any info out there on what this actually means, or I am just looking in the wrong place.

Can someone please let me know if they have any info, I don't think these reforms are the way to go, but I don't want to be misinformed either.

What would happen if you got a job earning more than 24k after a year of moving in for instance? Would they ask you to move out into the private sector? That seems very counterproductive to me.

[LDNmummy]

I think 2 years is too short a lease time BTW, a 5 year lease would be great IMO. It would not mean the sense of insicurity that a 2 year lease would bring, but would not be forever and would encourage people to feel comfortable but to still prepare themselves for a more independent lifestyle IYSWIM. I just don't think two years is long enough for the majority to sort out their financial and personal situations. You would probably only just feel settled into your accomodation after two years.

[lesley33]

HA will be able to charge up to 80% of market rent to raise money for new developments. But they still won't be able to charge the market rent. This doesn't mean though that rents are being subsidised everywhere, as market rents are at a level to make a profit. HA don't need to make a profit.

[Lunabelly]

And surely very few people will suddenly find themselves able to afford private housing. I know we won't be able to. I keep trying to explain to mother that 12 years ago, a house would have cost us x3 our annual income. NOW it would cost x8.
She simply cannot see that wages have not increased in line with housing costs and that if it was that fecking easy to buy we would have done.

Private housing needs to be properly regulated and rents controlled. This would ease up waiting lists. I've always said that if I ever won the lottery, I would build decent, safe, sensibly priced homes for hardworking families who've been priced out of security.
Because a home is much more than just a roof over your head.

TBH, from what I've seen round here, most benefits dependent families don't need social housing, because their rent and CTax is paid.

If we were shooed out after 2 or even 5 years, I don't think I could survive.

[Lunabelly]

And also, wtf would be the point of increasing HA rents. The whole bloody point of social housing is that it is affordable and secure.

[Tortington]

was stuck on the word tenant and should have used th all encompassing resident - which of course would include leaseholders - better yet - i shall call them customers - customers are involved with HA's structure and services provided to them as they are not for profit organisations for the most part

[Lunabelly]

And at risk of Three Post Mentyness...

These reforms just seem to be, once again, the rich and powerful penalising the poor. If they TRULY cared about waiting lists and the impact of poor housing on people, then they could build more social housing (they could fund it by chucking less missiles at poor people in the M.E.), and properly control the private sector.

Oh, and not let Tarquin and his mates at Overpriced Homes LTD drive up the market even further.

[Tortington]

in theory, when the two years - or whatever term the social landlord agrees as this might be higher - when in good time before the end of the fixed tenacy, the social landlord will visit the resident and discuss whether the tenancy should be extended or whether other housing options are availalbe to them.

[Serenitysutton]

LDN- as yet there is no practical guidence as to how these reforms will be implemented- typical tories.

Labour had a BRILLIANT group of social housing policies, making it particularly advantageous to build and develope. they weren't perfect, and there were ways to manipulate them, but that geos for anything.

[Latootle]

as far as I can see not many of them put much care into them anyway. Otherwise we wouldn't have these dreadful 'sink estates' with gangs etc. Or houses with fridges and washing machines rusting outside. I knew someone years ago now but he had a five bedroomed house then when his daughter got pregnant on purpose I was gleefully told she was given a 3 bed flat. Surely the correct thing would have been to stay in the family home it had enough spare rooms to create a flat itself. Bring on the reforms where needed say I.

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

and

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

Loving your use of 'them'. Says it all really.

[usualsuspect]

Latootle

fuck off

[thefirstMrsDeVere]

What usual said.

With fucking knobs on.

[smokinaces]

we managed to get to 240 posts before an illeducated twattish comment then?

Believe me, I live on one of the worst estates in my area. I work in the other one. I've yet to see a rusting washine machine. Or burnt out car.