In thinking if you earn over £100,000 a year, you should not be allowed to stay in council house accomodation?

[Hammy02]

RMT union boss Bob Crow earns this and yet still lives in a council house. Surely he is using a property that should be housing someone that actually cannot afford to privately rent and needs subsidised property?

I think there needs to be a massive change to housing in this country but not as simple as what you are proposing. My suggestions -

Private rental to be rent controlled. Profits can be made but rents cannot go over a % of average salary for that area. Long tenancy agreements to be encouraged - with tax breaks for LLs if necessary. Letting agents to be heavily regulated and fees limited.

Social housing tenancies to be for life BUT not necessarily in the same property. A clause about reviewing the tenancy each ten years and tenants to be provided with alternative accommodation if they are under or overoccupied.

Social housing rents to be flexible according to income. To be kept below market rates but to allow for profit to be made. The bonus of social housing IMO is the home for life, subsidised rent for those on good salaries is not equitable. People on low incomes would still pay low rents, but those who earn more pay more.

Proper bonuses to be paid for people leaving social housing to private rental or homeowning.

Funds raised by profit to be invested in building new stock and improving current stock and areas.

Good, huh?

Ok knitted breast - I guess you are referring to people like me? Where do you suggest me, DH and my 3 settled children actually go then?

yes forcibly kicked out, council housing should be there for those that cant afford a mortgage or too rent privately, someone on 100k dousnt really fit the bill.

private letting wont be reformed cos itl piss off all the rich landlords and having a tory gov they arent exactly in the poors corner are they.

i also agree that rents should be reviewed regularly, and retrospective whatever should be introduced to move on those who children have grown up but are working on good saleries, the elderly in large houses to be moved into smaller flats and those who have now become wealthy who dont need this support. ch should not be for life, obviously those who are disabled, ill or have mental health probs should be protected

maybe

but.....its still rented accomadation isnt it? if he goes into private rented,its still taking a tenency some other family could take...and on it goes

just wondered where he's expected to go to?

I don't understand the right for life at all. People with mortgages and private rent don't have this so why should a council tenant?

hammy - I am standing on my own 2 feet, I work full time and pay full rent. I see so much jealousy in threads like this - do you honestly think if I could afford to buy somewhere I wouldnt? And what is there to be jealous about at the end of the day - your house is your home but never your own and you cant choose what area to live in.

no duckdodgers, those on low incomes should be allowed to stay in their homes with thier children until they start to earn higher saleries or their children grow up and move out. then they should move on to a smaller property or rent privatley or buy. so that another family can enjoy settled family life for a while

There's jealousy and bitterness, duck, because private letting is such an unregulated, insecure, disgusting rip-off in this country.

People with mortgages have a home for life as long as they can pay the mortgage for! Homes for life are a good thing and just because it's shit for those of us in private rental doesn't mean we should aspire to it being shit for everyone.

People with mortgages are also paying into their equity fund, not paying someone else's equity fund. Much better off in the long run.

He can go wherever he wants. Just not somewhere that is subsidised by the taxpayer. People are having to move house all the time due to redundancies and a million other reasons. Why should he be exempt?

"Private rental to be rent controlled. Profits can be made but rents cannot go over a % of average salary for that area. "

I'm not sure how that would work? Rents around here are very high, and so are property prices. If rents were less then landlords wouldn't be able to pay the mortgages, so they would be forced out of the market. People insist that getting rid of BTL landlords would bring down property prices but in areas like this I don't think that's true. So you'd have one round of property being sold off cheap to get the BTL lot out of a fix, and then it would all move into the private market, and prices would stabilise where they were in the first place. So you'd just lose all the rental property to privately owned housing.

I think so anyway, it's not something I've thought about before!

I'm not super-au fait with council housing etc., and how it works, but my understanding is that it should be available for those who are in need; it's supposed to be a safety net. the fact that if that useless git Bob Crow would take rented accomodation that someone else could have is neither here nor there; the issue is that he is using a limited resource (council housing) that is supposed to be reserved for the vulnerable/people on lower incomes, who can't afford private rental/buying. He clearly can.

Jealousy? I don't think so. Just seems a huge injustice to the families stuck in B&B's or having to live 4 to a room in a family/friend's house while the likes of Bob takes up a council house.

Where do I want bob crow to go?

A small uninhabited island somewhere would suit me

yep of course its just a plan by the government to end tenancies for life, do they think we are stupid? well suppose some people are because they fall for it! getting everyone worked up about someone earning over hundred grand then slowly move the goalposts and then bring it down until it is something like the child benefit threshold I would imagine.

its not jealousy its fairness. my dp works full time and we pay full rent but privatly, if you are working full time you can probebly afford to rent privatly too. so a family that isnt fortunate enough to be working or is on incredibally low wages should be offered support through c housing.

private rental is not the same as social housing though, its social because its meant to support those in need. thats not the job of private landlords. there is a ten year c housing wait where i live, you dont see that in the private rental market becuase the two are not providing housing for the same reasons

ILove - he could just rent privately, or buy. Those two options are not available to other people. They are open to him.

private rent is available,most councils operate a rent assistant scheme.....families in b abd b's could opt for this

Social housing isn't actually supposed to be a safety net at all. It has become a bit stigmatised which is not fair. Social housing used to be completely normal for young couples to move to when they got married, probably more working class then middle but then the MCs would have bought a house at an affordable price. As house prices have moved out of most peoples' reach and private letting has become the norm (with inflated rents, 6 month tenancies and high rates of homelessness) social housing has become something seen as mopping up homeless people. It shouldn't be like that.

Frankly, I'd love a council house. I'm a working MC professional and we have a low-mid family income. We rent privately and aren';t going to be in a position to buy ever soon. I think we should be entitled (though we aren't)

Council housing is not subsidised exactly, just they do not make profit.

I think its a joke. In my area they are trying to pass a scheme where a pensioner or a single pensioner in a 3 bed house have to give it up for a family and move into smaller council accomodation. This is to try and free up houses as there are so many young kids in homeless accommodation etc

But I guess its what you define a "low income" though doesnt it? I earn approx £31,000, not a fortune but a decent income, DH watches the boys through the week to save on childcare so hes a SAHD. I cant afford a mortgage where I stay and as I said private rents are zero. If the government decided to kick us out I have no idea where I would go. It would probably be another town from the town Ive lived in for 40 years plus maybe giving up my job. Its just not as simple as saying "kick" people out of their homes if the Government in their wisdom say for talkings sake set the limit at £30,000. My salary is as high is its going to go, including no pay increase for the next 2 years.

I agree with you expat about the private rental market to - yes its a rip off - but I dont think increasing council rents to make them the same as these rip offs rents is the answer either.

hammy - of course people with mortgages have a home for life - they own it as long as they keep paying the mortgage!!!

I pay full rent - if I stopped paying this tomorrow the council would eventually start eviction proceedings.

so you live in an area with no private rentals? well you are a minority there.

31k is more than our family income and i live in one of the most expensive areas in the se. on 31k you can afford to rent privatly and so should do so in my opinion

duckdodgers, if someone loses their job and can no longer pay their mortgage, they lose their house. They don't have that house for life.

Knittedbreast you sound very bitter.

Duck I don't begrudge you your home at all!