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?

M1LLY ...heres one for you

usualsuspect... I thought you were serious! Amazing what timewasting websites are available online!

milly Your comments that imply that council tenants are lazy freeloaders are downright offensive. Many people in social housing are hardworking people who don't earn enough to buy or rent privately. People such careworkers, binmen, cleaners etc who are valuble much needed members of society. These people deserve decent homes.

Why do wealthy and middle class people think they are the only ones who work hard FGS.

I take personal exception to anyone implying that those in social housing are freeloaders. Yes of course some of them are - but most of them are just hard working people who cant afford to buy or rent privately. Not everyone has the opportunity for one reason or another to have wellpaid jobs. My parents had council accomodation - My dad worked all his life, was never out of work - he worked his bloody arse off on the railway, working nights, every night for 40 years. He never claimed a penny in benefit and paid his taxes and the rent he paid would have bought his house ten times over. I just cannot abide people with that sort of attitude, "im alright jack" Life is what you make it, but there is an element of life being laid out for you too. Mother, dont forget nurses, teachers etc who cant afford to get on the housing ladder.

My dad worked all the hours god sent to support his family, he didnt work any less hard than someone working in the city for a six figure salary, in fact, i would go as far to say that he worked a bloody sight harder!!

Yawn! Who are all these liars who purport to work with 'poor' people of whom they have nothing but contempt? The chaff's really coming out here lately.

What passiveaggressive said.

Christ i would love to know where all the jobs are. There are millions seeking work. I dont meen high paid jobs. Theres no bar work in my area, most of them are closed and 2 have been bulldozed. There are no shops only shutters along most of our main street. No one can afford the rents. The only shops that now exsist are takeaways who mainly employ friends and family. There are no 16hr jobs as the employers have realised that only single mothers will probably want them to be able to get of income support and claim WTC. It took my youngest brother 8 months to find a job after leaving school. My mams a home help for the council and they are taking redundancy. My dads a manager for the NHS who are making people redundant.

My MIL is a council housing officer and she said you would not believe how many people are homeless as they cant find accomodation. Most landlords are unwilling to rent to people on HB with no bond and a month up front.

Some people cant afford a massive deposit. My other brother is trying to buy a house and needs £12,000 for a £120,000 house. He is a diesel machanic and on a good wage but its took him 2 years to save up £7000 after paying for his car to get him to work.

mothersnacker Thank you -totally agree.

a sliding scale based on salary is preferable
and means those who can, pay more
tenure should be bases on you being good tenant and sliding scale of payment

Blimey M1lly, are you a paid up member of the Tory Party then? FYI the Big Society was about getting people to volunteer to help make the country a better place, but unfortunately council cuts mean that many voluntary schemes are being closed because of a lack of funding, so we are losing our youth clubs, Surestart schemes, homeless charities and clubs for vulnerable people. There is a hopeless job situation out there, young people cannot afford to go to Uni and cannot get jobs without experience. Many grants enabling young people to train and gain experience have been axed, the grant that helped single mums with childcare costs whilst they went to college have also been axed. There is a feeling of despair in this country.

As Barack Obama said, the cuts are too savage in a country that is already on its knees. And yet the banks get away with tax havens, big bonuses, stealth charges and heavy handedness over mortgage arrears. Now they face having to pay back millions for mis-selling mortgage protection that was not needed, we'll see more stealth charges being added.

Yes Brown and Blair failed to curtail the banks behaviour, but the banks practically own the Tory Party so the neediest in society, the disabled, the vulnerable, children, the sick etc all have to pay the price whilst the middle classes moan about the price of organic veg going up.

There are plenty of measures the government could take to ease the housing crisis, such as forcing the banks we now own to accept lower deposits and to make it easier for first time buyers to get mortgages; to introduce a sliding scale for council house tenants based on their income; to give local councils the power to take over disused buildings and reclaim brown land for building on - but no action will be taken and the housing crisis will continue.

I judge a policital party by their actions and so far Clegg and Cameron are failing to impress.

YANBU I agree with you that social housing should be on a needs must basis and people on 100k do fit into this category. That said Crow is a buffoon like all the rest of the union barons who wish to impose their far left agenda on the rest of us.

I think if you have been in the house since you earnt a great deal less, and you have a long history there then maybe it is a bit unreasonable to be automatically expected to move. However, you should definitely be asked to pay rent in line with similar private sector houses in the area. That way it will concentrate your mind on whether you really want that council property as your home or whether you are just being a bit opportunistic and parasitic. I see no reason why you should have your rent subsidised by the tax payer when there are far lower paid key workers who cannot afford rent/mortgages.

To interpret my views as a suggestion that Council/Social Housing Tenants are ?freeloaders? is your error. I agree with the need for Social Housing however it should be made available on a fair basis, for those households on low incomes i.e. under £100k (Bob Crowe is on £146k pa that?s approx £6.5k per month) with a regional variation going down to say £50k pa. Decent Homes should be provided in both the Social and Private Rented Sector as well.

I also feel that ?spare rooms? are a luxury this country cannot afford (along with the £12bn Foreign Aid Budget but lets stay focused on the issue at hand). I am very aware of the families who are living in temporary accommodation (provided by the local authorities), private accommodation they can ill afford (because the stock isn?t there for them to access in the social sector) and of those who have none (either homeless or living with extended families), these households desperately need a home where they can settle down, get their kids to school and get on.

If the government were to force the banks to take lower deposits for first time buyers the banks would have to ensure that they do not place the business before the abilities to pay ? one of the reasons for the property crash in the first place. So, with safeguards in place this would be a good option. A sliding scale of rents would in my view be unlikely to work in law; maybe there is another tool that could be developed to facilitate this. Local Authorities have powers to make compulsory purchase orders; they don?t because they don?t have the funds (unless of course you look at their reserves). It is the Housing Associations that pull down the grant from Central Government to build housing with support from the Local Authority so as you can see this is not quite the simple fix we would like it to be.

The Housing Crisis has been an ongoing issue for so many years and new innovative thinking is needed to resolve it. Making Social Housing a continuously needs led provision is not a bad idea and may be a good start to get families into housing that they can afford rather than that which they can not. So get the households out that have incomes of over £100k support them into the Private Sector innovate with mortgage lenders maybe these would be a good bet for the 100% mortgage having a good rent record for one or two years, and move people out of accommodation that is too big for their needs again with support and incentives. These measure would help so many low income families who need more affordable housing. This would be spending to save ? not just money but lives.

Its incrediably unfair on those with a genuine need who really could do with a home.

I am shocked the council doesnt check peoples income on a regular basis?

I agree, the current system is systemically unfair and has been for far too long.

The council and housing providers do not check household income as there is no requirement for them to do so (as far as I know) Some are on the waiting list for accommodation for upto and exceeding 10 years, some place themselves on the list asap and build their points over years. In 10 years a lot can happen, people can develop if they're lucky careers which pay well - in which case a large number undoubtedly secure their own accommodation, whilst others can find themselves struggling financially have growing families or a desire to have a family and are stuck without accommodation to meet their needs.

The only time income is checked as far as I?m aware is when benefits are applied for i.e. Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit I only mention these as they are directly linked to accommodation. If they where to bring in these checks they would need to be linked in some way to the Tax System as Housing Officers have quite literally thousands of houses to manage in their patches or the onus could be placed on the tenants to submit their P60?s annually to the Housing Officer who checks the household income doesn?t exceed the level set. A couple of years giving the tenants time to save whilst above the income threshold before moving on to either Private Rent, Private Ownership or Share Ownership with the Social Housing Provider.

What shocked me was that people could inherit council houses from their relatives. What do you think about this? I'm really worried about my son (trainee teacher) and his pt, living in London, expecting a child. This is when you have to think that council houses should not be for life. Many are blocked by older people who do not need the same accommodation that they did when bringing up their children. We can help them with money - a lot - but still not enough to buy a small flat in London. Is there any point in their applying for council housing?

This is just one example of why the current system in intrinically unfair and needs to change. Another post mentioned previously was the his'n'hers walk in wardrobes aka the spare rooms! Change will take time I hope that not longer than the life of this Government it is fundamentally unfair to allow another generation to suffer. If we don't tackle this now what will there be for our children?

Perhaps we could force home owners who are under-occupying to sell, thus bringing more family sized homes onto the market and bringing down their price. And second homeowners, too.

That'd go down well, eh?

No?

Oh alright then.

The difference is with private homes is it really is that persons home as they have paid for from their own money. You cannot force people to sell a private asset.

However something needs to happen to bring house prices down they are out of control.

We live in a democracy with a Welfare State that has its flaws.

When I last looked I didn't think we lived in a Communist Society.

Pehaps we should look sensibly at the issue of Social Housing, The Welfare State and the many other social issues and work out how to make it work better.

council housing rents should be on a sliding scale according to household income - this, however, would be difficult to continually assess, without access to independent income information & i do believe there should be a cut off point for income and social housing - but this would need to be different according to region.
i do not think that a council house should be for life but for a circumstance and that there should be a system for moving people in to and out of size appropriate housing
most people that i know in their privately rented or owned accomodation downsize when their children leave home, or when their circumstances change so why not for social housing

I agree they shouldn't necessarily be there for life, they should be there for people who really need them and don't have other options.

I think tenants should be means tested regularly, as well as reviewed to see how many people are living in the house.

Stable housing, a home for life, is actually good for society, regardless of your income.

Council housing used to be a real option for most people. Good hardworking people, who cared about their homes, their communities, their neighbours. There was certainly no shame in living in council houses.

That all changed when Maggie sold of these properties at a fraction of their worth and refused to allow the funds raised to build more social housing. This caused a huge shortage in affordable, decent housing. Leading to the massive boom in buy to let and stupid house prices. Resulting in the state paying massive housing benefit claims to fund the pensions of the BTL landlords. Oh yes, we've come a long way. Progress eh

I actually think providing decent and affordable housing is one of the more important jobs of Government.

Turning decent estates into places where only the most vulnerable of our society are allowed to access, on a short term basis, will do absolutely bugger all to improve social inclusion. If anyone cares about such things of course.

Great post, wubbly

Couldn't agree more.

Foolish. Its not allowed with my council but some do it. There was a thread about it last week.

I think its totally unfair and enables underoccupancy leaving families living in flats or homeless

Just watched "Poor Kids" and shame on anyone earning over £30k taking decent council houses away from those in dire poverty.