to ask how we can sort out housing?

[Hullygully]

So. First time buyers largely priced out. Rents going up. No new building. HB cap. Little security of tenure for private renters. Landlords being stuffed.

When Right-to-Buy was introduced, both as cynical gerrymandering and vote gathering, and because the govt wanted rid of the responsibility for social housing, there was an encouraged explosion in Buy-to-Let to take up the slack.

Now we have a large number of landlords with a few properties operating on narrow margins who have little protection against rogue tenants (particularly those on HB who are told by their councils to wait it out until eviction) and who are able to pocket the first 8 weeks of rent before any action can be taken, and who are therefore understandably reluctant to take on HB tenants, plus, with the introduction of the Cap, HB tenants will be able to pay less than the market rent in large areas of the country.

Then renters have little security, they can be given two months' notice after six months, a nightmare particularly for families settled at schools etc. And of course there are some nightmare landlords around who don't carry out repairs etc.

Suggestions?
Solutions?

The irony is that a lot of highly paid jobs could be done from home most of the time quite effectively. The people who need to live near their work are those doing more poorly paid, but essential, jobs (street cleaners, nurses, teachers etc). Actually its the highly paid people who manage to live in eg zones 1 and 2 in London.

I used to work in the City as a lawyer. I could have gone into the City twice a week from Cumbria where I now live (2.5 hours on the fast train), scheduling all essential client face to face meetings on those two days. Then the rest of the time I could have worked at home, using Skype/Webex for face to face conference calls with colleagues and clients.

I do work for myself from wherever I am. It's a good way to be.

So those moaning about house prices can buy the house my grandmother moved to in 1938. They sell at £50,000 a time at the moment in NE - £50k gets you a 3 bed terraced house.

Build more homes in places where there are jobs.

Simple.

More housing stock=reduction in property values=cheaper mortgages=cheaper rents=reduced cost of living

The only people who don't want this are those who own their own properties who don't want their highly inflated properties to lose value. Unfortunately they are still the majority in this country, so there won't be any change.

missy - for us its not about losing value - we don't ever intend to move so this is meaningless. we moved to this area because it was a large village surrounded by beautiful countryside. 500+ homes have since been built and made it into a small town. There are now proposals for a further 400 which current residents are against. it will mean that swathes of green fields are built on and we don't believe that would stop any further demand...it would just continue to happen. Not to mention the pressure on the roads and other facilities which haven't kept up with the previous building.

here's one for you, missymarmite

What's the diference between a developer and a conservationist?

A developer is somebody who wants a house in the country.

A conservationist is somebody who's already got one.

Nice one piglet...reminds me of the adage that "there is nothig so conservative as an old radical" :)

I am extremely keen for house prices to fall, it might cause dh and i to lose a few quid in unrealised assets now but i hope that my children will be able to afford to buy. Even if house price don't fall i will make certain that we help them with a deposit so it will cost us either way.

Even if house price don't fall i will make certain that we help them with a deposit so it will cost us either way

Well, it looks like the Gvnmnt wants to force taxpayers to do that now. Worked in the USA in 2008 - not.

Can't read whole thread but a few thoughts:

We need protection for renters,in terms of stability and security and a massive crackdown/regulation on estate agents to prevent them being able to jack up rental prices and charge ridiculous "admin"fees.

We need more social housing.There are streets and streets worth of empty flats and houses that could be utilised, it doesnt have to be new building. God knows builders need the work!

It used to be that anyone could get a council house. Now it's a race to the bottom-you have to prove just how mad/drug addicted/homeless/abused you are to get housed. What happens is that where estates used to be a good mix of working people, now they are sinks of social problems and despair.

I get a bit miffed by people saying that council housing shouldn't be inherited, and should be means tested. I think often these people live in London, when, yes, if you have a council place in a good area it is a bit like winning the lottery. However, in most places council houses are just cheap housing that you live in if you need it. If there were more of it then it wouldn't be like golddust.

The reason it is fair for kids from council homes to stay in these homes, is that they are just that: homes.
A friend of mine still lives in a flat she grew up in, which her nanna got in the Fifties.
She shares it with a friend. The council is trying to evict her so they can sell the flat to developers, as the area has come up massively and now everyone on my friends square are millionaires. But that is her neighborhood, where she knows lots of people and where she belongs, so why should she have to move somewhere on the outskirts of London because some people think her flat is worth half a million quid?

Things are really bad at the moment. My council has REDUCED the LHA by £60 per month, and it is now only possible for a single parent to get enough to pay for a one bed flat with the LHA.
The motives behind this have a lot less to do with saving money than they have to do with the governments attempts at "social cleansing".
Why should unsightly poor people be allowed to live in an area where the houses are now expensive and the corner shop has become a deli??

I hate the greed and grasping immorality surrounding housing in this country. We need to forget about "property" and start thinking about "homes" instead imo.

Oh, also, as some have said on here-HB should absolutely NOT be paid direct to landlords!!
It's bad enough that if HB is delayed for any reason, and the amount deemed too large (presumably the tenant may be tempted to spend it on drugs?) they try and pay it to the landlord.
I have NEVER had a landlord who knew I got any HB. In fact when you look for a rented house, most ads say " NO DSS", but what they mean is "no housing benefit" as, like many people, they are under the impression that housing benefit is paid to unemployed people only.
Housing benefit is paid MAINLY to working families. If wages were high enough to cover rents, then obviously this would not be the case, but as it stands many working types (me) need to get some HB.

Oh, also-the estate we used to live on was basically made up of the kind of people who would have lived on a council estate in the past, but now were renting their ex-council homes from private landlords, who had bought them in the free for all that was Right To Buy, and were now renting them out at twice the rent, with no security whatsoever. So thats a win-win then...Oh, no, wait...!?

northernwreck Fri 18-Nov-11 12:25:51
"Oh, also, as some have said on here-HB should absolutely NOT be paid direct to landlords!!
It's bad enough that if HB is delayed for any reason, and the amount deemed too large (presumably the tenant may be tempted to spend it on drugs?) they try and pay it to the landlord."

what, not ever? not sure about that

what if they do? Then the taxpayer has shelled out lots of money, the landlord is broke, the friendly local dealer has bought a new merc, the tenant is dead or evicted. Hardly a win-win, is it?

It shouldn't be paid direct to the landlord as a matter of course, no.
Yes, probably landlords do get burned occasionally, but they have a lot of tax breaks and insurance. Tenants simply have no control over their living situation because all regulation protecting us have been hacked away at over the last twenty odd years.

Higher council tax for people who under occupy houses.

2 people in a 4 bedroom house should pay more council tax than 4 people in a 4 bedroom house.

MillyR That was the theory behind the poll-tax!

Community Charge ..... Maggie Maggie Maggie ......

Was it Andrewofgg?
I thought the Poll tax was a tax on people as opposed to property e.g four adults in a house would pay four lots of poll tax, two adults would pay two lots.

northernwreck How would direct payment to landlord hurt a tenant, please?

Sorry northernwreck you are right and I was wrong. Wake up, Andrew and concentrate.

But I still don't see why two should pay more than four. I certainly think that social housing should be allocated by need, and yes, that may involve moving people. But not through the tax system.

And of course private owners and private non-HB tenants are just that - private - and it's up to them whether they downsize.

Thanks Andrew!It's nice when a bloke admits to being wrong! (if you are a bloke)

As far as HB goes-if the rule was for the HB to go directly to the landlord, most tenants would be even more restricted as to where they can live, because most landlords stipulate "no dss" (meaning no benefits).

I currently live in a "nice " area, because it's near friends and family, near lots of good schools (and although I am not wealthy I do still care about that) and I can live here because my landlord has no idea I get some HB. If he knew, I never would have been allowed to sign the tenancy.

Oh, and I agree council housing should be allocated in terms of need. And everybody NEEDS housing, so it should be available to anyone that wants it. Kind of like it was when my GP's got their council house.
You could buy your own house, or you could live in a council house. There were upsides and downsides to both, but on the whole not this massive social divide between buyer, renters, and council tenants.

It all comes down to how socialist and interventionist you want to be. I would argue people should be free to keep the fruits of their labours or inheritance,. Others would say nationlise all property and the state gives tenancies to people based on need.

The Government is working to ensure those on £100k (not very many) who have social housing don't and to ensure those who have a bigger council home than they need free it up for growing families.

What proportion in the UK are in social housing and how many are in receipt of housing benefit and what % get neither?

Er...I would say it doesn't have to be either or Xenia!
I dont believe in nationalising all housing, just restoring the numbers of social housing to what they were before the great sell-off.

northernwreck Last time I looked I was a bloke and as I am working (or rather having a coffee) in an open-plan office I had better not check right now!

northernwreck...please can you tell me about these tax breaks and the insurance as I'm obviously losing out on something as I've never heard of either (except the very expensive insurance that would cover bad tenants which I can't afford)

I think the tax breaks probably means tax relief on interest.

in all business you are only taxed on your profit. It is perfectly proper that that is so. If I buy tables and sell them then I am taxed on the difference between my buying and selling price. if I let out a flat and I have expenses they are set against the income to work out my true and real profit and I am taxed on that. It is perfectly appropriate that interest on a loan is set against those profits before people are taxed. It is no different from a corner shop paying interest on its bank loan to tide it over to buy stock. It is a business expense.

I think the less the state provides for citizens the better and that would include housing and the centralised state rarely does things well so I woudl not be in favour of more state provision of housing.