to think if you earn over £60,000 and still rent your council home

[RedHelenB]

that in fact it is a lot better than if you had bought it cut price? At least it will go back into the general housing stock when you no longer need it.

Yep. Those hens teeth should be for people who need it not the people who want it.

The problem with caps is they always have effects on people who do not deserve the treatment as the bedroom tax as proved. Will the cap be all earners in the household including adult children unable to afford to leave while increasing the family over £60,000, will they include families who have had their accommodation adapted for disability reasons. Will the caps be staggered to reflect the rental/ property prices for the area? I grew up in council housing and tbh the area benefited a mix of people and a mix of influences.

but people who want council houses dont get it either it is all hypothetical would i hell rent privately it is a nightmare for some people,

But if council houses had high turn arounds there wouldn't have to be the fight for them.

People in private rented accommodation don't always take care of the landlords house.

What is wrong with people aspiring to move out of a council house into their own homes to let more worthwhile n in need family have a start in life, like they have had.
Yes the single mum got a degree now, but what about the single mum or families in b&bs who are stuck in limbo and can't improve their situation at present until they have a house.

Jelly in my area there are no income checks when apply to rent a council house ( although they ate all housing association) I agree with this like someone said council houses were intended for everyone. They are not just for people who are less well off.

I grew up in council housing I live in an area where people paid rent and went to work living in a council house was normal for most ,

(BTW, in case we get the usual "Woe is me I'm a BTL landlord and I barely make any profit" on this thread, can I point out that in that case, the bank is the actual owner making the bulk of the profit, and you're the middleman raking off your percentage. It still means rent is set to cover profit.)

Mrsjay, I'm referring to the people you just described who get a council house and then earn 60k. At that point they don't need the low rent as much as a low income family, they just want the house they have. If life situations have improved, the low rent should be given to a family who need a low rent.

Your spot on, 180k wouldn't buy a flat around here, it's better for the family, more stable for the kids than renting privately.
The council are also receiving an income too, Like you say it keeps it in the stock for later.

Agreed buffy

so they have just to be the bigger person give up their tenancy and move or the council should make them move out which is it ? my parents pay rent should they give up their house for somebody in greater need,

If people want to . prod a stick then why is it never at those elderly under occupiers? That's where most if the housing stock is tied up.

My sil is in a 3 bed house in Hackney. She lives alone and sleeps in the living room. Morally she should move out if we're on about morals.. but in reality she doesn't have to and has no intention of doing so.

But always the whip comes down on those who work and care for their homes because it's noooot fffaaaaaaiiirrrr 'stamps foot' on those who are forced to pay private rent and can't stand those they deem better off than them... when in reality it's private rents that are more of an issue.

"Council rents are not subsidised. They are lined with the cost of maintaining the houses.. They are not for profit which is what a lot of private landlords like to make."

What is wrong with making profit? The alternative is communism. I feel it would be perfectly fair for council to charge well off tenants more to subsidise those who really need cheap rent.

"Our council rents go up 6% every April to keep in line with increases to maintaining the houses. What people seen to fail to see is that this is fair.. its private rents that aren't fair."

I have just raised the rent of our tenant. She has not had a rent increase for 3 years and we have raised it by 5%. The market forces in our area would not allow me to get away with raising the rent by 6% every year.

Private landlords charge the highest amount that they can get away with. Its called market forces and this is the basis of a capitalist economy. Many landlords have to pay a mortgage as well as maintaince of their property. Often buy to let is a long term investment rather than an immediate income.

Typically council rents are about half of what the private sector charges. Why should someone pay below market rates for rent when they are earning 60K?

Private landlords are only allowed to put up the rent once a year. Even then they have to reasonable. A private tenant can go to the Residental Property Tribunal Service if their landlord is unreasonable.

www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/residential-property

Prehaps there needs to be more information on private tenant rights.

Imo a lot of these posts are well I'm alright Jack.

I've got my council house so I don't need to worry about the real world of private renting. Or think of the needs of other families, as why would I want to suffer.

Yes in a Lovely ideal world we could all have a council house if we needed one at one point. So there isn't one for everyone n nor is there likely to be ever be. So council houses should be based on need and need only.

really tired I agree with you private renters do need to know their rights instead of being in the dark and scared they are going to be evicted because they cant afford the rent, I do know people who are living like this atm because the landlord has put the rent up ,

As I said on another thread, if you automatically lose your council home when you start to earn 60k, where on earth is the incentive to earn 60k? You will see an awful lot of higher-earning households earnings start to stall at around 58k if this is brought in. Net result? It won't change anything (apart from further demonising people in council housing). Especially in areas of acute housing need like the south-east.

I think there needs to be a new policy where social housing rent goes like this:

Renter A has 3 children in a four bedroom house and pays £500 a month for the house. This is lower than market value however, it only costs the council £500 a year in maintenance meaning there is 11 x £500 = £5500 a year that the council is getting extra to the cost.

For the first ten years (or whatever, this could be adjusted) of the property, that money goes to the council to fund the cost of the house. BUT for every year onwards, that extra money has to be put aside into a ringfenced pot and used to build new houses of all types, from 1 bed flats to 4/5/6 bed houses.

That way, when Renter A's children leave home, there are smaller houses available for Renter A to move into, but there are also enough extra houses available for new tenants that Renter A doesn't have to move if they'd rather pay the spare room subsidy.

Why not expect those in council housing to pay market rents if their income is that high? The extra rent could fund refurbishments or new builds for those in need.

And of course, you can bet your boots the wealthy pensioners who earn 60k per year will be exempt from this...

does anybody on this thread actually know anybody who is in a council house and earning 60k?

Most new built social housing is mortgages the same as private lets! Any profit IS ring fenced by housing associations but they have to make sensible decisions about when to invest that in more new builds. As I said above they are run as businesses - just not ones which line private pockets.

As for the statement it's either capitalism or communism, how utterly ridiculous, perhaps the pp might like to read up on social enterprise. There is nothing wrong with making profit - when that goes to line a small percentage of the countries pockets Nd not to general good problems start to occur.

I'm not talking about small landlords renting out grannies old house or their old flat btw.

If you want evidence of how a fairer society benefits all who live in it and not just those at the bottom of the pile there's a good book called the spirit level which makes it easy to understand.

"As I said on another thread, if you automatically lose your council home when you start to earn 60k, where on earth is the incentive to earn 60k? You will see an awful lot of higher-earning households earnings start to stall at around 58k if this is brought in. Net result? It won't change anything (apart from further demonising people in council housing). Especially in areas of acute housing need like the south-east."

I seriously doult that there are many 58K households in council property. Frankly I am more concerned about 20K households in private rental accomodiation.

I don't want anyone being forced to lose their home. People make friends in a particular area and get attached to their homes. However I object to wealthy people getting subsidised housing when people with half their income struggle in private rented accomodiation or have to pay a high mortgage.

I would favour council accomodiation being charged at market rate then someone being given housing benefit IF they need the help.

To those saying at 60k you should be renting privately, what you might actually be saying (esp around London) is:

Well done on earning a decent salary. To reward you for this we will:

• Take away your secure tenancy
• Force you to travel further than your neighbours who may or may not be working
• Force you out of your community where you may have lived for years
• Potentially force you into lower quality / smaller accommodation that is less suitable for your needs

In other areas where private rents & house prices aren't so inflated this is probably less of an issue, but I would be surprised if most of the high earners in council houses weren't in the south east and weren't high earners when they got their tenancy.

Actually no mrs jay because its allocated on. Needs basis - even if you were entitled to one if your need is that great you would be able to buy a decent place round here on that and very few people would wait in unsuitable housing.

It's an ideological thing and as I said above will be lowered and lowered now people think it's a great idea in principle.

Council houses ARE NOT SUBSIDISED.

I can't do doilys today..'hides thread'