to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

[fideline]

....housing?

1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

The council in our area still own old housing stock. It was built over 50 years ago, the costs are covered, the rent they generate is profit.

Tell me again how they are now subsidised as I am feeling a bit thick this morning?

Granted that some will have rent paid by housing benefit but the houses have paid for themselves.

If people are arguing that the lack of market rent makes them subsidised then. ....quite honestly they have missed the point of social housing.

I have relatives who live in Europe and who rent privately. There is very little social housing in their country but private rents are subject to strict rent controls. Therefore houses are treated as "homes" and not as investment opportunities. What this means is that even the lowliest paid worker can generally afford/her his rent. Does that mean their rents are subsidised too? Am confused now .

I'm wondering that myself jake.

I want to see Dino do somemore frothing.. spitting at the mouth and stuff.. Most entertaining

I am certain my house was paid for within maybe 5 years og being built, certainly by the 1950s.

As I said upthread, I have lived here 12 years. The council do not spend money on repairs. On self indulgent, wanky, lengthy newsletters about how great they are? Yes. But I really think my rent more than covers the cost of the council's wank.

Upthread I mentioned the one time we had a kitchen refurb and new heating put in. The money, I said, was European. Want to knoww something really humiliating for the council? It was a grant to bring British poor people's housing up to a basic, European standard as the way we were expected to live was, by comparison to the rest of Europe, essentially slum dwellings. So after 6 years of living in a house with only one fire (the living room) I finally got central heating. After years of having a barely functioning kitchen, with no proper units, and everything in the most dangerous (illegal) position.... I got a fitted kitchen. A cheap shit one. But an actual kitchen. That cost my council.... nothing.

A few years back our council had been conned by some dodgy businessman and lost a massive wad of money. So they decided to sell off council housing to some dodgy made up HA. They wanted to sell my house, over my head, for £2000. Yet they won't sell it to me for that. If council tenants had money we could take them to court, and probably win the right to buy our houses for the same price they were offering it to the dodgy bastards for. They had to put it to the vote and tenants voted to stay with the council. They even at one point employed an employee to literally SOB on my doorstep saying she'd be unemployed if we didn't vote yes to sell our houses to the rackrenting landlords. I told her I'd rather she lost her job than I lost my home.

Now tell me again how I am being subsidised? Because the way see it, every home owner in my village is having their schools and street lights paid for by me, and the other council tenants who work. My rent is very close to 100% profit.

Dino hasn't been back then? What a shame.

The article Crohn linked is a puff for the Tory "pay to stay" policy and does talk about 'subsidising council tenants'. Almost can't blame people for believing it when the govt and their pet media get away with it, despite the facts.

Did you read the guardian article fideline? Completely at odds with the telegraph one

If you don't like the word "subsidy", forget it. The important point is that if the council rented the houses out at market rates they could bring in profit (or if you prefer more profit) which could then be used for worthwhile things like, you know, elderly people who can't look after themselves, disabled people who need support, and so on.
I have no problem whatever with the existence of council houses, but they should serve a reasonable social purpose, which is to enable the poorly off to afford decent housing. Not to enable those on good salaries to have lots more money in their pockets to spend on holidays or whatever than everyone around them who is on the same income. And do you really think that the well off who are in council houses (because they were young and poor 30 years ago) should be allowed to hog those houses, at very low rents, preventing the current poor from having somewhere to live? They should pay up or move out.

I am strongly against almost everything that this government is doing, but well off people paying very low rents in council housing are taking the mickey.
The cost of private housing and the lack of security for tenants is an issue I am quite happy to complain about / campaign about, whatever. Why not start a thread on that?

But that's not quite the reality is it?

HA/ Council rents, and the latter in particular, are often rented at a rate far far lower than market rents.

And yes, everyone can apply for social housing, but it is allocated on the basis of who is most in need/ are unable to secure their own housing within the normal market.

So it isn't really as simple as just saying it is not subsidise/ not a welfare benefit as these days it is allocated as if it were one.

Yes hopping and it seemed to be based on something other than a political press release

With respect, Dino I'm not going to read anything else you post. The way you think you can talk to people is horrendous.

You mean the allocation resembles mean-testing purple?

I haven't read all (which is a pet hate of mine but I just got riled) nursey Universal credit isn't changing that! I get housing benefit for my private rented bungalow and it gets paid direct to ME and I have to pay it to the landlord myself. It's been that way since I stated private renting in 2009 so not sure where you got it's paid direct to the landlord? Also both of my landlords had in their advert "no housing benefit" and I am living there. If you go out of your way to explain your situation, aka someone like me on low income and just need a top up then I've never found a problem really. I've been in the same property now for 3 years and my last for 2.

Also a council tenancy would be ideal for me as whatever field I work in (retail or care is where I have experience) i'll never afford my own home. I applied for a council house not long ago in my local council and was taken off as I had no housing need.

You do realise that people who have paid full and are still paying full social housing rents for 20,30 or 40 years have actually paid more £££'s than the would have done if they'd taken out a mortgage and purchased the same property in the first place - by my reckoning its those rent paying customers that are doing any subsidizing

Dinosaursareextinct The majority of social Housing is now owned by private organizations so I don't see how even charging so called "market value" rents it would enable more money to be generated to help the "more worthy" members of society.

Some people really aren't registering the fact that most Social housing is now provided by PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS which are self financing and NOT receiving one penny of public money (except in the case of HB claimants)So even if rents are (for arguments sake)being subsidized its the PRIVATE ORGANIZATION doing the subsidizing and not the public purse !!!!!!!!!

I thought MNetters were allegedly a more intelligent bread of poster .

I stand corrected !!!!!!!!

The rent the council generates from council housing is certainly not profit and never will be.

The council are obliged to maintain properties, pay for the costs of rent collection, housing allocation, and other support services for residents.

Rents from homes are put into the housing revenue account - which covers mainly the costs for maintaining properties. Anything left is then put towards funding for new homes (by either the council of the HA) - but as we know there are very few of these being built!

One of the largest central government funded projects in recent years has been the Decent Homes Programme. A separate funding arrangement put in place because the HRA didn't cover enough to keep ageing properties up to the required standards. As we all know the older properties get the more they cost to upkeep and modify.

With respect to housing associations - They use Government grant to build houses which is then paid back over time through rent and sales, with receipts thereafter being recycled into supporting new homes and service to residents.

Also - council and housing association tenants have a 'right to buy' which allows them to buy their property at 75% of the market value - a benefit which other tenants will never be able to enjoy. Which would represent a loss for the council if they were allowed to sell the property in the open market.

So really I don't think it's ignorance on just one side with respect to how people view social housing.

Council and social housing affords people the benefits of cheaper rents, not having the responsibility for maintenance and modification of a property and the option to purchase at a reduced price.

The reason the council is able to offer this is through Government money, which would be used elsewhere if this was not the case.

So it's not really as simple as benefit or not, subsidised or not.

It is receiving support from the council - and that support equates to a monetary benefit which not everyone can enjoy due to the allocation procedure.

Dino I'm confused - you think the cost of social housing is too low but that the cost of private renting is too high? So what exactly do you want, to increase social rent or decrease private? (Because the latter would cause a huge saving in housing benefit costs which would give more money for other services. Not to mention that people that pay their own private rent would have more disposable income to help boost the economy)

Floppy - who are these private organisations that don't receive a penny in Government money yet provide social housing?

I can absolutely see how one could describe RTB sales as subsidised home ownership Purple but that is a slightly separate issue. There are fewer and fewer tenants who have RTB or the means to take it up anyway.

Actually Dino as unpleasant as her posts became, is a good example of the people I meant in my OP, frothing and yelping 'scrounger'.

Would you not support an upgrading of tenancy rights in the private sector?

My mum has been paying rent on her council house since 1969.
No one is subsidising her, I assure you.
Her current rent is £400 pm for a very small 2.5 bed house which has had many botched (by the council) repairs over the years. She has just had notice her rent is going up from April by 5.78%. It goes up every year.
Prior to 2002 ish I didn't know of any private rental properties in our town.
With the boom in BTL and people wanting to make a quick $ now there are many, and very expensive...a small 3 bed would cost £650 pm, a large 4 bed would be £1k pm.
I think that what's skews people's view on social hosting tbh....the recent boom in BTL rental properties and inflated rental prices make it seem that Social housing is cheap.

Council houses are free?! I must be being conned then as my landlord ( the council) charge me £140 a week! Lol

You are the voice of reason Badvoc

Floppy - who are these private organisations that don't receive a penny in Government money yet provide social housing?

The majority of Social housing is now owned and run by private sector Housing Associations which are "not for profit" organizations and are nothing to do with the LA

:) I have my moments fideline
Mum and dad have really looked after their property over the years...my dad was born there! My grandmother moved in when it was built just after the war.
I get very tired when people start banging on about how undeserving and lucky council tenants are...some are. Just like some owner occupiers are!

You're being conned Cold. Stop paying!

Helpfully enough, Dino was explaining to us last night that the way council tenants go about 'scrounging' is by every single week asking to pay a too-low rent. Asking. Every week. So you might want to try that. HTH.

All in all the only difference between a private LL and a Housing association is that one is out to make a profit and the other isn't - hence the lower rents !!!

Our rent has also gone up - and we don't have the right to buy. We have also improved our property and the council has done nothing. When we moved in our garden was full of half burned waste and car parts that were left behind by the previous tenants and our neighbours nearly wept relief and what they called a 'normal family'
And no the council didn't clear the garden, we did.

We were part of a survey to do with extending the temporary suspension of rtb. We said that we felt rtb should be abolished as to us it doesn't represent what social housing is about