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?

@ Ministry of Silly Definitions

Well having an income cut off will mean one thing - families who might strive to better themselves will be deterred by the risk of losing their home.

It's all pie in the sky scrounger-bashing hopping. No-one can ever explain how it would/could/should work.

my council house rent has gone up yet again and im having to look for another place as I cant afford it.

Very sorry to hear that Zygon. Are you having to downsize?

yes. soz, not able to read all posts, have limited internet use! we had a boixroom that was just a boxroom and NOW its suddenly expanded into a church hall! hence the BT. and its adapted for DCs disabilities too.

ive written to the housing minister in my area.

well, 3 weeks ago. have I heard back? ha ha ha ha. COURSE not.

if anyone else is in same dilemma I feel for you.

and council houses STILL don't belong to us so we cant exactly make them like wed like them, (IE knock down walls/put up walls etc) like someone who owns a house.

I hear you. Whole things a mess.

fideline and hopping ..do you think it will happen?

and if so I wonder what the income cut off will be?

I would love to move out of my council house and buy, its my biggest dream. but although we earn ok money we probably could not get a mortgage

as a working council tenant, it scares me. in theory, to keep our house we could just get lower paid jobs / quit work, and i think a lot of people would do that. but ffs is that what the powers that be WANT?? it would create ghettoes of low income / unemployed with no desire or drive to work harder and make more money as they won't want to lose their house.

I can't see that it could be applied to existing tenants Bal. Doubt your tenancy agreement could be drastically, retroactively rewritten like that, but I'm not 100% sure. I wonder if there is a housing lawyer around that we could ask?

Westminster council, for example, is now only granting five year tenancies so in a sense it is already happening.

I really hope not.

but in that telegraph article it refers to actual figures ie 30000 (or whatever, not sure of exact number they said) live in council accommodation who earn more than X amount, which makes it sound like it WOULD be applied to existing tenants

also, the tenancy is in my sole name as I got it on my own as a lone parent many years ago, although they are aware dh lives here and he is the one who pays the rent. he is also the highest earner of the 2 of us. (well I am on mat leave atm)

(I think it will also lead to tenants fiddling things, ie earning money on the side, cash in hand etc )

Just rereading it...

34000 council households have income of more than £60000.....

It says;

^" Some Conservative-led local authorities are already tightening eligibility rules for new tenants, denying social housing to middle earners.

Hammersmith and Fulham in London is considering denying social housing to applicants with a combined income of more than £40,000.

Westminster council is thought to be planning to adopt a similar policy and planning a higher cap of £50,000 or £60,000.

The new rules proposed in next month’s consultation will take force where councils do not chose to impose their own income limit. "

So it is still in the consultation stage but they do sound serious. £40,000 in H & F is low.

God yeah that's low

40k in London is fuck all really

Mind you sounds like it's just people aren't allowed to initially apply who are on 40k + ... But that's still shit IMO as it's going against what social housing was originally for :(

Just posted this in legal. I;m sure a lot of worried people would appreciate the clarification

That'll certainly grab their attention Chunder

My daughter charges the market rent. That is the point. Any landlord with a large mortgage makes very little or no profit on the rent and yet all these tenants out thre think they are being fleeced. There is a total lack of understanding, They see she charges £1300 and think she may be raking it in!

But she will be left with a house in the end that's been fully paid off by somebody else though right laura? Is that not a profit?

The market is somewhat overheated though Laura

To be honest, owning a BTL flat for which the rent received barely covers an interest only mortgage sounds rather tight. I would find that stressful, but presumably she is doing it for the capital gain?

Yes Chunderella It amazes me that high LTV BTL mortgages are still available

Landlords are in it for the money. A lot of them are a bit unscrupulous. All this they make no money from it is a bit risible tbh.

There are LLs on the other thread saying that they have to have the right to evict tenants at any minute, because savings they might need for their own bills or emergencies are tied up in their BTL properties

What is wrong with keeping emergency savings in the building society and saving the poor tenants the hassle?

When you take away the unscrupulous greedy LLs and the amateur 'dabblers' I wonder what is left?