To think that if private landlords make profit from rentals..

[TheoriginalLEM]

Then why can't local authorities do the same?

People bang on about social housing being a drain on the economy. Well yes, ok, if everyone living in social housing was on benefits then it would be i suppose. People say that these houses then need upkeep. Well yes, they do, people are paying to live in them.

To me this is a no brainer - make social housing work. Make houses that people WANT to live in. Encourage people to maintain them themselves to a degree, provide maintainance and offer updates and charge a reasonable rent.

There is a profit to be made? NO? or alre all private landlords philanthropists?

Even if folk are on benefits, surely the cost to maintain a LA owned property is less than what is being paid to land lords?

That is the answer to the housing crisis - not building substandard houes and charging some poor sap a quarter of a million pounds to buy it. What first time buyer can afford that? You haven't thought this through Dave no surpirse there then

but you will be making a profit, so why should the council pick up the bill for you to do this?

I'm really not trying to be goady, and i realise it might come across like this, and for that I apologise, but you are basically paying your £60 a month in to a saving scheme and not paying for your rent.

Whereas I pay a mortgage each month of £750 for my asset which I live in

again - i am not trying to be goady

And on the profit question - I am losing money on my house at the minute, due to spending a lot on upgrading and a thieving cunt rent-defaulting tenant. Of course I'm hoping that it will earn a profit long-term and my intention is to top up my very basic pension with the rent money. But at the minute it's not even breaking even and as others have said it's a gamble. Once my tenant is evicted it will hopefully stop costing me huge sums each month!

LittleRedSparke - why do you think people in public housing (not sure what you mean by 'assisted' - sheltered accommodation maybe?) should pay more for their housing when what they pay covers not only the cost of housing them but also the maintenance and upkeep of their own property and the other properties owned by the LA/HA? They are not being subsidised. They are paying what the LA/HA deems will cover its costs including upkeep and maintenance.

Why should they pay more rent LittleRed? The cost to the council of maintaining the property doesn't increase just because the tenant's income has.

I agree it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth to read about people on Bob Crow's salary living (yes I know he's now dead) in cheap council houses when other people are spending 50% of their income on private rent, but in an ideal world there would be enough non-profit housing for every one that wanted it. As others have said, the high of private renting is the problem- not the low cost of social housing.

I think there should be much more LA /HA housing available but I don't think tenants should have tenancy for life or right to buy, which is what went wrong under the old system. I would much rather have houses allocated to tenants in lieu of housing benefit with a right to live there for a fixed period, to be reviewed every couple of years. They should be seen as 'starter rentals' to get people on their feet (obviously exceptions to this would be needed for the elderly and people who are unable to work)

I agree that right to buy is a bad thing, but I do think that long term tenancies are a good thing as it gives stability for both parties. It is the norm in most European countries, so obviously it works.

Are council rents lower than 'market rents'? I actually dont know, as i have never had council housing (only because i was too lazy to get on the list, and never really got round to it, and thanks to being mostly in work never really needed it)

I don't think tenants should have tenancy for life

Why not? Do people suddenly stop needing shelter when they get to a certain age? What age would that be?

Council rents are generally lower, yes, although they are creeping up now and will continue to do so under this govt. However, they are not subsidised. If you have a person who is working and paying full rent on their council property, they are paying what the council deems is sufficient to cover its costs including maintenance and upkeep. And private sector rents are subsidised by £12 bn a year of public money.

I agree with a reasonable length of tenancy - maybe 2 or 3 years initially with the possibility of extension - but not lifelong tenancy. And as I said cruik obviously there needs to be separate housing that is longterm housing for elderly / disabled etc.

What I'm saying is that social housing should be widely available for all who need it. By giving it only to the 'most' in need at that moment but giving it to them forever, it blocks it longterm for others who will also need it. I've seen this in action frequently - e.g. a young single mum gets a council house, fine. A few years later she's married, working and still living in the house on minimal rent while other people who need the house are told there's nothing available for them.

So yes, give people a helping hand while they need it but no one is owed a low rent house forever unless we're going to magic up enough money to provide one for everyone. They should be seen as a stepping stone for most people - which is why housing strategy has to work hand in hand with training and job creation. You use your time in the house to prepare for your future. I repeat - before I get bombarded - obviously there needs to be separate longterm accommodation for people whose circumstances aren't going to change.

So yes, give people a helping hand while they need it but no one is owed a low rent house forever unless we're going to magic up enough money to provide one for everyone.

This^. Doing so (along with provision of jobs and training, which is inadequate at present in many parts of the UK) means that people in social housing who are in a position to contribute to society, are incentivised to do so.

But if there was sufficient council housing - as there was, for three solid decades during the post-war consensus - then it wouldn't be an issue how long someone stayed in what is, after all, their home. Since, as I keep saying, council/HA properties are not subsidised but private sector rentals are, it doesn't matter that they cost less than private sector rentals - that to me is a sign that private sector rentals are an inefficient way of housing the rental population, and also a sign that more people should be in public sector accommodation, not fewer. If we had taken just five years' worth of the HB doled out to people like you feathering your pension nest-eggs, we could have built many many more council houses - certainly enough to cover the 2.5 million households currently on the waiting lists of councils up and down the country, and probably a few million more besides, and those houses would continue to pay for themselves, and to generate enough rental revenue in order to cover maintenance and upkeep.

That would of course depend on a change in mindset that council housing is only for those 'in need', but I think that needs to happen. Council housing should be for anyone that wants it - that it how it was originally set up. And it worked, more or less, for as I say thirty years. I can't think of how the current situation could be seen as working, by any stretch of the imagination.

Private landlords generally charge a lot more than HA/council housing and a lot of them only make a profit due to increase in house prices - especially if they have bought recently.

What we need is more stable rented properties that anyone can rent for as long as they like, without being at the mercy of rip off letting agents and landlords wanting or having to sell or putting the rent up.

We also need to spread investment, jobs and opportunities more evenly around the country, rather than trying to cram it all into one tiny overcrowded corner of the country. Then there wouldn't be the huge demand for property and price increases to well above affordable levels for ordinary people.

So yes, give people a helping hand while they need it but no one is owed a low rent house forever unless we're going to magic up enough money to provide one for everyone

But it pays for itself (or would if Dave didn't insist on RTB). Council borrows money from bank to build house , council sets rent at loan repayment + maintenance etc + bit extra to reinvest. The extra housebuilding would encourage jobs and training in this area. It's win win.

www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/willesden_pensioner_forced_to_live_with_no_hot_water_and_heating_for_seven_months_contracts_pneumonia_1_1389701

Doing so (along with provision of jobs and training, which is inadequate at present in many parts of the UK) means that people in social housing who are in a position to contribute to society, are incentivised to do so.

If a person is in full employment and paying full rent on their council property, they are already contributing to society because council rents are set at a rate that covers their operating costs. They don't need to pay more. What they pay is lower than private sector rents, because council housing is a more efficient model of providing rental accommodation than private sector renting.

And actually, I can't think of anything less 'incentivising' than charging a person more rent than is necessary just because they are earning more money. Law of unintended consequence, innit.

nasty taste .... high earners.... "in cheap council houses when other people are spending 50% of their income on private rent,"

Thats my point.

Also - it breaks my heart to see small starter homes go up and then they get snapped up by the buy to let brigade, or even the "live in it for 2 years and then rent it out" or even bloody worse, the "lets leave it empty for the tax relief" sector

" e.g. a young single mum gets a council house, fine. A few years later she's married, working and still living in the house on minimal rent while other people who need the house are told there's nothing available for them."

this is what i mean, surely the rent could up a bit instead of kicking her out?

or alre all private landlords philanthropists?

Now there's a thought!

Saucy nailed it. Shiny puppet Dave clearly doesn't give a flying fuck, frankly, and nor do his policy makers. I say clearly, but to be honest I've just started to block out his phony, stupid voice.

mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/the-truth-about-social-housing/

this is what i mean, surely the rent could up a bit instead of kicking her out?

Why though? If what she is paying covers the costs and more of housing her, which it does, why should she pay even more again?

Same HA who took seven months to fix a boiler.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/aug/07/housing-asssociation-no-longer-build-homes-poor-genesis

Yes, that's what I said cruik - LA housing should be available for all those in need, not just those 'most' in need. I 'needed' it myself at one stage but didn't have a mission of getting it as an employed (low-income), single woman with no children and no benefits entitlement. And I've said before (sighs) that not all LLs get housing benefit. My defaulting tenant isn't on housing benefit so rest assured we're not all feathering our nests with public money.

Going that all sounds good in principle but adding all those costs together might make the rent repayments quite high. Maintenance and upkeep is a huge cost, genuinely I think non LLs really have no idea how much money has to be spent on this because tenants do NOT look after a rental as well as they would look after their own home. But yes, absolutely, any profit would at least go back into LA hands.

I completely agree with anyone who thinks housing policy is a shambles which may be surprising when I'm a LL but then I'm not 'targeting' low-income / state-funded tenants. We mostly work with students and overseas workers.

mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/the-truth-about-social-housing/

But that's just because that particular HA is being a crap landlord - its not a problem specific to HAs, the issue is the law doesn't haven't the teeth to force landlords to do the right thing.

Why though? If what she is paying covers the costs and more of housing her, which it does, why should she pay even more again?

Because if she doesnt pay more readily available cheaper social housing will bring the costs of private rental down/ make it less profitable to BTL and we couldn't have that. Lots of cheap state owned housing Why, that would be practically communist

I'd still like to see the difference between council rents and private?

Maintenance and upkeep is a huge cost, genuinely I think non LLs really have no idea how much money has to be spent on this because tenants do NOT look after a rental as well as they would look after their own home

But with maintaining hundreds of properties you would have economies of scale. And HAs councils could employ their own tradesmen rather than bringing in outside people on an emergence rate etc.

Sparke the weird thing is when I tried to rent from a housing association the rent was going to be £200 a month more than my mortgage turned out to be and was on a par with private rental. It was actually a good thing for me because it made me look into buying on a 100% mortgage, which turned out to be the best thing I ever did.