to think its a disgrace that Cameron is going to stop lifetime council tenancies

[sparklesandglitterxx]

and think that that is NOT the solution to the housing crisis?

the solution as far as i can see it is, lots and lots more council houses need to be built, regulation in private renting needs to be improved, and GENUINELY affordable houses to buy for those on low wages that wish to or are able to buy

fed up of seeing the great things about Britain being chipped away. Why punish renters? The whole Tory attitude towards council housing being a last resort for the destitute disgusts me. council housing needs to be brought back to what it was originally meant for...which is a decent secure home for anyone who wants one. i live on a council estate which is a mix of council, HA and bought. People stay here, they build lives here, generally it is a lovely community. i have never been happier or more settled anywhere i have lived, I have done well in my life and been able to have a big family. my children are happy and thriving at school and have lots of friends. My point is if these changes go through, they will end up DESTROYING communities like ours and so many others. The Tories just seem to want everyone either paying their landlord mates every penny they earn or pushing up house prices by buying. But not everyone wants to buy, and more importantly not everyone CAN buy, (I have friends on good money who are still priced out the market) and hardly anyone would actually CHOOSE to be in insecure, expensive private rented !! I also think that if more people are in secure housing, it will help peoples mental health (hence cutting costs in mental health services), it will improve childrens chances in life, as they wont have to keep moving schools and away from friends etc, it will encourage people to better themselves, it will cut the HB bill, and also with people spending less on their rent they will have more to spend in the economy, thus boosting it!

I also suspect it wont end here....while it will be for new tenants only to start with, i would imagine it will end up being everyone in council / HA

I don't wish to see lifetime tenancies abolished, but I would like to see those in the larger 3 & 4 bed houses being made to downsize to smaller 1 & 2 flats once their own kids have grown up so that someone else can have a turn in a cheap family home.

Fair's fair.

Kakifruit I would say that you're renting somewhere that is out of your price range. You only need a 5% deposit for a house. So if you're looking at buying your first house for £400,000, I'd say you're aiming too high on that salary. A first time buyer normally would spend about £100,000. So that's a deposit of £5000.

The current system allows gross abuses of the system, a la Bob Crow who defended living in a council house despite earning £145,000 p/a.

I would be delighted if this new system was implemented to genuinely take into account (as it says on the legislative amendment) the tenant’s circumstances at the end of a 2/5 year tenancy. So a tenant whose circumstances had not changed, or not substantially, would have their tenancy renewed, whereas someone who had improved their circumstances, or who no longer needed the property, would have their tenancy terminated.

I think the difficulty is in avoiding a mess of the ATOS/fit for work assessment variety - where the bar for "circumstances" is set at an unrealistic level, so that tenants have to be in dire straits to remain eligible.

Ultimately the bigger question here is whether as a country we are comfortable subsidising housing in the way we currently do. Inevitably on these threads someone pops up to say that they grew up in a council house with the electrician next door and the schoolteacher down the way, and that council housing was widely available rather than an indicator of poverty. Well, unfortunately, those days are long gone. There is a limited supply of housing (yes, yes, Thatcher, but also her subsequents), costs are up, and there is a need to triage who gets cheaper housing.

But why be entitled to a house tenancy for a whole lifetime? I don't see the logic. Surely 5 years on a renewable if still in need basis is still far more reliable than renting on the open market and still cheaper than the open market?

Why would someone in need in their 20s still be entitled to a house in their 40s when possibly 2 good incomes etc?

I understand its nice to have, and who would want to give it up if they had it! No long term mortgage to deal with and no worry of private rent but I dont see why people feel entitled to them or logically see it as a good idea when there is so much housing shortage for those in need.

"or been able to pass that tenancy on to family members."

Do you know what happens in my LA if the tenant dies and the tenancy can't be passed on to a family member?...their family has 2 weeks to vacate the property.

While I agree that a new tenancy agreement should be negotiated as would happen in a private let, that's the situation that's come out of rules about not being able to pass on a tenancy.

A first time buyer normally would spend about £100,000

Where are you getting that figure from?

I don't wish to see lifetime tenancies abolished, but I would like to see those in the larger 3 & 4 bed houses being made to downsize to smaller 1 & 2 flats once their own kids have grown up so that someone else can have a turn in a cheap family home.

I agree with this. I am in a 4 bed, there are a 6 other 4 beds on my street. Only 1 other is being occupied by a family, the others are all single people or couples.

When my dc have grown and moved out I will be exchanging to a smaller house so another family can have the space they need. It is only fair.

i think we all agree that ideally there would be more council / LA / affordable housing. But we are where we are.

So I guess the question is:-

One council house - who lives in it?

1. Empty nest couple in their late forties. When they had their children they were young and really struggling (he was an apprentice plumber, she couldn't work with the kids) and the council house was a real godsend. He's worked his way up and now owns his own plumbing business employing 5 people and earning £45k a year. She went back to work when her youngest started secondary and is now a PA in the local accountants earning £21k a year. They have a decent sum in the bank so could easily afford a deposit to buy a house (not eligible for right to buy) but like their home (where they have lived for 25 years) and don't want to move.

1. Young couple. 2 children - one in primary, one under 5. Currently in rented. He is an apprentice plumber, she can't work with the kids. They are really struggling. Just been given notice on their 5th rental house in 4 years (landlord wants to sell - again!) still haven't got the deposit back from the house before (only been in new house 5 months). Savings all wiped out from all the moves. Are now living 4 miles from eldest primary school and suspect will have to go further due to lack of rental nearby. Debating whether to move his school but he is so happy and settled there. They get a small amount of housing benefit meaning that no one wants to rent to them. Been told by the council that there is no housing stock whatsoever so if they can't house themselves they will be put in B&B.

So - who gets the house???

I'm curious to know what the criteria is for renewal? If it's being a good tenant - fantastic. If it's somehow means-tested, that is an obvious recipe for disaster, tenants will be enormously incentivised to become/remain underemployed.

I have little sympathy for elderly people remaining in 3 or 4 bedroom council homes. That's an outrage. The tenancy should take household size into consideration from the outset.

Well indeed, Barbara.

Council houses were always primarily for working people. Who pay rent.

This belief that all jobs will pay enough to buy property is a modern one - should be a clue that Thatcher talked of Britain becoming a nation of homeowners, rather than already being one.

Hasn't happened, because it remains the case that lower paid full-time work isn't enough to buy mega-assets on top of paying the bills.

I think Couple 1 in Mums example have to accept that they have had their time and move on in favour of Couple 2.

Some councils are paying incentives to encourage Couple 1 to move out in favour of Couple 2.

In high demand areas like Wandsworth it can be a significant five, or even six figure sum.

It works for the Council because they don’t have to pay for expensive temporary housi

ng and it would help couple 1 if they want to buy but don’t have a deposit. They might also benefit from moving to a smaller home as they get older as it will be easier to clean and maintain, won’t have stairs or a garden to maintain if they move to a flat and might be cheaper to heat.

I've never understood the logic behind the belief that social housing is subsidised. Tenants pay rent. They are not paying off a private landlord's mortgage so the rents are lower.

Those tenants would be far more likely to need a subsidy (in the form of housing benefit) if they move to a privately rented home where the rents are much higher.

I've never understood the logic behind the belief that social housing is subsidised. Tenants pay rent. They are not paying off a private landlord's mortgage so the rents are lower.

Below-market value rent is a straightforward subsidy. There's no ambiguity.

No thats not true Palombe not in my council anyway i,m on a fixed term tenancy introductory for a year then in march i will get a secure tenancy.

ColdWhiteWinePleaseputting aside the idiocy of claiming that everyone can find a house for £100k, can you please explain how I can save £5k while spending this much rent?

Where is the money going to come home for a home for "anyone who wants one"?

This definitely.

I was one of the priced out people who would never have been eligible for a council house. It took us years to save up enough to buy a house and consequently we have only been able to have one child. I think it would be much better if the government stopped people from buying second (third, fourth etc) homes. They could do this using tax policies so that most houses and flats would be available for people to buy as a first home that they could live in. I hope that that change would make houses more affordable and enable people to buy houses and have small families of their own. I don't think that the tax-payer should be paying for council houses so that people can have big families, while others work so hard for years to buy their own homes, to gain secure life-long accommodation, and consequently only have a chance of a small family.

I thibk its a ridiculous idea. Peoples circumstances change and it should be assessed on an annual basis so that the peiple who need the scheme are the ones benefiting from it - not wealthy pensioners.

Hmm below market rent, i pay £87 /week average private rent is £100/week in my town for that you would get two bedrooms fully fitted kitchen/bathroom new carpets nicely decorated i get an empty house kitchen with no white goods no carpets not decorated i cant see much of a subsidy tbh i,m very gratefull but where are the subsidies?

I thibk its a ridiculous idea. Peoples circumstances change and it should be assessed on an annual basis so that the peiple who need the scheme are the ones benefiting from it - not wealthy pensioners.

Can you not see, though, that this would essentially be a recipe for creating a ghetto?

There's another one

How is the taxpayer paying for council houses? ipsos ?

How is the taxpayer paying for council houses? ipsos ?

Taxpayer is forgoing income. Same thing.

YABU, council housing tenancies should be based on need, which can change over time. Nobody should be entitled to a lifetime tenancy without taking into account changes in need. But I agree that it can't be the only part of the solution.

And re the subsidy thing - as Apple has said, of course council housing is effectively subsidised - council tenants pay less than market rent. It's not that puzzling.

From sitting on school appeals I see the difficulties that many families in privately rented houses have. The area where I live is one of the most deprived in the country. Many families are on 6 months tenancies, and having got their child/children into a school are forced to move to the other side of the city to find accommodation. They are then in a position where they have to take the children to school by bus or apply (and probably appeal) to a local school. For 1 adult and 1 child the fares are more than £20 a week; a large chunk of income for low wage/benefits families. If they are allocated council housing they at least have the security of a permanent home for a few years. With regard to downsizing that would be great if there were enough 1 or 2 bedroom homes for people to move into. There aren't!

Bert The reason it is a subsidy is because the council is investing its money into an asset (ie a house) but then not getting the optimal return on it.

The council has a choice - rent to a council tenant for £5000 a year or rent to a non council tenant for £7000 a year.

By renting to a council tenant they are getting £2000 less for their asset than they could. They have also made their asset completely illiquid (ie they can't sell it even if they need to) which has a cost.

100 houses like this means that the council has £200,000 a year less than it would have if they had rented their houses out on the open market.

With the extra £200,000 they could pay for 10 Teaching assistants.

That different - the loss of the teaching assistants - is the subsidy.