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

Does nobody care about the concept of community anymore?

If people have long-term tenancies and can stay beyond the point at which they are in desperate need, then it has the potential to build strong communities.

If people can only stay in their homes if they're no more than 5 years out of crisis, what kind of communities will we be building? They will surely be no more than transient ghettos. And where's the incentive to improve your lot if the result is you lose your home?!

"So it means that instead of one person getting 40 years of security - even when they don't need it and seven people have no security at all even when they really really need it - you have 8 people each get five years of security during the five years that they need it most."

That's also muddled thinking!

The answer is surely to build more council homes, not evict people who are already in one.

Well, people can tell us that they pay rent therefore their council house is self funding until they are blue in the face but the fact is that no builders want to build them and no councils want to build them so there must be a mismatch there somewhere.

I believe social housing is self funding. However there is probably a lot more profit in private accommodation and that's why builders prefer building them.

It's brilliant knowing that if I "haven't worked hard enough to get myself a mortgage" I will be kicked out of my home in X amount of years.

we are trying.

I mean those who are posting nothing except "look, another misconception".

when you can potentially be asked to move out with a couple of months notice but what would be in it for the landlords?

I have lived in jurisdictions where essentially private tenancies are like council housing in that you can't get chucked out except for very specific reasons. So, rents are not capped, but rent rises for tenants in place are.

But there landlords still rent because it makes money. Not as much money, but still makes money.

no we are not we are telling you people just refuse to beleive what we say though and assume everybody lives in the south.

would that not mean that people would be reluctant to be landlords though if they are not making too much of a profit ,i realise that people are against private landlords but there is clearly a need for them in some parts of the country where social housing is limited and people either dont want to or cant afford to buy their own homes?

Mascara,

I don't think that anyone has suggested that anyone still fully eligible for the same council housing (ie same family size, same economic circumstances, have been good tenants, still meet all the eligibility criteria) would do anything other than move onto the next 5 year tenancy. However, those whose circumstances HAVE changed might not have their tenancy renewed, in order to make the house or flat to someone in greater current need. So a couple without children might be given a new tenancy of a smaller property, someone who was now in very different economic circumstances might movbe on to private rented etc.

A bit like the NHS. Someone who is still in need of hospital care should be in hospital. Someone who can now be cared for at home or in a nursing home or a non-acute ward should be moved on to one of those, to release beds for the next wave of critically ill patients - because the NHS is not designed to provide 'a place for the recuperating to stay', or a 'safe bed for the winter', but to meet an acute need for those who are acutely ill. Similarly, in a utopian world, I see council housing as for those in currently critical housing need, with the assumption being that some will continue to need that level of 'critical care', while others will move on and out.

we were genuinely homeless and out local council (Wokingham) wouldn't even accept our application on homelessness grounds or provide us with temporary accommodation that we would have had to have paid s work and not in receipt of benefits. They told us to sleep on a floor of a friends or families house or book into a Travelodge!

There just isn't the supply of housing to let people stay in the secure tenancies anymore. I feel that the policis need to be locally dealt wih as housing varies from area to are, 5yr tenancies sound like a good deal to me. a fair amount of security and if your position hasn't changed then you get to renew for another 5years. In some areas up north there is a lot of lha property avalible, whereas In the overstretched south east lha property is scarce. Shorter tenancies and no more lifetime tenancies would free up lha housing for people who need it.

In my family alone we have three sets of grandparents in lha housing who would love to move into smaller bungalows or ground floor flats but the councils won't help them swap. My grandparents have lived in the same house for over 50years, they desperately need a one level home (nan currently in hospital after breaking hip and can't come home until either one level housing or a stair lift fitted, which the council won't give them permission to fit) this is a 3 bed terraced house that would be great for a family, but they won't give it up for somewhere they have no choice in.

h's parents on the other hand live up north but in an area where there is a significant wait for lha housing and they see it as their right to stay in their large 3 bed semi with huge garden as they've lived there for 50years as well.

Fixed term tenancies with long agreements 5/10 years and some kind of financial assessment (that was fair) in order to renew as well as number of occupants etc would be much better.

with regards to rents, they do vary greatly, again up north where rented and lha housing aplenty in certain areas, the difference in private rented and lha rented isn't a huge amount of £, whereas here in the south east there is huge difference in the private rent and lha rent. I pay £1050 which is very cheap for a 3 bed semi, if I was to move I would be looking at a minimum of £200 a month more. Whereas the lha equivalent is around £100 per week, some £125 per week.

Every village round here had a street (or sometimes several streets) of bungalows, built for elderly and disabled tenants. I haven't seena new one built since the 1970s. If councils provided housing for people to move into after their kids flew the nest, there'd be more housing available for families...

That said, as I said upthread, my former neighbour was forced out by bedroom tax - £10,000 spent on a re-furb then the house let to... a known ASB family.... on bedroom tax. Who could perfectly well have been given a two bed house.

The right wing bedroom tax supporting press haven't told you that happens, have they?

*That's also muddled thinking!

The answer is surely to build more council homes, not evict people who are already in one.*

Well obviously that would be ideal! But it hasn't happened! Have you thought about why? The councils do not have the capital and the risk / reward profile of the investment makes it unattractive for private investors.

I take home £1,650 a month
and pay £1,050 in private rent
How do you suggest I save up
the £20,000 needed for a deposit
to buy my own home?

Get a second job. That's what I did.

Not only do you have life time teancy you can also pass you council house down in your will

A council home if for those who have no were to live or can't afford rent once you can then you should be moved on

30 years ago people could buy tenancies in various council blocks. Go to the caretaker, give him a load of dosh and bam! you're in. I know so many people who did that in central London. Then, sometimes, the council sold the block to a HA. The HA couldn't get the records of who was actuallt supposed to be living there, so called an amnesty and the people who were actually living in the block would be made official HA tenants. In the cases of the people I knew, they were all young professionals (who else could afford the initial bribe?). They would then rent out prime real estate in the centre of London; I was one of those renters for quite a few years.

I am quite sure that many of those people are still doing it. Still HA tenants, not living there (but putting in the occasional appearance so it looks like they're still around), and in receipt of huge rents while paying tiny ones to the HA?

I doubt that this sort of set-up could happen now. For one thing, I doubt there's quite so much corruption and I doubt the caretakers havenquite so much power. Also, with records being held on computer it's not so easy to lose files or get them so messed up that no one can tell who should be living where.

At least one London cOuncil I know of were investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for doing this sort of thing, along with many other equally dishonest practices.

So how do you deal with that?

"The answer is surely to build more council homes, not evict people who are already in one."

But, again to refer to the NHS analogy, that's like saying 'the answer is to build more hospitals, not make people who are a bit better move on to other settings'.

We accept - through usage and custom, mainly, because it is often very different in other countries - that the state has different 'roles' at different points in our lives. Those roles have changed over time - at one point pretty much all medical care was paid for at the point of use, now we expect the NHS to care for us and our loved ones. Equally, we accept that a state education to school leaving age in the late teens is available to all (and often expect a choice of school), whereas in the past the state provided no such thing.

Equally for council housing, is the 'role' to provide a decent home in the same place in perpetuity to all people under a certain income level, such that private rentals are hard to afford (ie more like school - a home is available to anyone, but some people will choose to buy / rent a different housing product, in the same way that some people choose to buy private education), or is it to provide a decent basic housing solution to people in particularly acute housing need, in the short to medium term (so more like an NNS hospital type situation)?

I am so glad they are doing this and think it's a fantastic solution. But it needs to be regulated properly.

If people genuinely need the house and cannot afford rent at the market value or to buy and they work or have a valid reason not to work fine.

But if people got a life long lease and then after years are earning enough to buy or rent elsewhere then they certainly should move out. This would then free up a house for someone who genuinely needs it.

I fully support that decision and wish they'd made the decision to do this earlier. It could potentially save a lot of money as they won't need to build new houses constantly.

No you cant Tamponlady in my tenancy that i share jointly with dh it says if either of us were to die we would succeed each other to a single tenancy thats it i cant pass it on to my children my dsil had a h/a house with her children she died suddenly and her children had to leave the oldest was over 18 and she now has her own council house with her siblings the point being she didnt inherit her mothers tenancy .

There is also a problem of families in temporary accomodation when single pensioners occupy family homes.
This. Had an example of this next door. Nice family home and a single pensioner in it. A few rooms used only as storage for decades of rubbish.
Seems unfair, but... Where and how do you relocate a frail 90yo who lived there his almost entire life? Only viable option just to wait a couple of years till he's unwell enough to go into a care home. That's what eventualy happened to this guy. The house is now empty. Probably will have new neighbours soon.

I have mixed feelings about this...it seems madness to take away a secure tenancy for the irregularities of private renting.
I am in the position of having been a landlord, a homeowner, a private renter and am now in a HA property. I have a lifetime tenancy which is good because my son has learning difficulties and might always need to call this place home.
If he eventually moves out I will be able to downsize and free up a property for a family who needs it.

I suspect this move is a sign that the bedroom tax has not worked....there are still people living in properties too large for them with no obligation to move because they are over 65.

We need more social housing not less.

And yes...just to add on that I cannot pass the tenancy if this house to my son. I am the tenant and he lives with me...even when he is 18 I won't be able to make him a joint tenant. He will be treated as a separate applicant if he requires social housing. Thankfully he is well provided for by grandparents in the future and the chances are he will be able to buy a flat nice he reaches the right age.

What subsidies are these then?

I've only just started reading the thread, so apologies if this has already been answered.

Apparently the average council house rent is (was?) £300 a month below market rate. ("below market rate"=subsidised.) The 2012 Guardian article I've linked to below talks about a move to abolish this subsidy for some people.

www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/19/social-housing-income-cap-shapps

I lived in a council hose as a child in the 1960's. A man who lived down the road had to move out after his Mum died as he wasn't entitled to a council property as a single man. He worked for the council but that didn't mean he could stay in the house where he was born and had lived in for 30 years.

And again thats probably in the south Theoretician i pay about £13/week less than the average private rent but private renters get fully fitted bathrooms ,kitchens luxury carpets etc none of which i get in my council house again we dont all live in london but i dont know why i bother saying it as nobody takes any notice.

private renters get fully fitted bathrooms ,kitchens luxury carpets etc

All private renters get luxury carpets?

the house i rented yes and the ones i see comparable in rent to what i pay in my council house yes .