AIBU to think not enough people are aware of the proposed changes to social housing?

[StripeySherbert]

The housing and planning bill is going to the 3rd stage in the House of Lords but I don't see much about it, it is going to affect so many people!

Pay to stay will be introduced, households with a 40k income for London or 30k elsewhere will pay local market rate rent, this extra rent goes to the government, not the councils. People who start paying private rented levels of rent will maybe expect more for their money? There will be no extra money in the pot, it's going to Central Government.

The new national living wage being introduced, the sums show that most households with 2 working full time will hit the 30k.

New tenancies will have a fixed term of 2 to 5 years. Meaning social housing will only be for those who have no other way to find housing themselves, whilst they get on their feet, most would think this should be the case, I use to think that should be the case myself, but that's not how communities form, being friendly with the neighbours, instead this could promote "sink estates?"

Councils will be forced to sell high value council properties that become empty or face a levy charge if they don't. Again, this money does not go to the council, it goes to Central Government.

This is only it in part, yet it seems to be flying under the radar!

Some of the changes wouldn't be so bad if the money went back into the local area/ local housing.

Plus, maybe its just where I live but all the social housing isn't lumped together, infact, you'd be hard pushed to say who was private rent, affordable buy and social housing unless you knew those living in them. I'm in a block that currently has all 3.

"Because of the terrible service that tenants are getting and the attitudes.

If it is just as bad for homeowners and homeowners are also forced to have workmen not of their choosing in their homes AND homeowners are also being told to claim on their contents insurance because a workman not of their choosing has flooded their home then obviously the laws need an overhaul."

Helena it doesn't have anything to do with the law. How could you legislate against poor service?

Poor service is in no way whatsoever exclusive to social housing tenants and nor do all social housing tenants recieve poor service. You only have to look at the % complaints against repairs completed to see how unusual it is.

i just think people should have the option of ha/council housing if they want it

Spiky, I agree, that would be lovely. Everyone who had to rent could pay a reduced rate of rent and have a secure tenancy for as long as they needed it and they could save the extra and buy if they want, or spend it on luxuries.

But we don't have enough social houses available for those who need them, nevermind for everyone who fancies one. And we can't afford to build more, quick enough, for everyone to have one.

So who should get the ones we do have? Those in desperate need? Or those on 80k who needed it 20 years ago and don't anymore?

Serious question. If you had to chose, who would you pick?

The truth of the matter is, many of us live in properties that are now worth a lot of money, a result of a lack of investment in housing. We can't afford to buy them but we can live in them till we die and in some cases our children can inherit them, a bit like the old regulated tenancies. Except instead of Rachman trying to smoke us all out as he can't make a profit, it's the Govt and their class

Or you could look at it practically that it is about trying to free the system up a little so that those genuinely in need get a chance of getting council/ha accommodation, the world and populations has moved on rapidly since ww2 and asking household above a certain threshold to either pay market rent or move on is not going to ruin communities or have any sway in the price of market rents.

HA/council properties are not a drag on price setting of rents, what is funding a baseline is the HB allowance yet any attempt to reduce this is met with the same visions of a dystopian future but from all sides of the political sphere as there are to many personnel interests involved.

This is not a race to the bottom scenario, and whilst no one wants an increased bill for anything, the undercurrent reason for being against this is either the juvinile anything just as long as it's anti-Tory or more prevelant is the same 'fuck you, I got mine' mindset that they ridicule the current government for.

My story ... I got my council tenancy as a teenaged pregnant care leaver .i was on benefits with no real prospects or aspirations until i gave my own head a wobble in my early 20's ,went bk to college,got qualified ,busted my balls to get were i am today. Through partly bad choices and partly just trying to live , along the way my credit rating got shot so i wouldn't be accepted for private rental ( no family to act as guarantee either).

Just feels like a smack in the face for trying . Maybe some think id more deserving of my secure tenancy for never bothering.

I will suck up the rent increase because i have no other choice but don't blame me for feeling about it .

Council housing always used to deliver a surplus to central govt, it isn't subsidised. It's an investment in the same way private landlords use property to generate income and have a surplus. When the mortgage is paid off you then have an asset to continue to generate an income.

In addition, there is plenty of money, to say there is limited money is like saying there isn't enough housing for everyone. There is plenty of housing lying empty, it's access thats the issue. There's plenty of land available, barely 10% of this country is built on, it's access that's the issue.

If we have money for trident, hs2, billions in bombing countries including Syria (have you any idea how much a single bomb costs?), bailing out the banks (375billion to date) we have money for investment in housing. It's political ideology that decides where money gets spent and for whatever reason, the govt has decided it's priorities do not include the NHS, social housing, benefits and education. Wonder why that is?

The way modern society creates most of it's money is via the creation of debt and the govt has shown it can create money for whatever it wants. It has prioritised but to say it doesn't have the money is not exactly true.

Pay to stay will be voluntary for HA's, the reason for this is that there is a process of deregulation underway for HA's following a decision by the ONS that they should be considered public bodies. This puts about 60 billion of HA debt onto the national debt, something that the government wants to remove. The government is "hoping for parity" amongst HA's but can't insist on it, as that would require regulation and defeat the object of the deregulation exercise. HA's are now all busy considering their options. The greatest challenge is coming up with a system that is fair, particularly when you consider the growing numbers of tenants on zero hours or working several part time jobs, something that is being encouraged under universal credit, the roll out of UC is now gaining traction and many people will migrate onto UC between now and 2018. So we have lots of social tenants on very variable but overall quite low incomes. One thing HA's can consider is signing up to pay to stay, but setting the bar high enough to take the low earning but two working adult households out of the equation. The administration of all of this is still up for debate/consultation, but unless there is a national property database established that links HMRC/DWP data on earnings with specific properties then the onus will be on the tenant to declare their earnings or pay the higher rate. Rent setting is not my area of expertise but I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that a change to the rent setting regs that tenancies rely on would be sufficient for this to then be applied to existing tenants. It's bizarre that HA's are being encouraged to reduce rents overall (1% per annum reduction for the next 4 years) on the one hand, but put them up in a clunky fashion for some on the other. Ultimately it's all about reducing the HB bill - that has rocketed since the advent of buy to let, but MP's, many of whom are buy to let landlords, resist the regulation of private rents that would do the most to reduce the HB bill.

If you are a HA tenant with real concerns about this and the time and the will to get involved then contact your resident involment team to see what opportunities there are for you to join the debate. Where I am based the HA have a resident scrutiny panel who grill HA colleagues on such matters and then report thier findings and recommendations to the board for consideration. It is a genuine opportunity for customers to shape the thinking around this where I am based.

Justanother, I am looking at it practically, I really am. Good housing is an investment that everyone should have access to. Security is important. Given the squeeze on wages over the last few years, how will low earners afford a mortgage? They may be able to claim housing benefit but there are big changes coming down the line restricting that too. I don't have an issue with that, why should the taxpayer pay landlords mortgages? What I have an issue with is saying we'll restrict benefits and restrict access to social housing. If you have it, we'll take it away. BUT we aren't going to put in rent controls or regulate private landlords in any way. In fact, we're going to make it harder and harder to get a mortgage. So, your only option is private high rents and low security. That's not a free market, that's deeply lopsided favouratism towards private landlords.

AyeAmarok social housing was always intended to be an affordable secure home for life.
People who have worked their way up are not stopping people from having social housing.
It's the fault of the government for not using the money from rtb to replenish housing stock.

There is plenty of housing lying empty, it's access thats the issue

Untrue, whilst there is a significant number of empty houses if we where to somehow enforce population of these houses it still wouldn't touch the sides of the current demand, nor future population growth. Also before you start on brown field sites these are only these are not all viable, some are so contaminated that we can't build on them for years, others are in locations where no one will want to live due to local available jobs or they are so far removed from where employment is that it's unrealistic.

As for the other part of your post where your clearly on an anti Tory rant just means your not as objective in this as you think you are, the housing crisis is not only a cross party problem but is backed by a large percentage of the population that range from dyed in the wool lefties to baby eating tories and everyone in between

If we didn't bail out the banks then the least of your worries would have been asking to pay more rent, and it's juvinile to put that in the same bracket.

I'm not sure how far back your going with 'modern society' but the creation of debt as a facilitator goes a lot further back than ww2 and is not a recent problem

Your displaying a lot of whataboutry and fuck you I got mine mindset...

Wow! Article in today's Guardian about eligibility for social housing shows how the EU is working against the average Briton.

The Govt has published a White paper called The Best of Both Worlds - Our Special Status in a Reformed EU. (This is part of Dave's deal he negotiated last week)

Buried away in the detail it tells us that in order to qualify for social housing you must be resident in an area for 4 years. This will apply to new migrants and to Britons moving within Britain.

So in a half-baked fudge to try to make EU migration less attractive he is now limiting mobility for ordinary British people who may need to move to a new area to work.

This deal is starting to look definitely dodgy/

There are many inherent problems with rent controls, as for

I have an issue with is saying we'll restrict benefits and restrict access to social housing

Is blatantly misrepresent the facts, they are not restricting, they are saying if you can afford more you should pay more or move out into private and free up the limited resource for others who are more genuinely in need.

Quite the opposite of restricting.

Excellent, the Vote Leave spin machine has joined us.

I'm fed up with this referendum already.

^As for the other part of your post where your clearly on an anti Tory rant just means your not as objective in this as you think you are, the housing crisis is not only a cross party problem but is backed by a large percentage of the population that range from dyed in the wool lefties to baby eating tories and everyone in between

If we didn't bail out the banks then the least of your worries would have been asking to pay more rent, and it's juvinile to put that in the same bracket.

I'm not sure how far back your going with 'modern society' but the creation of debt as a facilitator goes a lot further back than ww2 and is not a recent problem

Your displaying a lot of whataboutry and fuck you I got mine mindset..^

NO, this goes much deeper than party politics... it's not anti tory rant, or leftist whatever, it's about what sort of society we want to live in. One that caters for all it's citizens, invests in homes and jobs, education and training or one that sucks money from those at the bottom to those at the top.

I'm displaying an understanding of the future based on history and an overview of the effect of legislation coming down the line. It's not 'whataboutery and fuck you' it's about what we should all expect.

And actually, we could have gone the way of Iceland who are now in a much better position as a country than we are.

I don't see that as limiting mobility- they can stay or move and go into private rental. It's a matter of supply and demand and fairness, far too few people have benefitted excessively from previous housing situation st the expense of the many. This is a measure to even it out somewhat.

I have an issue with is saying we'll restrict benefits and restrict access to social housing

what's restricting access is the shortage of housing, not the government.

You see this all time on threads here, and this seems to be a british thing, but people are all clamouring for more social housing. Why not better rights and security for private tenants? Building more housing takes a long time, but you could make private tenancies better at the stroke of a pen.

Council housing always used to deliver a surplus to central govt, it isn't subsidised.

this is oft repeated here and really drives me crazy. Who cares if generates a surplus? That has nothing to do with whether it is subsidised. the fact that people aren't paying market rent means the government has lost money on a state asset. That's a subsidy. it doesn't matter if it's already paid off.

if the government sold land to one party when someone else was willing to pay more, nobody would argue that's a subsidy. That's exactly what's going on here.

Totally agree, Chili. Thinking on it, the council housing of old nowadays seems ludicrous. Far better as you say to for the gov manage the market a little to enhance the rights of tenants, ensure affordability etc as in so many EUncountires. Far better solution.

What would happen on the 2-5 year tenancies if a council decided a couple /family earned enough to private rent how long would they be given to find a new place?

What if they can't find somewhere or they have bad credit/no guarantor/ no deposit or first months rent advance?

Will they really evict them if they can't find somewhere affordable ?

What if it pushes them to a place unaffordable leading them to being evicted and needing emergency accommodation? Will they then be eligible again?

Council housing only delivered a surplus because so much of its cost is capitalisable. It's not cash.

"Why not better rights and security for private tenants?"

Because a lot of people can't afford or don't want to pay 15-20k a year of dead money into somebody else's pension plan. Simple as.

Up until fairly recently it wasn't considered a hanging offence to want an affordable, secure roof over your head. All sorts of people on all sorts of incomes had council houses. It was a perfectly everyday and "normal" thing to do.

I'm sure the private renters on here are enjoying their ten minutes of glee at this (I probably would too), but the death of affordable, non-profit housing for working families will affect us all.

We had a choice as a country to vote for people that would either try and make it better and fairer for everyone, or make it worse for us all so we can all be equally poor and miserable. We (as a country) made the wrong one.

And even if you don't see it now, when your own kids grow up and leave home and they can't get a bedsit for less than 15k a year when they're earning £300 a week- you'll be fucking sorry then that you let this BTL property madness leech us all dry.

We could have gone the way of Iceland if we hadn't built our economy on the service sector and become a financial hub of Europe over the past couple of decades, saying they are doing better than us is also ignoring the fact that we are the 5th largest economy and if circumstances don't change we could become within the top 3.

Things aren't as simplistic as your trying to make out, you are playing party politics and using 'history' as a guise to infer your future knowledge whilst ignoring the globalised world and inherent problems we have.

AyeAmerok, if that is directed at me then you should clearly do a hell of a lot more reading around the EU debate as playing party politics in this debate is not a reasoned choice, FYI I'm IN on the vote...

I'm displaying an understanding of the future based on history and an overview of the effect of legislation coming down the line. It's not 'whataboutery and fuck you' it's about what we should all expect

This part doesn't sit well in this statement
its about what we should all expect

Asking people who can afford to do so (within the targeted demographic) to pay more for rent is the exact premise of a more fairer society, or am I missing something?

I dont know if this is relevant, this is a long discussion/post

Discussion on local radio 27,000 people on council waiting list for houses in one county in south of UK

That is a huge amount

Some people who are deemed to be at the top of the list are being offered houses hundreds of miles away

There is a point system to reach the top of the list

Surely this is not sustainable, the numbers are huge !

Suggestions about what can be done ?

The Government says it needs to build more houses

Surely people earning £30K or£ 40K should not have their rent subsidised by the rest of the tax paying population. This is unfair to the tax payers, many of whom will be paying the market rent in the private sector or struggling to pay their mortgage.
Social housing should be for people in need and only short term. This move is social justice.

"Poor service is in no way whatsoever exclusive to social housing tenants and nor do all social housing tenants recieve poor service. You only have to look at the % complaints against repairs completed to see how unusual it is"

Difference is an owner occupier can stop using a certain company if they are crap and choose someone else
A social housing tenant cant do that. They HAVE to have the people in their home that the HA has given the contract to and have to have them back again and again no matter if it has been proven how crap they are. In some cases the same engineer that has fucked up a safety check is back the following year.

In fact its got so bad with one company that a councillor has set up a fb page to collate complaints because he was constantly receiving complaint after complaint about the same company.