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.

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.

better rights and security is great for all, but doesn't address cost. that can only be done through building, and creating more supply.

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.

are you talking about the party that was in power for 15 years and did squat for the housing situation? they are more culpable than the tories (I am NOT a tory voter).

Well I am a Tory voter and I approve of what they are doing. They are trying to make it fair for us ordinary tax payers who don't claim benefit, only had the number of children we could afford to look after , and have been subsiding others.

And I am not a Tory voter and approve of what they're doing also for similar reasons.

'Social housing should be for people in need and only short term. This move is social justice.'

For whom? Those who want to race to the bottom? So if you are that 30k employee, and plenty of jobs in key areas pay this, in areas where buying a home, any home, cost far more than this, you deserve a lifetime in insecure private rentals, paying small fortunes to unregulated letting agents, never more than a 2 month get out clause from having to move, over and over again.

The move is punishing those who cannot get a mortgage whilst doing nothing to rectify the huge problems with private-sector renting in the UK.

Well I am a Tory voter and I approve of what they are doing.

most of what they are doing is actively making things worse.

DH married his first wife in 1974 They chose not to get a mortgage They wernt demonized for that choice in the way people are now.

Wait till it affects the ppl who work for the companies who do the work on social housing.

The gas engineers.
The call centre workers.
The safety inspectors

The surveyors.

And their families. Some of whom are likely to have voted Tory.

If you look at the coalition sustainable homes policy that went through and now what the tories have changed it to (various opt out clauses for large scale developers in areas that were primarily to make housing for key workers etc better and cheaper to maintain) you will see very clearly how this works.If you remember during the coalition the developers were all sitting on large sites, refusing to build? Why? It was a tad to pricey for them to make bigger profits with trifles such as better insulation to keep family warmer for less and with better noise insulation, wider doorways for disabled and elderly and better water savings in the home. Those poor people don't need to save more money, do they?

Question

Ref when children are older and move out of home

Are they expecting to move out to a one bedroom or studio flat ?
or
A room in a shared house ?

Because if everyone expects a flat this is surely already putting a strain on available properties

I guess I am asking about expectations

and onwards up the property ladder

i would think shared house/bedsit

they can hardly afford that i should imagine

they will be restricted to a room rate but where i live they pay up to £65 rooms in this town are generally £100 a week

sorry meant HB

I think if most people had a choice they'd rather not get the host of health problems social housing currently makes the poor targets for. A small search on google scholar "social housing and poor health" will show anyone quite a few statistics and facts. It's not all double glazing and free bedrooms!

My parents bought one house back in 1968. Their intention was to make it a home. Not a starter home. Not a foot on the property ladder. A HOME!

Conversations about property ladders and starter homes just didnt exist when and where i was growing up.

YY Jeffrey.

i don't think many people disagree in theory, its just most I know disagree how low it is for families with two minimum wage full timers, child care costs and doubling on rent. I would hope there would be an allowance of increased cap for children as by the time we have paid childcare and market rate rent for our flat, I would earn negative number.

Is there any details online that provide answer and clarifies this, part that specifically interests me is wether or not it takes into account adult childrens wages when determining what they'll charge, namely because I'm back at my parents council house temporarily and I earn over the threshold.

Randy - up thread there were a couple of very knowledgable posters who said it looks like it applies to the top two wage earners in the household, or the tenant and one other (presumably the higher earner of multiple others). Not sure exactly how it would apply in your circumstance though as presumably your parents are joint tenants? I'd be interested to know whether you would be discounted as the non-tenant, or if it would defer to you as the higher earner.

The family members I have mentioned are my aunt who is a pensioner (sole tenant) and her two adult DCs. I'm still not clear which of them it applies to. My cousins are the higher earners (although I would not consider their wages of £15-16k a piece to be high) but my aunt is the tenant. It's very confusing.

Beth - yes, in theory for very high earners this policy may be understandable. But there are so many flaws. The money will not always be ploughed back into housing and the caps are far too low.

Sounds like its going to be one big bloody mess.

longjumping - Well I am a Tory voter and I approve of what they are doing.

Are you approving of councils, who are already dealing with budgets cut to the bone, facing a levy charge if they do not sell the higher value properties as they become empty?

There is no money going to the council to replace that property, it's going to central goverment. One less home for the waiting list. Council stock dwindling, waiting lists seemingly getting longer, no mention of there being less properties as the government come out with more changes to address the increasing housing waiting lists.

Less properties, less need for plumbers, electricians, apprentices, housing officers and other front line staff. Bear in mind these front line staff are sometimes the only contact some vulnerable tenants have, they are crucial in safeguarding let alone doing the actual 'day' job. But they will be cut, less rent coming in will mean less wages able to go out.

The cost to have a property empty is huge, the admin costs of a 2-5year tenacy will be huge. Would you fit out a home with carpet and underlay for 2 years worth? Hopefully that carpet will fit your next home?

If you won't at least stop feeling bitter about 'subsidised' social housing tenants, can you at least try and think of the knock on effect this will have on whole communities?

When your child receive an invite from Tommy for his 12th birthday sleep over, you notice Tommy lives on the well known sink estate, is your child going to be allowed to go? Or will Tommy be penalised in the number of pals because of his address?

Yes, like it or not people need to realise the Tories got in, a lot of us voted them in (more than voted in many a Labour government) and the Torise would have also got in under proportional representation anyway (never mind the more UKIP voters who got no seats who had more votes than then 50 seat SNP) who probably also support this policy too if we are going to argue about whether the Tories rightly got in power under our democracy and these measures are very popular even amongst many labour voters actually. It was a difficult thing for Labour at the last election - one reason the Tories got in is we wanted changes like this.

Also on which income should count - anyone living at the property surely, all added together otherwise you'd put your low earning family member on the social housing tenancy and then have every higher earner paying towards the rent. I had assumed that everyone who lived at a social housing property had to go on the tenancy unless they were under 18.

Justanotherlurker it definitely wasn't to you! It was to the "Wow!" poster.

Deogratis this policy was not in the Tories manifesto.

I think if more knew about this bill, people will be pretty shocked to find that they are planning to sell off the most valuable assets with no means to replace them. This will affect jobs in msny counties too.

I can read

Are you approving of councils, who are already dealing with budgets cut to the bone, facing a levy charge if they do not sell the higher value properties as they become empty?

Unlike most posters here, I am not from Britain, so don't understand this obsession with social housing. I don't mind selling the social housing, but they should be sold for market value. For those defending tory policies, how can you possibly defend selling state assets for below market value? it's madness.

The only reason why people like social housing and HB here, putting huge strains on government finances, is because private tenancies are so bad. There is oddly very little pressure to change this, even though this would affect a huge number of people. It sounds like an I'm alright jack attitude from those lucky enough to obtain social housing.