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.

Does anyone know if this is to be tapered? I've heard there may be a sliding scale so if u hit 30k you don't immediately pay the full amount

I'm not a tory voter either but I think this is one of there more sensible policies.

I'd prefer a 5 yearly points based system of need for the limited council stock we have (although I would quite obviously rather there was enough council stock for everyone who didn't want to buy/ private let, but thats not going to happen).

I say that as someone who grew up in a tiny two bed semi sharing a single room with my mum and brother, living with grandparents in a completely over crowded house until I was a teenager.

The system we have now is broken and unfair and short of building thousands upon thousands of homes which isn't going to happen (where are the builders coming from??) it makes sense to limit a short supply to those who need it most.

I disagree with this policy completely. I joint owned an overcrowded home, moved out to rent somewhere whilst selling our home them husband left me. Landlord has now decided to sell the house, I have to move for the 2nd time in 2 years. I am applying for social housing. I am desperate to never have to move again….the problems involved in moving an entire house- furniture not fitting, the expense (oh the expense) of removal people, the problems of schools- my kids are in 2 separate primary schools because we moved and couldn't find a school that could take them all. Now I can't find anywhere to rent near them. What are people meant to do- disrupt their children's education on a regular basis? What about the stress of moving and the impact on jobs (I had to give up my job as the commute was too long) and, more importantly, mental health?

We moved from a city to somewhere more affordable, as we couldn't afford to buy or rent another property in the area that we lived in, and we were in a 2 bed house with 3 kids. Now I'm having to find a new tenancy I've discovered that in the past year THIS place has become unaffordable too. What are people meant to do, keep moving to cheaper towns/cities?! This is what happens if you don't have a 'home for life'. You are at the mercy of landlords. They can completely re-set the rent when someone moves out rather than incrementally. Rents now for 3 bed houses are £300 a month more expensive than they were a year ago around here.

I think everyone should be entitled to a secure home for life. The private landlords are all about their investments, they get to pick and choose who they want. And believe me, they don't want single unemployed mothers (I now can't work through ill health). It's like borrowing someone else house for a while…for as long as they see fit. Having owned a home I miss knowing where I am going to live and being able to feel settled.

What happens to people with variable incomes? If you are on a zero hour contract (or so a lot of overtime) you could earn just over 30k last year, but because of market conditions, only be on target to earn 26k this year.

If every tenant who earns less that 30k (outside of London) is going to submit their income details what is the expected cost of administering this? It seems to me that administering this change is going to cost more than you save/gain from it.

Regardless of the arguments of right and wrong, if this is the case then surely it's bad policy.

How would it affect people part renting, part owner but earning over £30000?
Surely they couldn't re negotiate the terms of the rent they have to pay when they agreed to part buy their house?

it's a terrible policy meant to patch up a terrible system. The only cure is prices coming down, but the government is unwilling to help that happen. I say this as a home owner.

Does it seem fair sweet, really? Do you honestly did you look at the calculations up thread from
wreck Tangled? Now imagine she had three dc? Her monthly outgoings for essentials would be a minus calculation.

We all have decisions to make with what we do with our resources. To say that Christmas/birthdays may be affected..I mean, really? Don't working folks who pay market rent have to make similar choices?

Short it's not a social vs private rent debate - sommany posters have already said that we shouldn't make this a race to the bottom. Anyway I'm confident a taper will be introduced or people will work less hrs- it makes more sense to do so

I'm fairly sure this policy will increase the benefits bill. Granted it does depend on how it is implemented, but it's no stretch to foresee that people will do what they can to stay under £30k/£40k. It's a very bad policy designed by people who either don't understand or don't care (almost certainly the latter) about the impact this will have.

I can only hope this will have a graduated scale once the 30/40k is reached. It will be brutal and virtually unmanageable for lots of people otherwise.

I know the point has been made about how it shouldn't be a race to the bottom, but I feel like it needs reiterating. This should not be about making sure everyone is in an equally shit position. Yes, the private renting arena is a pile of insecure expensive crap, but that shouldn't mean the council/HA housing is dragged into the depths to make it equally insecure and expensive. Everyone deserves to be secure and stable and that's what should be worked towards (will never happen though).

dangermouse this echoes a little what I said upthread. If rents are jumping up by £300 a month every year or so, you are presumably living in a very desirable area, like London / SE. Affordable housing is available all over the country if you go outside these areas. So making blanket changes to housing policy is a nonsense unless we make it economically viable (jobs, infrastructure) for people to move out of the SE.

'It sounds like an I'm alright jack attitude from those lucky enough to obtain social housing.'

It's a Keep BTL landlords Alright and Keep The Property Bubble Inflated' attitude. Private renting sucks, so let's make social renting just as bad so anyone who cannot afford to buy a property (an increasing number of people) gets to deal with insecure housing. That's a lose-lose policy. But hey, property values stay high.

Short no the calculations would mean the essentials could not be paid for not Christmas presents.
However I think that working families ( or unemployed for that matter) should be able to afford a gift for their child at Christmas.

If the cut of had been set at 100k for example, the pay to stay policy would be reasonable.
To call a couple earning 15k a year each " high earners" ( the consultation actually says " pay to stay for high earners" ) is laughable.

"I'm fairly sure this policy will increase the benefits bill."

And when it does, they'll have a nice big figure that they can use to tell us why we need to cut benefits some more. Plus increases in HB will just go straight to MPs landlords pockets. It's win win!

(Private renter here BTW, and I'm not happy about this either)

It's a Keep BTL landlords Alright and Keep The Property Bubble Inflated' attitude. Private renting sucks, so let's make social renting just as bad so anyone who cannot afford to buy a property (an increasing number of people) gets to deal with insecure housing. That's a lose-lose policy. But hey, property values stay high.

that's certainly what they are trying to do. But then why does the response here from people with whom I agree who say the housing situation is terrible, to just focus on social housing? The problem is a general lack of housing, not a lack of social housing. People are saying we should have more social housing to have better tenants rights. That's the slowest most expensive way of getting better security for tenants. The easiest most effective way is to do this is to make private tenancies more secure. you will reduce the pressure on social housing because people won't want them simply for security.

I haven't read the full thread but could someone please tell me if this affects secure tenant's? We would be just over and no way could we possibly afford to pay full market rent, it's scandalous, this government do not want hard working families to be able to better themselves in any way shape or form, I'm actually quite worried about this.

Does that mean that private rents could increase if it was a level playing field where rents are concerned??

dosent his just give shoddy landlords even more reason not to do repairs and keep the property in good repair,or am i getting this all wrong

i do not agree with raising LA rents going up and i say this as someone that is fortunate to have their own home so not at the whim of Goverments/LA/private landlords

'The easiest most effective way is to do this is to make private tenancies more secure. you will reduce the pressure on social housing because people won't want them simply for security.'

Or, as happened before the crash, overstretched themselves financially to 'buy' in order to have secure housing. But successive governments are not interested in reforming private letting, including the unregulated letting agents, because so many have invested in BTL.

Actually I don't think the Govt are especially interested in keeping BTL LLs happy - look at the changes to tax relief on BTL. What they ARE interested in is getting as much of the money as they can themselves, without reinvesting it into housing.

Meanwhile there's an ever increasing shortage of social housing AND private LLs will raise rents to cover their lost tax relief. So a worse situation all round for tenants, especially in the SE. Still, as long as the Govt get more cash to squander on high speed railway lines no one wants, they're happy.

Things will not improve until the Govt gets over its love affair with London and the SE and starts prioritising the economic development of other areas further north.

Or, as happened before the crash, overstretched themselves financially to 'buy' in order to have secure housing.

Right. who wants unstable housing prices?

But successive governments are not interested in reforming private letting, including the unregulated letting agents, because so many have invested in BTL.

of course not. If they are reading this thread, they will see that the people want more social housing, not more secure tenancies for private tenants. That'll take years. decades even. if people were yelling about private tenancies, and there are more of you now than owners, they would have to do something.

I think we need a massive social housing building programme.
This would save a fortune in housing benefit payments to those in private rentals and B 'n Bs and would also drive down private rents and put money into the pocket of private tenants either to spend or if they choose to save for a deposit. House prices would also fall if housing supply increased so homes would become more affordable to buy.
These new houses should all be Eco homes to reduce energy requirements for the uk and allow social tenants to have warm houses with minimal fuel bills.

Shitatusernames, yes this affects secure tenancies as well as assured tenancies.

I don't know why people think it would be so impossible to regulate the private rented sector, they've de-regulated it over the years and rushed through more than one housing bill to make social housing more insecure.

Bottom line is, there is not the political will to sort out the mess that is housing policy in this country.

Scotland has made an effort. It's abolished RTB, building social housing and has rent controls. Letting agents are also not allowed to charge tenants all the fees that those in England do. Put together, it makes for a more stable lettings market. It's not perfect, but who could say that what's happening in England is going to make things better?

Has the so called 'bedroom tax' made things better, freed up lots of large social housing? No, because ultimately there aren't enough smaller homes for people to downsize to. You have the ridiculous situation of housing associations knocking through bedrooms to decrease the number so tenants don't have to pay the extra. Other housing associations have demolished properties as they're not suitable for the people who actually need housing in their area.

As I said before, along with the other changes to housing benefit coming down the line, things don't look great for social housing and those who rely on it, low earners, disabled, those with problems etc. I don't see private landlords welcoming them with open arms. And if they did, with the housing benefit cuts they couldn't pay the rent.

The Government has the landlords up in arms at present as any landlord in the 49% tax bracket who has a loan on the property after April runs the risk of having to pay tax on rent/ profit they do not receive - a very novel tax position for the staet to put people in. That will lead after April to fewer people buying to let so fewer homes to rent around (but perhaps more available to buy). After April there is a whopping great 3% extra stamp duty - something like £12k for many buyers to find extra and second home owners. Again hardly Tories helping buy to let landlords. No Government has done so much to damage landlord interests as this Tory Government.

Another issue is we have loads of emkpty property all over bits of the North inculding where I am from - NE, never mind houses in Liverpool going for £1. UIt is by no means the case that we don't have homes. It is just that we don't have them where there are jobs. We trying to get jobs up North - Northern Powerhouse etc but it's not been easy.

I would support moving those who are not going to get jobs to areas where property is very cheap to rent.

As for giving longer tenancies you can. My daughter would have loved a longer tenancy given to her tenants but they were young doctors in London who get moved around so very much that more than a year was not something they were prepared to consider. There is nothing to stop any landlord and tenant agreeing even a 10 year term trouble is the tenant might move in a partner who smashes the place up or plays loud music every day or the landlord might move from paying 5% interest on mortgage to 12% ( I remember paying 12% and have to sell. So very long terms tend not to suit people on both sides.

And £30k - £15k each in a couple - is well above the average family income by the way. So I don't think that is an unreasonable level below which tax payers will not subsidise someone's rent.

If the cut of had been set at 100k for example, the pay to stay policy would be reasonable.
To call a couple earning 15k a year each " high earners" ( the consultation actually says " pay to stay for high earners" ) is laughable

agreed