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.

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

dear gods,lets just make the North/South border bigger or just slice the country into regions

one for disable
one for single parents
one for pensioners
one or incomes over £100k

the list is endless

^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^

Also agree. I would even say lower than that. Upwards of £50-60k would be understandable. It is simply not true to suggest that a couple earning £30k between them are high earners.

seasidesally- social cleansing essentially isn't it? Disgraceful.

But shuld they get more state funds through a subsidy than a couple on £15k each who pay rent or have a mortgage? That is the issue. Whom do we help? Who is most deserving of help? Where should we spread the limited funds and how much are all of us as workers prepared to pay in tax for these purposes?

I had to move from the NE to get work. I had to bring up my children where I had no relatives around to help with them ever. Tghat is not easy but it is what those of us who pay the benefits and social housing subsidies have to do to ensure Janice who has never done a day's work in her life is never required to move 2 miles away from mother whilst enjoying her £26k (£34k before tax) of benefits for her large family which the rest of us cannot easily afford to have.

Deo tax payers are not subsidising anyone's rent.

Could it be possible that those of us in social housing who work are also tax payers? Is it also possible that with lower rent housing benefit wouldn't be needed?

It's not only unemployed people who are 'subsidised', everyone is. Every 'taxpayer' today could be an unemployed person tomorrow.

And if you seriously think anyone gets 26k in benefits you need to do a bit of research.

So if I get this right, people who earn f/t minimum wage have to pay market rent for their subsidised housing, not because it helps anything but because it's only fair on all those private renters. This 'extra' money will go straight to central govt not to the local council (who, lets not forget, are having their funding slashed year after year). So now we have a couple on minimum wage paying half their income in rent, not able to spend in the local economy.

Who has that helped? The private renter? Maybe, because now they can be happy everyone's in the shit. The council? Not really, they still lack funding, still have to sell off their highest value properties and send the money to central govt, still have to slash jobs and services. Local businesses? Not really, there's less money around and more risk to jobs. Maybe even those council tenants are at risk of unemployment because the economy's still rubbish. Maybe the govt is happier because they have the funds to subsidise those lovely housebuyer schemes that they love like 'help to buy' and homebuyer ISA's.... notice no one thinks that's a taxpayer subsidy!

Very simplistic I know, but I still fail to see how this helps anything. You still have the same amount of housing, and if the tenants lose their jobs they go back to lower rent.

HAs are not public providers they are private companies and thats according to the housing regulator.

speye.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/shove-your-housing-subsidy-where-the-sun-doesnt-shine/

seasidesally- social cleansing essentially isn't it? Disgraceful.

yes it is,i wonder how people can even think such a thing and express this view as if it's normal to think like that

We have a shortage of social housing. It is not wrong to provide that to the most needy.

(It is subsidised but the left likes to con us into thinking it isn't - read ppwww.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/social-housing-is-too-subsidised/]] )

As for no one being up to the benefits cap come around here! Even I would get £18k only in rent alone if I decided not to work again. Anyone saying no one receives £26k surely must know some people in London are up against the benefits cap already. We had some not too far away locals forced out of a £2m Hampstead property having to slum it in a £1.2m one because of the benefits cap - poor them.

Yes Helena, that's why there's been such uproar over housing associations right to buy. Basically the govt told private companies to sell their assets. They couldn't because they're registered charities or not for profit and their funding is secured on those assets.

Unfortunately, instead of telling the govt where to go, the bigger HA's did a voluntary deal and agreed to something which will have far reaching funding implications.

Who has that helped?

it will help the budget deficit.

It will help private renters by reducing demand. Those private renters that everyone here wants to throw under the bus.

dear gods,lets just make the North/South border bigger or just slice the country into regions

I honestly don't see anything wrong with telling people in zones 1 & 2 that if after 5 years they can't afford market rent, that it might be time to move somewhere cheaper. That's what everyone else has to do.

I dont understand how they can be private companies and yet have charitable status.

Well the benefit cap is 26k now so no one can get more.

From this year that's reduced to 23k in London and 20k elsewhere. Should be interesting.

the poor and vulnerable already live in the worst area's,how much more are they expected to give

Is this really the way a company with charitable status should behave.

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?341879-Flooded-out!

the poor and vulnerable already live in the worst area's,how much more are they expected to give

lots of poor people live in islington, camden, westminster and chelsea.

how many rich live in poor area's/estates

lots of poor people live in islington, camden, westminster and chelsea.

i very much doubt lots now the cap is here,oh where have they been made to move to,oh yes poor areas with poor housing

and im sure these area's were not all expensive years ago when they moved in but because of the rich their homes have priced the tenants out

thats fair is it

One of my daughter lives near Queen's Park. She works very very hard indeed full time and is surrounded by people up all night making music on the streets because theyc an sleep in all next day as they are on benefits. They have no need to live in zone 2. They could slum it out in zone 5 where I live surely?

Deo

Come on, you not afford to have kids, that's a bit of a laugh, you are loaded.
I guess you moved to the south because you wanted to, the NE on a nice estate, you could have been like Janice, close to family, not needing to live far from your mum? you had the same choices and probably a lot more than Janice

how much are 1 bed flats or rent a room cost in Queens Park??

do you know they are on benefits or is that a guess

There was a lot of laughter and noise and sometimes music coming from a house in a street near me at night circa early 2000s

It was a place of work. It was a sex chatline office and i know because i worked there back then.

You dont know that for sure Deo They could be working shifts and just letting their hair down. I used to finish at the chatline at 3am. Im sure though that if i lived near you you would just assume i had been out partying all night.

I never go out to work, you'd assume I don't do anything. I'm self employed though. My husband doesn't go out to work either. He's studying for a phd and is also self employed. What a pair of scroungers, the only reason we don't party all night is cos we're too old :) How can you possibly know the circumstances of every person on your street?

Oh come on are really trying to say that inner London has no people existing on benefits who don't work? Of course it does. I've met them. My other daughter has bought in a council block. I've chatted to her neighbours.

On Queen's Park transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/wardprofiles/Queens-Park-Ward-Profile-2015.pdf - interesting area as there are quite a lot of people who claim a lot.

A private one bed flat costs about £1400 to £1500 a month to rent. not sure what a council or social housing place would cost.

Anyway I think it's good if both left and right keep communicating on these issues as it helps people understand the position of others and why so many of us like these policies and voted the Tories in. If you don't like these policies then threads like this will give you information you can try to use to ensure Labour convinces more people to vote for it next time under Corbyn