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 do think people are unrealistic about their 'right' to remain in a particular area. You can only stay in an area if you can support yourself or be supported there. Otherwise you have to move to a cheaper area. It's why I keep banging on about the need to invest in the regional economy, to encourage people to move out of the SE. Ironically many of them would have a much better quality of life even on a low income.

MrsJorah

Yes, I agree with you.
We moved from NW to East Anglia when young as dh and my business did really well in that area.
When it wasn't so lucrative for dh we moved back to NW again, 12 years later.
It isn't easy whether renting or mortgage and especially when you have dc settled in schools, but sometime you just don't get to choose, it's tough.

We are happy we made the move and it was really positive and we looked forward to it, but even if we hadn't been happy about it, tough titties, it was move or go under.

Of course not, just saying you can't know people's financial circumstances just cos they're in bed all day or out all night.

But yes, I agree, it's good to get lots of points of view..... :)

I think the Northern Powerhouse was a great idea, spreading work out a bit, but it looks like it may stop before it's really started.

*Deo 'I would support moving those who aren't going to get jobs to areas which are much cheaper to rent'

Are you being serious in saying this?
First off do you include pensioners and the sick and disabled in this?

Who decides they should be shipped off to 'poor town' ?
So would the job centre takes one look at someone and decides they will always be a bum so ships them and their family off hidden away out of sight from respectable people who have a job who are entitled to live in nice areas!

Right to buy is suspended here until Dec 2019, and may be extended after that. So each area is different.

Who decides they should be shipped off to 'poor town' ?

the market?

we live in a wonderful country that makes it a point to house most people. That's a good thing. I don't want to see people homeless.

But does that really have to be in one of the most expensive parts of the world? As someone said, people can "slum it" is zone 5 and beyond. There are lots of people who live there not out of choice but because they can't afford something more central. What about those people?

something should be done about btl landlords and rent controls should be brought in.

Why think small? If we're going to lie to ourselves about what things are worth, which is what price fixing (rent controls) means, then think big. Why not pass a law that housing must be provided free to everyone? You may think that's crazy, but it's the principal of rent controls taken to its logical conclusion.

Having to move into a cheaper area to rent or buy is nothing new, I had to move from the area of London where I was born and where my family were in order to find somewhere that DH and me could afford to rent and save up for our own home and that was in 1972.

When we finally did save up enough for a deposit we had to move from the area in London where we were renting, because we couldn't afford to buy there and that was in 1980.

We used to have rent controls , don't be so ridiculous.

There aren't enough properties to house everyone. It's short by hundreds of thousands, probably millions.

So I don't understand why the small % of social housing tenants who aren't on the bones of their arse are the ones that are being penalised to be the ones to save those in desperate need.

It will effect and worry tenants who in the main are just working to pay their bills like everyone else. The few who are on big money and can afford to buy will. The rest of us will just have to suck it up I suppose and wait for the next policy designed to keep us in our place.

I would like to bet that there are more empty properties owned by foreign investors than there are social housing properties occupied by tenants earning over the threshold.

I would like to see it become compulsory that all homess are occupied rather than stood empty for years. And I would like to see rent control linked to interest rates. So thst the btl ll can still make a profit and it's still cheaper to buy but so that everyone whether renting or buying is on the same page.

Of course this won't happen. Be nice if it would though.

In the meantime an even bigger housing divide will be created.

London DOES need to be artificially mixed, socially, because I can promise you, there would not be any non rich people left. No tradespeople, pensioners (the normal ones!) few ethnic minorities, no hairdressers cleaners teachers firefighters police officers tube
workers etc. NONE.

However, London is only a small part of the country and MN is terrible for acting as though it's the whole of the UK. Most people don't even know what "zone 5" means. The rest of the country, a few hotspots aside, the market does dictate where you live. It would be a shame if everywhere was either weybridge or Clacton, with little in between.

So I don't understand why the small % of social housing tenants who aren't on the bones of their arse are the ones that are being penalised to be the ones to save those in desperate need....It will effect and worry tenants who in the main are just working to pay their bills like everyone else. The few who are on big money and can afford to buy will. The rest of us will just have to suck it up I suppose and wait for the next policy designed to keep us in our place.

yes :(

London DOES need to be artificially mixed, socially, because I can promise you, there would not be any non rich people left. No tradespeople, pensioners (the normal ones!) few ethnic minorities, no hairdressers cleaners teachers firefighters police officers tube
workers etc. NONE.

We value mixing, certainly. but endless welfare is the wrong way to do it. the way to achieve this is buy building homes and making it prices come down so all those people can afford to pay market rents.

So I don't understand why the small % of social housing tenants who aren't on the bones of their arse are the ones that are being penalised to be the ones to save those in desperate need.

because they are being supported by the state to live there by people who couldn't themselves afford to live there but want to.

I would like to bet that there are more empty properties owned by foreign investors than there are social housing properties occupied by tenants earning over the threshold.

buy to leave is a problem, but it's not big enough that banning it will solve the housing problem. we need it all - stopping buy to leave, more building, and less HB. that will bring down rents and prices.

London is crammed with people from all over the world. We have no labour shortages at all. We are bursting at the seams. We don't need large groups of people there in addition who don't want to and never will work.

It is the fact that normal workers who live out in the suburbs are paying to ensure some of those in the centre never have to work or only work part time that led to the Tories getting in in large part so we are more than happy if it's being tackled although I will only believe it when I see it. Someone successfully argued in court that being moved to Milton Keyens was beyond the pale! Yet normal workers have to move from Newcastgle to Manchester or London to Exeter or whatever for work. Why should those on state support have this special treatment?

As for rent controls we did try those and they really did not work at all. I was trying to rent at the tail end of them and people just had to live with parents all their lives or sleep on friends' floors as tenants got security for life and rents were fixed at ludicrous levels of £10. There was no property to let. It was only when the assured shorthold came out that suddenly there were properties to rent - that change really did help people who cannot afford to buy. We have the lesser of two evils today with no rent controls and in many cities including London there is huge pressure on rents as tenants swap around and move every year to try to get a better deal - definitely competition certainly in those parts of the market I've been involved with.

You have to accept that as a capital city London will always be significantly more expensive than the rest of the country. All the building in the world will not change that. And we need working classes in capital cities, they are the absolute back bone. A waiter on £7 an hour can not afford a £1200 a month studio flat in a desolate part of millwall

I would like to see figures comparing the numbers of empty London investment properties to numbers of social housing property lived in by people earning over 40k.

And the amount of properties stood empty because the owner is not willing to do it up to a habitable standard. Or doesn't want to rent it out. Or has the rent set too high. Or any other reason a property is stood empty while those who need one sleep on sofa's with dcs or in b and bs or can't be discharged from hospital or care.

Or the premises used as commercial property stood empty because town centres have changed. Or the empty land with planning granted but not developed because the owners can't get funding or don't think that the time is right. Or even the pensioners massively under occupying social housing who want to move but can't manage it. Instead of helping them move to a smaller property our council adapts it for them. There are genuinely empty bungalows and ground floor flats in our area that stand empty while the council spends thousands adapting family homes with stairlifts and shower rooms that the pensioners can't afford to heat.

There are loads of things that could be done to increase the amount of available houses in England. But instead of doing all these things we start promoting and engineering rtb, reduce housing stock further then say that a small % of normal, working class people will have the social house they live in already put at risk to allow 'those in desperate need' to take it.

Why can't we help those in desperate need more? Before they get to that position. And why make 'being in desperate need' be rewarded if you like with a more secure tenancy and then say 'don't do too well will you, you will have to move on if you do'.

And I have been in desperate need myself. Now we are doing ok and now I want to do better by working as well as dp, we might lose the security we have worked hard for.

chilli pepper a HA tenant who does not claim HB is not being supported by the state to live in their property.
Their home is owned by a not for profit organisation. It is not owned by the state.
The vast majority of council houses have been payed for many times over , the rent covers any maintenance and admin costs and still leaves a profit for the council. Also the council has a capital asset.
Again there is no subsidy if the tenant is paying their own rent.
If both tenants were instead living in private rented they may well need to claim HB which is a subsidy. Therefore the SA housing is saving tax payers money on HB. It also creates jobs for the council And HA housing staff and the contractors.

Christ this thread! I think I'll be happier when it happens so those doilys who keep banging on how they personally pay out of their pockets for SH who can't actually say how when challenged resting on 'well it's subsidised because it could bring in more'can shut their ruddy cake holes.

The real problem with poorer people being priced out of city areas is that they then have to pay for transport and they have to have time to commute which can be very difficult if you have a young family. This already happens in South Africa. Then the only people who will do these jobs will be young single immigrants. Which is of course fine if as a country we want a lot more immigrants while people already living here rely on benefits...

The very same people who are saying we should not have social housing & people on benefits are lazy shirkers are also saying we don't want more immigrants. They need to reconcile these points

The vast majority of council houses have been payed for many times over , the rent covers any maintenance and admin costs and still leaves a profit for the council. Also the council has a capital asset.

is everyone reading the same Labour leaflet here? Just because the property is paid for does not mean that it's not subsidised! if you are letting a property to someone for less than what someone else is willing to pay, you are losing money on a state asset. if that lost money belongs to the state, that's tax payer money.

Also the council has a capital asset.

which some people benefit from disproportionately.

Therefore the SA housing is saving tax payers money on HB.

that of course assumes we must pay HB. In fact, this is where your computation goes haywire. The council wouldn't be losing money on HB over social tenants if you include the lost opportunity cost of letting social housing for below market rent. if you include that cost, you of course see no loss in HB over social tenants.

It also creates jobs for the council And HA housing staff and the contractors.

bureaucrats pushing paper around provide no value. Why not use the money to build homes? Bricks and mortar add value.

You have to accept that as a capital city London will always be significantly more expensive than the rest of the country. All the building in the world will not change that.

memory really is short. A mere 5 years ago housing was much more affordable in London, and ten years ago even more so. 15 years ago even more. Going back to the crash in the 90s even more so. Yes, London will be more expensive than other cities, but what we are seeing now is unusual, and not a forgone conclusion.

The real problem with poorer people being priced out of city areas is that they then have to pay for transport and they have to have time to commute which can be very difficult if you have a young family.

Commuting? in a city of 12 million? The horror!

most of my working colleagues face this with young families. But they earn too much for HB.

It's affecting people outside of London!!

I just had someone do some repairs here who arrived on his motor bike. He had drive about 20 miles across London although he said he perfers jobs out here due to better air quality (!!) (I am outer London) and for some jobs in the city by the time you've paid for parking it is not adgantageous even if you live nearer by to the job.

We have absolutely no empty homes out here. People are even paid rewards to notify empty properties. I cannot think of a single empty one - zone 5. We have 3 new blocks of flats locally and every one is sold - they have not moved the people into them yet but that is because they aren't finished. It is only in a small bit of London in the £1m+ cost mark for flats that you get empty property and even there this Government's anti property new taxes 12% and 15% stsmp duty rates have killed that upper London market almost stone dead. In fact I don't think a Government Labour or Tory has done as much to deal with the housing issue as teh Tories and to stamp on higher value property owners and landlords since the 1970 and earlier rent acts.

Most of us who work or have worked in Central London even 30 and 50 years ago have always had to trudge in on the underground for at least an hour a day for work. It's never been fun nor cheap. No reason those on benefits should not have to do it either.

London has always had periods of high and then low populations throughout history and property crashes and then massive rises. It is just how it goes. At present in my part we have a rush to buy around the up to £500k mark and no flat costing up to £350k is on the market more than a few days. That may change in April when the stamp duty changes come in for buy to lets.

I think I'll be happier when it happens so those doilys who keep banging on how they personally pay out of their pockets for SH who can't actually say how when challenged resting on 'well it's subsidised because it could bring in more'can shut their ruddy cake holes.

Nice

It's been explained time and time again. Both on this thread and all those which came before it.

That you are incapable (or unwilling) of understanding this does not make it incorrect.

SH/CH/HA rents are subsidised.

That you are incapable (or unwilling) of understanding this does not make it incorrect.

it seems like a big PR battle. of course it helps the cause to not class such things as subsidies when they obviously are.