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.

That's not what a subsidy is.

when I said preferential I mean below market. when you price something below market, you have to decide who gets it by some criteria.

here is the first sentence on subsidy in wikipedia.

A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.

I really don't know what would qualify as a subsidy if social housing let at below market value doesn't qualify.

I think everyone is a little hung up on the word subsidy. What about if it were referred to as a discount?
It is a question of opportunity cost- the market value of the rent is greater, so it is being offered at a discount. The problem is the lack of available housing that does mean they can't afford to have tenants receiving a discount to stay in houses others need more, while those others have to be temporarily housed in expensive bnb alternatives. So the relevant cost of giving those tenants that discount isn't the £ cost of giving a 60% discount, it's that plus the extra costs of meeting their statutory duty to house others when the purpose built cheap solution to that problem is not available due to it being occupied by those who once qualified but wouldn't today.

I would say this move is intended to free up housing not to make money, as I can't imagine many people would want to stay put if there were somewhere nicer for the same price. The benefit to the state would not be getting an extra 60% rent on certain properties, but having those properties available instead of wasting public money on short term expensive temporary accommodation. Of course, if people did choose to pay to stay then they still win as they are no longer offering the discount/opportunity cost on that property.

this is the problem with giving people access to housing that is in extremely high demand. it's much easier (and more fair) to subsidise things that the government can provide on a more equal basis (transport subsidies, cash etc). the problem with housing is any time you help someone when the market is this tight, you necessarily hurt someone else.

How about instead of using the word discount you use the word fair.

how does the word fair apply?

Fair to whom? Certainly not the people who need one, and can't have one, because there are two middle income folk hogging the subsidy discount for themselves when they don't qualify for it anymore.

It isn't a discount either. Well, it certainly wasn't intended as one anyway. Social housing rents were only intended to be fair- not cheap.

How did we (as a country) get into this ridiculous situation of thinking charging 18 thousand pounds a year in rent was the norm, and acceptable thing to do? It wasn't that long ago you could buy an entire house for that FFS.

The minimum wage is 14k a year. You can barely rent a small flat on the take-home pay for that round here- nevermind wanting such bourgeoise luxuries as food and heating.

they haven't abolished the right to buy in Scotland yet, currently people can buy their social housing property until the 31st July 2016

From the 1st August 2016 the right to buy in Scotland will no longer exist.

we got into this ridiculous situation by pushing up demand (housing benefit, subsidised but limited social housing, low interest rates, population growth) but constraining supply (ridiculous planning laws, nimbyism, green belts).

In our local area, a housing repair will take 31 days to be repaired, if an emergency it will be seen within 24 hours, 3 working days and if it can be carried out within the 3 days, then it will if not, more so for heating, heaters will be delivered. Also most of our properties have a secondary form of heating.

All this is explained in the tenancy agreement at sign up.

The reason it can take up to 3 days is we have to prioritise vulnerabilities, illness and the elderly. Personally I think this is fine, and as it should be.

some HA/councils can take a month for emergency repairs to be carried out due to government cut backs.

If I had a house worth £300k and I sold it to my friend for £100k I would be giving her a discount on its true value, it wouldn't suddenly be worth less because i chose to charge less, its market value would be the same. In fact I would probably have the taxman querying the sub optimal transaction. And that house value is not based on the cost of bricks and mortar that make it up(ie people saying social housing has already been paid for), it is supply and demand and how much someone is willing to pay for it. Whether that is a rental cost or a purchase price, it is simple economics.

If I choose to rent said house to my friend for £200, which covers all my costs, when the market rent would be £1000, I am again offering a hefty discount. I can see why people object to the word subsidy. But I do think discount fits.

However, I do agree that 30k seems low for a cut off. In April at 7.20 nmw, a couple both working ft nmw jobs could just slip over with a few extra hours/small bonus. Given the actual living wage is supposed to be much higher than nmw, that suggests they wouldn't be earning enough to live. Perhaps the cut off should at least be based on the actual living wage x2?

It would also seem unfair if it was a single cut off with no staggering, as if someone was suddenly expected to pay £500 a month more, that's £6k a year. If that couple was only just over the threshold it would disincentivise them working

Jamie there are people in HA properties who have gone months without heating and hot water....in some cases over a year.

My neighbour has a buckled floor from the two floods shes had in the space of 3 months

Flood 1 was caused by them putting in two rads one of which leaked.
Flood 2 was caused by the boiler blowing. She had a new one fitted 5 days later but they were going to make her wait a month.

The floors are blown. Its like walking on cobbles. The kitchen ceiling in the flat below is also damaged.

They arent even coming out to do an assessment until late April.

We got into this situation because we have for the past decade built our economy on asset prices, everyone from the national media to your adveredge joe was fed the you can't go wrong with bricks and mortar and was generally happy with this providing the banks where willing to fund the purchase.

No body cared pre crash that adveredge homes where already reaching stupid multiples of joint income as their own 'on paper' wealth was increasing, a lot of our current issues with the UK can be reduced to putting a roof over your head. The problem is that no one will vote for a party who would really tackle this problem, that's if any political party is willing to tackle the problem directly.

TBF to the Tories they are trying to skim the edges, and are trying to take on both sides of the coin, increased tax/reduced allowances on BTL, relaxing of planning laws and this proposal of asking those that can afford to do so pay market rent or move on from socail housing.

Secure tenancies etc in the private sector are another arm that needs tackling but even then they are not the silver bullet either.

We need more houses in general not just socail housing, flood cities,commuter towns and create new towns to release pressure, but as I said the main opposition to this is the electorate across all political stripes.

I say this as a home owner.

I never said there wasn't Helena, but for every bad story you found from 2010 or whatever date, I can find 10-100 more positive outcomes, every service provide has its negatives, but they could for less than 2%.

I did type a long post out but can't be bothered with it all, you hatred towards council and HA shines throughout the venom in most of your posts tbh.

I dont hate them Jamie Far from it. I do realise that not all HAs are like it.

There are some bloody good ones out there.

A lot of the problems are caused by some of who they sub contract work out to.

Things like gas safety go out to tender and companies bid for it and the cheapest usually gets it. Then the company realises it cant deliver for that low amount but its too late. The HA is locked into a contract.

And some of the experiences are very recent.

I did say upthread that in the case of one company it has got so bad that a councillor has set up a fb page.

Not all HAs are like it though. Perhaps i should prefix all my future posts with this like when we have to say #notallmen on the feminism board.

Its not venomous to tell the truth about whats going on.

#notallHAs!

But I do think discount fits.

government discount for economic or social reasons? Where I am from, that's called a subsidy.

This nails it.

"Im a tenant....a loser by todays standards. But i wont shut up"

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/dec/01/tenant-identity-social-housing-government-scrutiny

no one said tenants are losers. They are the big losers in all the shenanigans the government is playing. I feel for them. all of them.

The argument on here makes me laugh, yet again the higher ups have got is squabbling amongst ourselves. This isn't to make people give up their council house, this is to funnel the money lost by the government a few years ago when they gave up their chunk of SURPLUS SH rents generated when they stopped the council grants.

Nobody in their right mind is going to give up their council house. I certainly am not! I'm not paying for the house, I detest this big cold house with its asbestos in every room. The ceilings lifting and the floors sinking... Shaky pretty sure it's moving house...I'm paying for the secure tenancy.

Nobody is going to willingly go into the private sector, especially when they're just going to be paying the same but could be hoofed out at any time. Why do people think this is going to free up housing?

The government are lying cunts looking down on the plebs squabbling amongst themselves.

We are Borg or we will be eventually

chili that was the title of the article.

I know. I don't know who is calling them losers. who is the author responding to? no one, I think.

chili you are being disingenuous There is plenty of "othering" of tenants going on on this very thread as well as previous ones like on the council tenancies for life thread just over two months ago.

not by me. I don't object to social housing done on the scale here because I think tenants are losers. I object because I think it hurts most tenants.