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.

Ah i see Fair comment.

What about the subsidy you get as a ftb on the new starter homes? 20% discount if it's your first home and are under 40? We won't get that if we wanted it. Dp is over 40 and we have both owned property in the past.

bim, I don't like any of these interferences with the free market even help to buy. They distort the market. I would even like us to abolish all tax reliefs from charitable contributsion to pensions contributions, patent box to film finance - it is just Governments meddling and doing no good.

Nobody in their right mind is going to give up their council house. I certainly am not!

Gamer chick really? Even if you were paying double or more and they not improved it so you were paying over the odds? IE they had brought it up to market rent but not market standards?

I wouldn't be able to save enough for the deposit on a private rental (usually about £1800-£2500 here) so even if our rent is put up we will be staying here.

Yes Help To Buy is also a form of subsidy. Although as I understand it, that's a loan that gets paid back.

But it does distort the market, and will keep prices artificially higher than they would otherwise be.

So I have been thinking about this (bearing in mind I have no personal experience of SH so just looking at the macro scale.)

It is quite a complex issue, largely because it is an inherited problem and an inherently political one.

1. people want to stay in SH for two reasons -a) because it is cheap/discounted/subsidised or whatever, and b) because of the secure tenancies.

The question then is if (a) vanished and market rent is charged, how many would stay and choose to pay it even though it wouldn't be up to market standards just to keep (b).

2. there are two political views of SH. The left wing 70s esque view that it should be a home for life for all lower paid. And the more right wing view that it should be an emergency fallback only for temporary use by those in most dire need. The Tory govt clearly view it as the latter, due to the depleted housing stock meaning there is simply not enough for everyone that wants but doesn't currently "need" one. In an ideal world the Tories would probably want a clean break to reestablish a new policy of SH as a temporary stop gap for the desperate. But of course they are stuck with the long term and permanent tenancies granted to those who are no longer in desperate need but who do not wish to leave due to (a) and (b) above.

So this leaves them with no houses in which to place the currently desperate cases, and have to resort to expensive b&bs etc.

They can't renege on the existing tenancies but they can do away with (a) and charge market rent so it becomes a less attractive prospect and tenants v vacate properties.

3. There is also a degree of complication with the mixture of SH and HB plus introducing a new separate threshold. So perhaps simplification would be better. They can't do away with HB and make SH free but only available to those in desperate need, due to the inherited tenancies. So the opposite solution would be to charge market rent, or even a premium, for all SH in order to make it less attractive to everyone except those in desperate need who would not be paying anyway. The govt would have to pay out more in HB for those, but that is just the government playing banks as it comes out of one pot and goes into another. Then they would recover increased rents from those that don't qualify for HB. And at least some of those would vacate the SH, giving them somewhere to place the desperately needy, and cutting the temporary accommodation spend. Win win. ( for the govt obviously, not the tenants )

It sounds like that is approximately what they are doing, if they are going to automatically charge market rent unless you specifically prove you don't earn enough, in which case you would get a discount back to the previous level. Of course, it has always been discounted, but this would make that more transparent to the end user.

I do think the £30k cut off is too low and a rather blunt instrument if it is applied as a single threshold. What I describe above would be more of an overhaul of SH and HB so that there would be more detailed assessments and you could qualify for varying amounts of HB to cover some or all of the new market rent amount, even if you were previously below the HB threshold when paying discounted rent.

What about the subsidy you get as a ftb on the new starter homes?

Yup. that's another subsidy that pushes up prices. So is Help to Buy. Ridiculous Tory policies. All it does is increase demand (of which there is plenty) and not address supply (which is what is lacking). It's just a way for this inept government to look like it is doing something. But it's in fact hurting the market. It's making the situation worse by pushing up prices.

Nobody in their right mind is going to give up their council house.

That's the I'm alright jack attitude I am talking about. Doesn't help those in private rentals at all. In fact, hurts the poorest of them.

I am not like Deo in rejecting all government interference in the market. Some of it can be good. The trouble is sorting out the policies that protect vested interests, and those that protect the average person.

The question then is if (a) vanished and market rent is charged, how many would stay and choose to pay it even though it wouldn't be up to market standards just to keep (b).

Market rent is whatever someone is willing to pay for the dwelling. If they are substandard, that will be priced in, and thus a substandard SH will go for substantially less than a well kept dwelling (SH or not). Market rent isn't a fixed number.

The complication will be if SH is still more secure than private tenancies. that will push up the market value of them as people may be willing to pay over the odds for security.

But it boggles my mind why we stand for this two tier system of security. The pressure on social housing is high because private rentals are so bad. That's where we have the most power to fix things, if only the political will was there.

Bedraggled heat post, completly agree. That's how I understand it, I was going to post something to that effect bit it got too fiddly on my phone! You put it very clearly.

Heat? *great!

But how many people with a mortgage are saying 'I'm alright Jack' while the base rate and subsequent mortgage rate is low, so paying significantly less per month fir their housing needs? Or the btl landlords who bought property when the arse fell out if the market and have small mortgages and charge high rent?

I have never known a btl ll reduce rent when the interest rates were low. They just make more profit that year. Very few reinvest in the property and I don't know any who have ever reduced rent because their costs went down. And I worked in the industry for a few years.

So social housing tenants are told they have the wrong attitude for wanting security for their families whilst anyone who owns property is allowed to benefit from low interest rates because they have their name on the deeds.

What does worry me more than the small % of social housing tenants on big wages is when interest rates start going up. All of a sudden you are going to have a lot of people who own property getting uncomfortable. Add to that the interest only mortgages taken out in the 90's and early 00's and I can see another crash coming.

This will havr another adverse affect on the private rental market. Lanldords have lost tax breaks so will I hink start increasing rent again 'because rates have gone up'.

This is why we won't buy. Not because we couldn't affod a mortgage right now, or for the next few years but because dp is a builder and we are the first to syffer when the market tightens up.

The problem if they put up rents, is that no one is going to give up a secure tenancy for an insecure private rented one.

I totally agree . Who is going to give up a secure tenancy for the potential unscrupulous tenant that puts their rent up at a whim or the fear of eviction for whatever reason. Hiking up the rents of social housing will do nothing except give the government more money to fund their pet projects and make them look like they are trying to create a balance. Its nonsense.

But how many people with a mortgage are saying 'I'm alright Jack' while the base rate and subsequent mortgage rate is low, so paying significantly less per month fir their housing needs?

on this thread or RL? I was responding to the attitude on this thread. What i am trying to point out is that people seem fixated on social housing when the whole rental market needs help.

as for mortgage rates, they need to go way up to restore sanity to the market. and I say that as a mortgage holder.

Low interest rates are the real culprit here.

Low interest rates are the real culprit here.

makes buy to leave and buy to let much more attractive. what could go wrong?

It's an 'I'm alright jack attitude' to want to hold onto secure housing and not choose to go into insecure ? Really? Fuck me I am actually in the twilight zone

I don't read anything attractive about private renting anywhere ever and there's no shortage of SH here.

It's an 'I'm alright jack attitude' to want to hold onto secure housing and not choose to go into insecure ? Really? Fuck me I am actually in the twilight zone

I know gamer its like banging your head against the wall on these type of threads isn't it ?

YY gamer and spiky Its ridiculous. My SH home is a one bedroom flat. There is a shortage of those in both SH and private. Me and DH have been in this flat for 22 years. We didnt go sprog farming so are still here. Because ive never wanted kids. He had two in his first marriage so left it totally up to me.
We are always hearing how if ppl cant afford kids they shouldnt have them blah blah this and that.....yet when someone on the lower economic scale does decide not to have them.......nope still not good enough. Now get out of your flat and go and live in an insecure rental.

This flat is ONE bedroom so the bedroom tax didnt apply to us.

That policy has obviously worked really well though as they havent come up with anything else.....oh wait

Anyone worried about this should check their tenancy agreement is they are in a housing association property. I have checked mine today and it can only by 2% of the rpi, or 2% of the average uk wage or 10% of the weekly rent figure. I think. Was supervising toddler feeding the dog fishfingers at the same time.

Anyway. There are caps by how much my ha can increase my rent by each year. And even call me dave can't change that fact.

I also have an assured tenancy so I can't be evicted unless I breach my tenancy.

However, it's still a massive worry and a massively unfair rule to apply. Especially when the 'compensation' of help to buy are only available to some.

And I say that as someone who was in pretty desperate need of social housing for 9 years and spent 7 of those 9 years in a damp, freezing cold property that cost significantly more than a council house. But I didn't begrudge any council tenants the property they had or wish they would get priced out of the market.

Landlords with mortgages tend not to make any profit actually, never mind rake it in. If but only if the value of the property goes up (ours went down to much less than we bought at by the way) they may make a taxable capital gain on the sale but that can just as easily be a capital loss. After the interest rate tax changes for 40% tax payer landlords after April some may well sell as plenty will be taxed on profits they don't make. Whether that will help the position of tenants remains to be seen.

Where do you get your figures from Deo?

I worked for a btl ll. His portfolio of 23 consists mainly of 3 bed houses in decent areas. His profits for each of the 3 years I worked for him ranged from 70-110k. And that was with interest only mortgages. That wasn't including any property increasing in value.

A lot of accidental landlords don't make anything. They cover costs not including property increasing in value. Some lose money. Some shouldn't be landlords.

But ime (I worked in the industry) most professional landlords make money. Especially while interest rates have been so low.

LOL that LL with mortgages don't make any money

one of my work clients is a professional LL and he is a multi multi millionaire

where did the extra "multi" come from?

Helena I am glad to hear you and your dh have a HA flat, its notoriously hard for families without DC to get one (very unfairly) . you are doing right hanging on to it x

what is just SCREAMING out at me on this thread (and basically every conversation / article / discussion I see or hear bout this subject) is BUILD MORE COUNCIL HOUSES ....but as I say the self serving cunts will never do that will they cos then the little people will have nothing to scrap over