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.

If people are made to move every couple of years they are going to try and save what little money they have for the possible move.

They arent going to spunk what little they have on decorating.

In order to make social housing available to those who need it, there can't be a load of people who are there for life regardless of earnings or household make up. So I agree that something needs to be done.

But the threshold seems very low for a couple with children, maybe 1 ft and 1 pt or both ft on low wages. I feel £15K per person in the house (including children) would be reasonable, so family of 2 adults 2 kids has to earn £60k

I think there should be a loan scheme to help bridge the gap when people leave social housing to market housing, like a loan for deposit.

I don't know where they will move to though? If social sector Tennant's can't afford market rents it means they can't afford to go private and pay market rents. And there are many reasons people can't/won't buy. My dp is self employed in the building industry so work is seasonal and never guaranteed. We struggle to get all invoices settled on time and in full and he has had serious health issues over the last few years. This would make it difficult or impossible to get a mortgage and life insurance.

If I were to work even full time my salary is unlikely to be enough. So we won't be buying.

So we rely on social housing to provide a secure home for us.

I worry about improving our financial situation and screwing up our security.

Your secure tenacy will not be affected bimandbam, the pay to stay element will more than unlikely affect your situation though, 30k threshold is very low ( nothing to be sneezed at though I know!) and well timed with the national living wage.

More than likely*

Am a bit confused by this- I was under the impression the additional rent would be used to build new houses. If this isn't the case it actually has quite a big impact on a project I've been working on for years, cry

How will i know if i have a flexible or secure tenancy with the council. I have been a tenant for 9 years and have never had it revised or extended.

I only got my HA house in May, so am on a starter tenancy for the first year. Gosh, I hope I won't be affected...

I had no idea people on 30-40 grand could get council houses. That's us and we're considered high income in our area! (25% free school meals so under 16000). I know I don't know all the ins and outs of it but that seems an amazing income to still be paying cheaper rent than normal and to have guaranteed tenancy.

Wow, this is crazy, thanks for posting. The whole purpose of social housing is so organisations and companies can pay stupidly low wages to their most junior staff, but they could still live. This will mean that those on the lowest wages will have a rent increase, so it will disincentivise dual incomes or wage negotiations, so people will be encouraged to work in a way that earns the less than the minimum wage.. Which is pretty much the working version of the file. How can this possibly be good for anyone??

Teatime you wouldn't get a social housing earning £30-40k (or at least, it's not likely) but you could've got your council house say, 10 years ago when circumstances were different.

I have a friend who will be affected. He earns £60k. He moved into the house which his wife had qualified for, many years before as a single parent.

No we couldn't have got a council house 10 years ago in our area (I was earning less and looked into it but I wasn't "in need").

It does seem a bit mad that someone earning 60grand (or 40grand) is in council housing doesnt it?

We earn just about £30k between us and we do have a small amount of spare money each month (we save £50 but pay debts of about £200) but even if we didn't do that we still couldn't afford the private rent round here. I would work more but there's no childcare near by daughters school so I can't.

So, the Tories want you to pay them to stay in your home.

Here, Cameron; .

Oh, I see you already helped yourself.

market rate for a 2 bed here is 750-800, we currently pay 380 and my 20 hour a week contract brings us 1100 over the £30000, double rent so it massively affects things here :(

Thank you Stripey, I didn't think it could and I asked ha about it and they didn't know either.

30k isn't that much. We are under ATM but would possibly go over if I worked too. I want to work. Childcare costs make it difficult now but I don't want something else stopping me too. I also have an 11 year old DD. If she wanted to work at 18/19 and stay at home her wages could take the household income over too.

I make no apologies for living in a ha house. And I wouldn't if we were on 50k. We deserve a secure home as much as the next person. We pay tax, we pay rent and my dcs will contribute to society in a positive way too. We can't buy because banks don't like self employed builders with dodgy hearts and mothers who can't work full time as childcare costs eat all the profits and I can't ask my mum to help out for a few years. Mainly because she was born in September 1954 which means she has to work full time until she is 67 in the job that scarecly pays her rent.

And the building industry has been pretty screwed up for years mainly by the banks. The same ones who won't lend to us as we aren't a good risk.

There are all types of people who benefit from social housing for lots of different reasons. No one benefits from a lack of social housing. A need for more social housing is what has caused rents in the private sector to increase which in turn causes house prices to rise beyond the reach of many people.

This isn't just an issue that affects social tenants. It affects anyone who lives in the UK and it will impact massively on the next generation.

It will encourage people to work less.

I agree with the poster who says people will be less inclined to decorate or make their homes nice.

Here you have to carpet, decorate and provide cooker/ jobs plus all other fixtures and fittings.

Why should anyone do that and them be expected to stump up ridiculous amounts of rent for the privilege.

Why not stop people from owning more than one house?
Let ha buy up properties and rent them put cheaply.

Allowing more people to buy would also encourage people to invest in their homes.

Housing should not be a free market commodity it is a social need.

To think it used to be considered a good thing that people of all income levels could rent decent accommodation at an affordable price, with the rent and the asset remaining with the community and not enriching individuals or entrenching inequality.

Allowing people to buy more than one home pushes up prices resulting in more people having to rent

As I understand this, the changes affect everyone rather than just new tenants.

My only problem with it is where the money is going. If it was ploughed back into providing more social housing then I'd be 100% in favour. £30k may not be a fortune for private renting, but it's over double what some people are currently on whilst paying high private rent. Whilst there aren't enough social houses only right those who are most able to pay private rents should do so. And again while there's a shortage a positive change in circumstances shouldn't allow you to have lifetime tenancy of a house someone else desperately needs.

However, as its all going to Cameron central government, I can't see there being any benefit to those on low incomes, just needless negativity for those paying top ups/ kicked out.

It doesn't address the problem that is spiralling private rents. They're more than most mortgages.

In fact, my HA rent is more than most mortgages. (Nearly £700pm for a tiny 3 bed house.) Someone was renting out a studio flat down the road for the same price. And they wouldn't accept HB, obvs.

Kirinm where did you see that information? And how would that be enforced?

Bim - only in a news article nothing formal.

I think it's reasonable. Council houses should be a stepping stone for people who have fallen on hard times not for life.
But more needs to be done to tackle rising prices and people who have no chance of getting on the home owner ladder.