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.

Certainly it is implied this will be enforced on current tenants. I'm a bit shocked that it isn't widely known.

www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/06/pay-stay-rules-families-council-homes-private-sector-rent

I think in an ideal world council houses should be for life, not just a stepping stone. They aren't subsidised by the tax payer, it's just that unlike private they aren't meant to make a profit, hence the cheaper rent. But until we do have enough to go round, I just firmly believe they need to be prioritised for the lowest incomes/ most vulnerable. (Which this isn't going to achieve).

The article I read said this policy was considered by the coalition in the previous government but with a cut off of £60k. That's a huge difference to what is now being proposed.

AtSea but why shouldnt they be permanent and for life assuming that the tenant wants it? Of course there is a massive shortage right now of affordable housing. But instead of saying 'right lets get tenants who are doing ok out and give them to the more needy" they should be building more homes that are affordable.

But they aren't they are selling off stock and making the existing stock less desirable to those who would add value to them.

And in our situation ( and I am in no way unique or a special snowflake) we just can not get onto the property ladder. In fact those that do use social housing as a stepping stone and are saving up to buy could be pushed further down the ladder as they will be paying market rent which might mean a deposit is forever out of reach.

Decent housing stock is an asset. The rent meets the cost of providing it and it will only increase in value long term. Once it's sold it's gone forever. And as the remaining stock will only be given to those in desperate need often relying on benefits and sometimes with chaotic lifestyles the houses will cost more to maintain, sink estates will increase and childhood poverty will increase.

Home ownership is not the be all and end all of everything. Not everyone aspires to it. But most people want a nice home and security.

If we have to pay market rent we have to. I will still have that secure tenancy and for that I am grateful. But it's probably only a couple of hundred pounds a month here. But many will definitely definitely struggle.

Those affected in London are going to be screwed and it seems so wrong that families will have little option but move further out.

My dh works in the area of providing research to gov and councils to gain affordable housing (I have name changed and will do again).
One of the biggest obstructions (apart from money) is campaigns mounted by local residents.
They hire QCs to fight their corner and drag the process out for a very long time.
They are mostly very wealthy older residents who don't want new housing near them 'ruining the area'. It's classic nimby behaviour and costs the council's huge amounts of money.
Quite often it is dressed up as being concerned about not having the infrastructure in place or flooding, although this is almost always catered for in plans.
I looked up one of the most voiciferous opponents to some stats that dh has provided for a wealthy southern commuter town. I found him on LinkedIn, he is a hedge fund manager. He doesn't care about social housing and doesn't want it near him.

wont the housing benefit rocket even further

i suppose these new policies wont affect pensioners again

Kirinm thanks for the link. It does say that it will be voluntary for housing associations. I can't see housing associations signing up to this. And I can't see how they could enforce it on existing tenants even if they did. I have scoured my tenancy agreement for anything that could mean that they could increase the rent depending on household income and there is nothing.

And unless I breach my tenancy they can't impose a new one.

And I don't see how they can legally enforce it on existing tenancies either. There are still the odd tenancies kicking around from when they had a massive overhaul of the Housing Act ( was it 1974?) and those tenancies are still valid (and pretty difficult to overturn if not impossible) and I believe permanent tenancies are very difficult to get possession on too.

I just hope it doesn't get through parliament. I bet it has been timed to deliberately coincide with EU membership and I bet there are a few more stinkers in there too.

It looks like there were arguments that councils should also have the option like HA.

I would like to think HA won't try to enforce it but I also hoped they wouldn't agree with selling of property via right to buy but they did.

It's hugely unfair and I hope it doesn't get through. As the article says there are over 200,000 households likely to feel the impact.

This really worries me. I knew a little about it before, but not tonnes. I have family who have been in a HA 3-bed place for nearly 20 years. They still need the three bedrooms so aren't overhoused. It's currently one elderly parent and two adult children living there. Neither of the DCs earn massive amounts, both on about 15-16k a year and neither named on the tenancy. Their elderly parent gets the state pension and a very small private pension (the latter worth less than £200 per month) so they would be just over the £30k with their wages and further over it if pensions are counted in the sums.

Yes, they are in a better position financially than probably many people but would struggle for various reasons to pay market rent on their house (can't be specific without giving away too much). They live in the home counties and the market rent would be somewhere in the region of £1100-1300 pcm.

Does anyone know if they would be subject to the changes? I know their tenancy is secure but the pay to stay would hit them horribly hard. Just wondering if the pensions would be counted in the calculations and whether it would be done on the sum income of the household or just the named tenant?

bim you make a valid point. But I think the emphasis is on getting people out of the 'state handouts' mindset and in to helping yourself. But I think you are right that there will be an increase in that gap and it'll widen for those who are capable of clawing there way out and those who are vulnerable and chaotic who will sink. I think there are so many uncertainties for the future of the Uk, not just government funding.

Marking place.

The 30k thing should be means tested...

So a single mum on 31k will pay market rent?

As will the family of 4 with 2 working parents?

And the two pensioners?

Gab - I don't know but I read another article where someone was suggesting his / her grown up son's salary (even though it was small) would be taken into account but I've not found anything factual yet.

They aren't subsidised by the tax payer, it's just that unlike private they aren't meant to make a profit, hence the cheaper rent.

they are subsidised because they could otherwise turn a profit (you hear this line all the time on MN).

This system we have is broken. if most people can't afford market rent, market rent is the problem. none of these "solutions" get at the heart of the problem - too many people for the housing stock.

I have family who have been in a HA 3-bed place for nearly 20 years. They still need the three bedrooms so aren't overhoused. It's currently one elderly parent and two adult children living there. Neither of the DCs earn massive amounts, both on about 15-16k a year and neither named on the tenancy. Their elderly parent gets the state pension and a very small private pension (the latter worth less than £200 per month) so they would be just over the £30k with their wages and further over it if pensions are counted in the sums.

eh so the 2 children are now adults earning full time and thats all fine and good but you expect them to be counted as to not make the home under housed but you dont think their wages should count if this scheme comes in

they cant have it both ways

Kirinm - I think you're probably right unfortunately. The only thing I'm hoping is that as they are in a HA house rather than council, it may not fall on them (at least as yet).

It's basically going to end up being social cleansing isn't it? If you can't afford market rent in a council/HA house (if HA's do apply it) then you sure as fuck aren't going to afford it in the 'open market'. There will be little choice in some cases for entire families to move away from the area.

Horrible policy that misunderstands entirely the position of social housing.

If the extra money went back to the HA to build more homes, then this would be a great thing. As it stands, it's OK, but flawed.

There aren't enough HA homes, so there shouldn't be lifetime tenancies. If people's circumstances improve, then they should gradually pay increased levels of rent until they are paying the market rate.

It's not fair that the taxpayer/HA subsidises the (opportunity) cost of housing for those no longer in need of it, when there are desperate people who can't get one.

As long as it's not a cliff-edge, then I agree with this. I hope the government put the extra money into new social holes, somehow.

seaside sally - I am simply trying to understand the position they would be in, not expecting anything.

seasidesally
Yes fuck it, lets force people to move around like chess pieces, and create 3 new smaller houses to house those 3 adults.
Then that 3 bed house can be allocated to a family with 2 children. Or something.

Social holes housing.

DYAC. But that gave me a laugh.

The issue re there not being enough council homes so there shouldn't be lifetime tenancies....the answer there is not to turf people out of their homes, it is to build more houses. And at the same time, do more to control market rent, which is utterly insane in some areas.

It's so predictable how the government are able to manipulate the general public into blaming the poor for being poor again.

Yep social tenant bashing is the new benefit bashing.

"eh so the 2 children are now adults earning full time and thats all fine and good but you expect them to be counted as to not make the home under housed but you dont think their wages should count if this scheme comes in"

In many cases the young adults will then be paying all or most of the rent Fair enough i suppose though this also means they will never be able be able to save for a deposit on a mortgage or a deposit on a private rent for themselves thus they will still need social housing as they get older completing the circle!!

And then they can be bashed when they become parents by ppl with selective memories.

Helena - yes that's basically the scenario. The DCs are supporting their mother with rent and bills. The are certainly not rolling in money - they and their mother clearly get no benefits, etc. I can't go into massive details about their specific situation, suffice to say it would be pretty disastrous for them if this is implemented. There is the possibility both DCs would be able to drop hours at work to bring them under the threshold but this would fuck them up in other ways (as it would other people in this and similar situations).

DCs in this case will never be able to save enough for a deposit so will never own their own homes. They are happy all living together which is good given the future prospects....