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.

This would certainly affect us if our HA were to bring it in. Our home however is certainly not up to the standards that private rentals offer, no shower, 10 year old bathroom suite and kitchen, old woodwork on door frames etc the list could go on. I'm not particularly bothered about those things as we speak but I certainly would be if we were to be in the position of having to pay 'market rent'. We certainly wouldn't be getting a property that is maintained as well as what the market has to offer.

I'm currently a sahm but this is going to be another barrier that the government throw at us when I return to work, we will either have to manage our hours and income to fall below £30k or probably end up worse off with both of us working (again). It certainly wouldn't be difficult for our combined income to exceed that amount either.

Reducing the inequality between a family who are in social housing and a family in otherwise-identical circumstances who are not in social housing is a worthy goal.
Precisely - why should a family lucky enough to get into 'social housing ' be better off?

we will either have to manage our hours and income to fall below £30k

Social housing doesn't seem that lucky to me. No carpets, white goods or secure tenancy anymore. It costs alot to move around when you need to recarpet every move. Know private renting isn't a bed of roses either.

Its a ONE bedroom flat Deo. And i will always need it. Because i will always need a bedroom. It is not a three bedroom house.

In fact we turned down an offer to move to a two bedroom flat because when something happens to DH i would be subject to bedroom tax.

DH sleeps on a bed in the living room Because of his spasms we cant sleep in the same bed.

DH was a smoker too in the days when it was normal to smoke everywhere.

But dont worry Deo i do realise that i wont be allowed time to grieve. Thats another pastime reserved for the middle class and those on a high income.

'(and I write as someone whose parent died from empheseyma and lung cancer - although in her case it was her fault as she was a smoker which can make some of these issues even more complex).'

Wow, aren't you just a ball of compassion? How shameful to write such a thing about your mother, how is the issue 'complex' when someone dies from such horrid diseases which spring from addiction?

I did answer. I think the Government levels are reasonable.
and no, I'm not a social tenant.

Government levels you have lost me,do you mean the government levels for the criteria for social housing??

do you mean you support the criteria now for it

It certainly sounds like those in social housing who may be likely to have to move from there in a few years' time to make way for those in greater need should start planning now for a move.

I mean that the figures of £30k outside London and £40k in London that I believe are planned before people pay more rent seem ok to me. I'm not an economist, and I do despair at the price of housing, but I do not think that people earning that level of income should be entitled to our very limited pool of social housing.

thank you

yanbu

I'm sorry I'm not sure who asked the question about how/why the rent reaches a certain level, but it's because it's calculated locally as I understand it. Social rent is calculated to be 40% of the market rate and Affordable is 80%. So depending on where you live that could mean that rent varies wildly.

Apologies if this has already been said, I haven't read the whole thread. This legislation passing through parliament will have severe repercussions especially when put together with cuts already in the pipeline but yet to come into force.

The benefit cap - set to reduce to £500 pw whatever the size of the family. (of course this includes rent)
The reduction of housing benefit to the LHA - this means that any accommodation that costs more than the LHA won't be funded. It used to be that if you were in social housing then all your rent was 'eligible'. This has been sliced by the 'bedroom tax' but is set to be sliced further. What this means essentially is that any single person under 35, without children, will no longer have eligible rent more than the cost of a room in a shared house rate covered by housing benefit. Cue any person who has a social tenancy that costs more than the room in a shared house not having rent covered. Even if thats the cheapest rent available as social housing often is.
The LHA rate also doesn't cover any supported housing ie hostels, refuges, temporary accommodation for the homeless, sheltered housing etc. Even in the cheapest areas of the country. There will be massive shortfalls. The govt has said that DHP's will cover this but the figures don't add up.
As to pay to stay. This comes into force from April, and yes, does include current tenancies. What the govt are proposing is that social landlords charge the full market rent and then make tenants prove they don't earn enough. In fact, it's not just the tenant, its the household. If you have a couple and an adult child all working full time on minimum wage, you'll have to pay market rent. Actually, the govt have said councils have to do this but they've given housing associations the option. Councils have to send the extra income to central govt, housing associations get to keep theirs.
The short term tenancies (2-5) years will affect new tenancies from April, crucially this also affects mutual exchanges, downsizers and successions.

It's hard not to think that together with the benefit changes, the changes in housing point to the destruction of social housing. That doesn't just affect those of us in social housing now. It means, the only options in future will be expensive renting, forever, or a mortgage. I don't know about any of you, but even though I don't live in London, my 2 bed council flat will cost me £1200 pcm on the open market. It's over 100 years old and has been paid for many time over. This is vicious, nothing less. If it was to 'free up' housing for those who really need it, there'd be a plan to provide more affordable (really affordable) housing but there isn't.

What will happen when supported housing closes as it's not financially viable? Where will people live? I wish those who think this is a good thing would tell me because I can't see many options.

And before anyone tells me I should just pay market rent like everyone else, if they have to pay why shouldn't I etc etc I really wish I had. I wish I'd bought years ago but I believe in social housing. I don't see why we should all saddle ourselves with debt. But that's not what this society wants anymore, it wants an economy and we all have to flog ourselves to death in sh*tty low pay jobs for a pension that's moving further and further away.

For anyone who wants to read further, Joe Halewood is a housing professional who analyses and blogs about housing and benefits.

YY I mentioned Joe Halewood as well He knows his onions.

DV refuges WILL close

GabiSolis-

social rent set by a formula based on the income of a low earner (what would now be living wage ish, but was set under the housing act well before there was a minimum wage) in London it's far far lower than market rent, and this was based on the affordability of someone like a tube worker. It's not a % of market rent.

Affordable rent is 80% of market rent. But that won't be affected by stay to pay and it isn't social housing in the same way. It's a tenure product aimed at low earners who wouldn't qualify for social housing.

i really dont see the Tory logic in this at all

wont the HB increae,what sense does that make

will young adults be thrown out of supported housing

will refuges close

Not really the point of the thread but assumption that those living in private rents get better accommodation? Private re t as its unregulated is notorious for having shit holes with maximum rents!

The hosiery I live in currently is a palace compared to some but yet still the kitchen really needs replacing, the oven has a door broken, the integrated fridge freezer only the freezer works. I could go on but as I said compared to a few others it's great. And I pay well above housing benefit cut off for it.

Something does need to be done about social housing though. I have no idea what. But it's unsustainable for people to expect the property to be for life. Unless there is a huge build effort made.

Where I live there are lots of new developments being built (on flood plains which is another matter) and only one development has social housing being built in the form of shared ownership. And only 10/15 on a development of hundreds of homes. Everything else is £450k plus luxury homes. Where are the affordable and social housing?

Heres a point some wont have thought of. The companies with big contracts with HAs for doing repairs and gas safety work will be eventually losing those contracts or winding them down once the decimation of social housing begins.

its a big win for the companies chosen for the contracts because its maximum money and minimum comeback when they fuck up. This is why companies compete for these contracts It really is the goose that lays the golden egg.

But with social housing being slowly decimated the goose may soon stop laying.

That's not really accurate Helena. Contracts are not set up like that.

I think it's possible people are over estimating how many people will
Be affected by this. Most HA I am aware of won't even implement it.

Council housing is sadly pretty much gone but has been for a long time. HAs are having a bit of a boom
At the moment, but have always been sensitive to government legislation. They won't be going bust anytime soon.

Out of curiosity will this apply in Scotland, or is it an England only thing? Wont affect me but possibly will affect dsis.

I don't really know where I sit on this. All I know is that my husband and i have never used social housing, have never claimed any kind of benefit, pay our own way in every respect, live quite a modest lifestyle in comparison to some of our friends, are home owners and our mortgage is our only debt, do camping hols thrice yearly. The friends I mention in comparison have social housing, package hols several times a year, run 2 cars, have sky latest phones, new xboxy things, always dressed in latest fashion, eat out several times a week which we regularly decline and get ribbed for being antisocial! I don't want to see my friends tripped up by any changes in social housing and yet I know that extrapolate them by thousands across the country, there are a hell of a lot of people whose lifestyle is being subsidised by social housing they do not really need. Why do average families with two working parents need subsidised housing and yet their neighbours who earn no more pay full rate. It's completely illogical and unfair. At the same time I don't like the selling off of social housing. I think the relaxed right to buy rules are going to make things very difficult for people with a genuine Ned in the future. Why should people with a subsidised rent then get a discounted right to buy when their neighbour has to save for a full deposit while paying market rate? It's all such a mess. I don't see how it can be sorted without causing a lot of people a lot of problems.

Genuine need not Ned

"Reducing the inequality between a family who are in social housing and a family in otherwise-identical circumstances who are not in social housing is a worthy goal.
Precisely - why should a family lucky enough to get into 'social housing ' be better off?"
Yes it is a worthy goal therefore something should be done about btl landlords and rent controls should be brought in.
The I struggle so you should too attitude, is a selfish, nasty mentality.
You two posters should both be ashamed of yourselves.

hellish idea

Exactly HelenaDove, there will be repercussions.

And don't forget, if we're all just shovelling rent into the pockets of landlords, where's the money to go into the local economy?

Quick calculation, 30000 gross household which is approx 2250 take home without pension contributions etc. Take 1200 rent from that plus council tax which here is 120pm and that leaves just over 900 for everything a household needs for the month. Including saving for emergencies etc.

Of course, the theory is we could get better paid jobs but we're in our 50's, we both used to work in housing and benefits (Shelter and CAB). That work is no longer there. We can retrain, if we can afford it as funding for colleges has been slashed. What work is there for us to do?

I don't see a future for my kids in this country, I really don't. I've advised them many times to take their degrees and training and leave.