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.

www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/willesden_pensioner_forced_to_live_with_no_hot_water_and_heating_for_seven_months_contracts_pneumonia_1_1389701

GabiSolis- maybe it works out at about 40% of market rent where you live, it's entirely possible.

Rental generally would'be:

General needs and sheltered- traditional social housing provided for people in housing need. Those who need a particular type of property (accessible, with on site support) or those who need housing and can not obtain it in the private sector, which would be your traditional council housing (although often now provided not by the council but HAs)
These rents are generally £100-£150ish a week and often paid by housing benefit. They would be subject to pay to stay

Affordable rents is a type of sub market rent and there are many others- those are for low earners. Usually, you must be working to get an affordable rent. It's 80% of market rent. You can also get affordable housing via shared ownership and many other schemes. They won't be affected by stay to pay (and aren't, as far as I know, offered by councils)

To be fair to the Tory voters, they were misled about the scale of everything planned. Surely people weren't that daft or naive about the Tories? I say that as a Scottish person

I think this could have been a beneficial policy IF the extra money raised would be put back into social housing. I don't believe in lifetime tenancies for all social housing tenants, because like others on this thread, I know people who have benefitted immensely from this at the expense of people who really need that accommodation now, simply because they got there first. In an ideal world we would have lots more social housing; in reality we don't have enough social housing stock to give lifetime tenancies to everyone, even when their circumstances have improved.

It all needs to be part of a wider strategy that moves employment opportunities out of the SE. Lots of areas ok Britain still have very affordable housing; the problem is that people are unable or unwilling to move out of the SE. I'm a LL and the rents in our area are under £600 pcm, which includes many of the charges. The housing stock is well maintained too, even at the bottom end of the rental market. Because house prices aren't rising so astronomically most LLs are playing the long game and houses aren't sold for a quick return. Good tenants can stay for a long time in the same house and LLs decorate and keep them comfortable.

Of course the change in BTL tax allowances means a lot of LLs will simply put up their rents to cover the loss. And yet I have seen tenants cheering about this in a 'stick it to the LLs' way, even though it's going to have a direct impact on tenants' rents

I did have the article and now I can't find it! Will look and post a link. It basically said they didn't want adult children who were saving for a home to be disadvantaged or elderly with high earning adult dependents living in the same property.

in Britain, not ok Britain

maybe they like the security of their house and who could blame them?

Maybe they do. Or maybe they quite like having SEVERAL THOUSANDS of disposable income a month to piss against the wall on flash cars, expensive holidays, jewellery, wine, whatever. I'm sure they do. Wouldn't everyone like that? Doubt many would say no.

But is it fair that they are stopping someone who desperately needs their housing costs to be subsidised to give them a chance to get on their feet, someone who can't afford to feed their DC despite working hard every day because their salary is so low, to say "no, sorry, you and your DC will need to sleep on your mum's sofa because it wouldn't be fair to stop Mr & Mrs 80k from being able to jet off to Vegas every year".

Honestly, where there is a limited number of subsidised homes, they must be allocated to those who need them most. I don't get how anyone who isn't selfish to the core would think they should keep one when they don't need one. Talk about I'm Alright Jack.

Disgraceful.

Mrsjorah- HAs will be putting the additional income into building more housing. But I don't think many HAs will adopt it, it's too much hassle

Helena, why are you so obsessed with boilers on these threads? Private renters also have boiler repairs included in their rent (as you put it), that's not the preserve of SH tenants.

Homeowners also have problems with boilers, and people not turning up to fix them when they say they will when they've had to take a day, or two, or three off work, and doing a rubbish job, and paying a fortune for it.

A mortgage doesn't come with a brand new, will-never-break-down boiler.

I was wondering that too Aye

I also think what this will succeed in doing is (further) stigmatising HA/council tenants as people will know they are low earners

@lostinmysoul the law changed about May last year to allow Council Tenants to buy after 3 years and you don't need a deposit.

Because of the terrible service that tenants are getting and the attitudes.

If it is just as bad for homeowners and homeowners are also forced to have workmen not of their choosing in their homes AND homeowners are also being told to claim on their contents insurance because a workman not of their choosing has flooded their home then obviously the laws need an overhaul.

But is it fair that they are stopping someone who desperately needs their housing costs to be subsidised to give them a chance to get on their feet, someone who can't afford to feed their DC despite working hard every day because their salary is so low, to say "no, sorry, you and your DC will need to sleep on your mum's sofa because it wouldn't be fair to stop Mr & Mrs 80k from being able to jet off to Vegas every year".

Honestly, where there is a limited number of subsidised homes, they must be allocated to those who need them most. I don't get how anyone who isn't selfish to the core would think they should keep one when they don't need one. Talk about I'm Alright Jack.

Sure. But once you make estates (and if councils are forced to sell off the more desirable properties, it will only be estates that are available) the preserve solely of the genuinely poor, then the stigma attached to living in one will be massive - you'll end up with a situation where anyone who has a choice votes with their feet and does anything to avoid living there. Our local authority actually reserves a specific proportion of their housing stock for families in longterm, consistent employment, for this precise reason. If you make social housing solely for the desperately indigent, and move them out and on as soon as they aren't in dire straits, then you will end up with ghettos of extreme poverty. Which is bloody unfair for those with no choice but to live there - not helpful to send in a job application from an area everyone local knows is the sink estate, is it? And no, that shouldn't be how people think, but nor should any child grow up in poverty, or indeed any adult live in it. We have to deal with the world as it is - and poverty is horribly stigmatised. Mixing social housing actually lifts some of that stigma from the people who do, as you say, need it.

The answer to this isn't booting out the better off tenants. It's banning them from buying state assets at an individually subsidised price - social housing never used to be at a huge premium, because there was a lot of it around.

sleeponeday there are claims online that a certain heating company with one of the contracts sees tenants as "social housing scum"

ayeamarok

i just think people should have the option of ha/council housing if they want it

this whole thing could be solved by building a shit load more council houses which would have a double whammy effect of housing the needy and cooling the housing market, making buying and private renting more affordable. but these fucking self serving cunts will never do that will they

i don't blame anyone who hangs on to their secure home and i would do the same if i didn't have a mortgage (which btw i have been pushed into getting because of this very policy ....my mortgage is a couple of hundred a month less than what the "affordable" rent would have been on my old council home)

AyeAmarok.... brilliant caricature of all social housing tenants there. FYI, I was brought up in council housing and have brought all my children up in council housing. We've never had much money but I've always worked, even if part time. I don't have a degree but one of my children went to Cambridge, another went to Kingston Uni and is now a teacher. The other 2 have good jobs. I know many people the same. I'm sure neither you or I know all social housing tenants, which makes neither of us qualified to make such sweeping statements.

Social housing is NOT subsidised. In fact, until fairly recently, council housing paid millions every year back to the govt in money from it's properties. My flat is 100 years old and has been paid for many times over. That's true of most council housing. HA's are funded differently but again, are not for profit. That doesn't make them subsidised.

Also, why is it those at the bottom of the pile who have to keep on giving up what's been hard won since WW2 in order to make others feel better. It's not us bleeding the country dry. When there's no alternatives, no housing benefit, no social housing then you'll really see rents soar in the private market. No competition for tenants, we'll have no choice. Same with the NHS, when it's gone there's nothing to keep costs in check.

The truth of the matter is, many of us live in properties that are now worth a lot of money, a result of a lack of investment in housing. We can't afford to buy them but we can live in them till we die and in some cases our children can inherit them, a bit like the old regulated tenancies. Except instead of Rachman trying to smoke us all out as he can't make a profit, it's the Govt and their class.

If a workman has flooded someone's home through negligence then they are liable.

Their contents insurer will be able to subrogate the claim to recover the money from the workman's public liability insurers if he has been negligent in the eyes of the law.

The law of tort applies to everyone, it doesn't discriminate based on who owns or rents their home.

Not that that is in anyway relevant to this thread.

Oh god Im really worried about this.... local market rates here are astronomical. Surely they can't just roll out the 30K without taking into consideration the wild variations in market rates across the UK?
How can it be fair if someone is paying rent in line with a local market rate of 500 and another family earning the same amount are expected to pay 1500+?
There is a serious, serious shortage of affordable housing where I live as it is so landlords have renters over a barrel in terms of rental rates.

AndNow, thanks for looking. I checked on the Joe Halewood articles and you are indeed right, it's the tenant/couple not any grown children.

mamaste your last post, spot on

I don't think its always a case of nastiness or selfishness with those who disagree with the unfairness in social housing. You could equally say those that gained social housing when they were in the circumstances to have needed it are being just as selfish with the 'i'm alright jack attitude cos i got one and am not giving it up'. Especially if there are people waiting who are in the position now that they were then.

A lot of it depends on who you want social housing to be for in a society, the most needy or not? FWIW our LA has a tiered scheme which is reasonably fair - points system for social housing based on most in need (but not longterm). Affordable housing to buy scheme where you must earn over/under a certain amount and get a hefty discount on the property but you must sell back to them at same % discount when you choose to sell (low mortgage, non-profitmaking but secure tenancy) Rent to save/shared ownership where you pay rent but accrue a % ownership or deposit towards full buy with same caveats at selling it back.

namaste99 that's a great post.

x-post aye , popped to loo mid-type

AyeAmarok.... brilliant caricature of all social housing tenants there.

No, I was quoting a specific example upthread where then smallspikyleaves said that the couple on 80k should be allowed to stay in their subsidised house as they like their secure and cheap rent and might not want to buy. So not a sweeping generalisation.

Social housing is NOT subsidised.

It is. There is a forgone amount of money that could be used to build more social housing, pay for services for the vulnerable, fix damp homes, etc. That is the opportunity cost of reducing rent. That is subsidised. It's basic economics and saying it isn't doesn't make it not true.

I agree we want to avoid sink estates, but there are ways of doing that which are a much better use of money that subsidising the rent of a couple earning 80k per year, like Social's in-laws.