To think these changes to the housing waiting list are not “cruel” but simply realistic?

[Eastie77Returns]

Our council has announced changes to the local housing waiting list from next month. There are tens of thousands on the list who will never be housed as they are not deemed to be in urgent need so they will now be removed.

The council has said they will be offered “personalised support to explore their options” which probably means advising they leave London, advances to help with private rent etc. I understand in many cases that is really not helpful but a close relative of mine who works in housing has been on the phone to me in tears because of the level of abuse she has faced from frustrated residents who have been on the list for years and are being removed.

Now a parent from DD’s school is organising a march on the town hall to protest all of this and has asked parents for support. She has been offered a council house 100+ miles outside London and is refusing to leave as her support network is here and I fully understand that. However, I do think a dose of realism is needed. There are 15,000 people on the waiting list here and a few hundred council properties become available each year. This parent has been told she does not fall into the 3 bands that will be kept on the list so she will never get a council house and she has responded by accusing the council of unimaginable cruelty

I don’t understand where she expects the council to magically just find thousands of homes and change that situation?

So who are deemed “worthy” of being in London, then?

There is no fast solution to years of underperformance.
Put simply we need more SH.
We don't need this race to the bottom to service the most desperate.
Social housing as it was intended is such a huge benefit to our society but this pseudo poor housing what we have now will always carry problems.

This sort of cleansing has been going on for years in London, moving the poor out of area.
Only the rich are welcome.
Look at Grenfell, they knew the cladding was hazardous but didn’t care and when it all burnt down hardly any, if any, of those residents were rehoused in London.

It is none of your business how someone in need of social housing characterises their feelings in the matter, OP

I think the council are just being realistic. It's not as it they can magic up more houses (this requires government level action and investment, rather than local level) and it's better to make people on the waiting list aware of that.

People who will never even qualify to be on the Council Housing waitlist have to leave London for financial reasons all the time! It's a bit pathetic accusing the Council of cruelty, just 'cos they can't magic her up a property probably worth the best part of a million pounds. This isn't a problem that only applies to the poorest, nor is it a question of deciding who is 'worthy' enough to be in London, as one poster upthread out it.

Good idea from the Council. Lots of people need to move away from their support network.

@P0ntiacBandit

So who are deemed “worthy” of being in London, then?

I don't think it's a question of worthiness to live in London. Plenty of people don't want to live here and have left. The issue is there is a massive shortage of SH in this particular part of London so people who have no chance of being housed by the council are being advised of this fact. This seems better than giving false hope by leaving them on the waiting list.

Nothing wrong with a march and it gives people an outlet for their frustration.

You couldn’t pay me to live in London but I wouldn’t want to leave my friends and family to move 100 miles away.

How did that happen btw? Her council can’t have taken a house from another area and offered it to her can they? Did she apply in that area as well?

In some areas the list are so bad they kick most people off them and only keep those high priority as no one else will ever see one. So they wait say 5y meanwhile only those urgent get added so stays constant level. My council had 30,000 on list and had something like 500 homes empty a year. Giving people false hope means you make little attempt sort things out for yourself. Which granted is only really move 200 miles away option or help with private landlord.

This sort of cleansing has been going on for years in London, moving the poor out of area.
Only the rich are welcome.

What’s the answer?

Realistically there are always people on the housing register who will never be housed, it comes down to not enough social housing/not enough of the right sort of social housing. The realities are that every day people move away from their support network to get better housing or better job opportunities, I understand that people will make that choice and often won't have it foisted on them. The L/A is just being realistic, and although I understand the frustration of those who are being told they won't be housed, surely knowing is better than hanging on. It does mean that individuals can think what else they might be able to do. Sadly years and years of underinvestment and the RTB have brought social housing to its knees in some parts of the country.
BTW, I had to move away from my family home, so I do know what it's like.
Lastly, can I beg people not to abuse members of staff at the L/A? It's not their fault.

So where’s the parent living now OP? Why does she suddenly have to move 100 miles away?

Why cant she stay where she is living now. This entitlement nonsense is beyond a joke.

How did that happen btw? Her council can’t have taken a house from another area and offered it to her can they?

Decanting tenants/SH applicants to hundreds of miles away has been going on for years. It's not normally at the request of the tenant/applicant.

@LikeACatInTheDark

How did that happen btw? Her council can’t have taken a house from another area and offered it to her can they?

Decanting tenants/SH applicants to hundreds of miles away has been going on for years. It's not normally at the request of the tenant/applicant.

What’s in it for the area giving up the house?

Some London boroughs are buying properties outside London to resolve the housing crisis. Apart from anything else it's cheaper for them to do that. Usually they let to their homeless families.

So many people have to move away from their support network, it's the way of the world these days. I would love to live and raise the DCs in the place where I grew up (not London), but it's completely out of our price range.

In an ideal world there should be more housing available, but there isn't so they should go to those most in need.

@Powertothepetal

This sort of cleansing has been going on for years in London, moving the poor out of area. Only the rich are welcome. Look at Grenfell, they knew the cladding was hazardous but didn’t care and when it all burnt down hardly any, if any, of those residents were rehoused in London.

Where did you get that fact from? My company re-housed a lot of the Grenfell residents down the road in a brand new development tower.

I find it a bit mad that it's okay to accept people having to move away from their support network. Is this what life is really coming to?

I'm sympathetic as I'm having to go on council list. Our landlord is selling up and there are no other private rentals in our area so we have nowhere to go. I'm due a baby at the end of the year and require the support network from my family as well as currently working two jobs in the same town at the moment

Maybe more should be done about private rental costs and that way more affordability for people would help reduce the council waiting list

Camden council removed a lot of people a few years ago because it was open to anyone from anywhere to apply and was unmanageable. People have always moved away as their families have got bigger, whether in private or social housing.

I don't see what other choice the council has tbf. There isn't a house for her in that area. Plenty of people who privately rent or buy have to move area due to the cost, why shouldn't it be the same for social housing? There's a lack of it in this country and it doesn't help when people stay in council houses after their situations improve.
At least the council are being honest and saying you won't get a council house, there's no false hope then.

I personally think it’s shit when you consider the sheer numbers of unoccupied housing in London. Honestly I think Boris needs to think outside the box & basically ban London properties from being unoccupied. So if you want to invest in London, whether you are in the UK or not, you either need to live there or rent out the property.

The changes can be both realistic and cruel, even if it's not the council's fault per se.

Given the current situation, I think there needs to also be a review of social housing being for life. This is ideal in many ways - but becomes very unfair when there are people in far more need who won't ever get access.

One change post pandemic which will hopefully be positive is more work being remote, and therefore moving to a further and cheaper area doesn't mean you'll then be unable to find proper work.

Living in London is not a right. In the same way as living in New York, Paris and Hong Kong is not a right. Millions of people live outside London because they can afford to live in a major capital of the world.
And the argument about who will do the key worker jobs if the low paid move out is a false argument. If supply of subsidized workers was low, wages would go up. Wages are suppressed artificially in London because of taxpayer intervention which helps no one.