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?

Why should high earners (doctors, solicitors, barristers) benefit from low cost housing?
Why shouldn't they benefit from low cost housing? Shouldn't all housing be low cost afterall it's an essential need we all have.

Social housing for those who need it is necessary and should be provided, but it is a cost to the public purse, and that is the objection. We should definitely suck that cost up, but pretending it is not a cost is not convincing.

So how does that work for the 81% of the population of Singapore living in social housing? Are you saying the government are subsidising 81% of households?

@FanGirlX I work on a development that has social housing. I'd say 90% of the occupants are not British nationals (and they aren't refugees either). One of the reasons we are struggling to maintain supply with demand is because we are overpopulated. Living in the capital city is a privilege, those who can't afford to live in it don't have a choice but to move further out. The same should be applied to social housing in my opinion. People need to consider moving out of the city for social housing.

[quote Eastie77Returns]@kinzarose I do agree about the sense of entitlement that SH can create. We have a relative who has lived in various council properties since she was 20. She had 3 small children when she was first housed and so was very clearly in need. However fast forward a couple of decades later, all 3 children have left home and she lives with her partner in a large council property that could easily house a family of 4-6. She will not entertain the idea of downsizing but is very quick to judge anyone else on her estate that she feels doesn't 'deserve' a council house.

The nature of her job means she is able to do quite a bit of work cash in hand. I would guess from what she has told me that their household income is in the region of £100k. She has said she will only consider moving if she is given another council property that meets certain criteria (large garden, dropped curb/driveway for the car..).

On her income she could easily rent privately but on the occasions I've suggested this she has looked at me as if I am crazy. And I get it: giving up an assured tenancy at below market rent to rent somewhere privately just doesn't make sense.

I don't really know what the answer is.[/quote]
And its examples like this that really piss people off and why there is such a backlash now. There will be genuine people in need but unfortunately the ones that take the piss overshadow it.

How disgusting she is benefitting from taxpayers money via a council house and then getting paid in hand of which of course she is not declaring. Makes me sick thinking why do I work and struggle through

So how does that work for the 81% of the population of Singapore living in social housing? Are you saying the government are subsidising 81% of households?

I have no knowledge of taxation or the funding of public services in Singapore, nor do I feel it is relevant to the UK. I do have an understanding of the situation here, and I repeat, social housing is a massive cost.

On the bright side we don't have capital punishment, caning etc as they do in Singapore. It is not a country I would seek to emulate in many ways.

My work involves a lot of housing issues so I deal with these all the both in london and outside of it. People sense of what's available, what they are entitled vs the reality are often very different. I am constantly managing expectations, especially in London. Out of london is different, the housing is better, more spacious and more readily available. people don't want to move but is often worry about not speaking the language or being accepted.

I will be moving out of london after divorce as I can't afford to stay. No other option, it's just what needs to be done. My family are all london based and I have a good support network here but financially it's not viable.

I do think life long tenancies need to go. A friend is in social housing, as lives with his partner for last 10 yrs. he owns his own property which is rented out, runs a successful business with 300k in the bank and it's a 2 bed for the two of them. Then I have families that are in temporary accommodation for years that are sleeping in the hallway and kitchen they are so overcrowded. Massively unfair. It need a total overhaul.

Why do you believe social housing is a massive cost?

The rent I pay, pays for the services from my landlord (the LA).

My social house was built in 1921, the last century has seen it pay for itself over and over again.

How is my house costing you?

Making sure people have access to a stable home, helps give children a better start. People feel that they ‘belong’ that they can be and are part of the community.
It builds happier people, happier citizens. It helps people and communities prosper as people want to take pride in where they live.

It seems a basic need to me.

The councils should just wave a magic wand and London would grow and more houses should appear, enough to satisfy everybody's wants.

There aren't enough houses, simple. What do you expect them to do in reality?

@lonelyapple

Getting social housing in London is the equivalent of winning several million on the lottery these days.

The Tories won't build more social housing because the £25billion plus paid in housing landlord benefit keeps all their rich private landlords mates rich and voting Tory. That's why they won't divert it to building social homes.

It would be like winning the lottery to have a stable home I don’t risk losing in two months time.

@EvilPea the problem is that many people do receive social housing properties that suit their needs at the time, but they go on to expand their families. I've seen this so many times, people in one beds having 2/3 children and blaming their MH/overcrowding on the council. There isn't enough stock to house those in need in their present day condition, let alone accommodating the growth of those families.
@Kenddod it is my personal belief that the limited SH (ie affordable rents) should be the remit of the most needy of society, not doctors, barristers and other high earners. Of course everyone wants to pay as little outgoings as possible, but we need to prioritise those who are most financially vulnerable.

I get there isn’t enough. I get that we have to be realistic with our current social housing stock

However,
It’s not right. It’s not good for families, it’s not good for communities.
For those on housing benefit, it’s not good paying private landlords with tax payers money. It is not a good use of public funds either

That’s before you even start to look at the problems with social housing for disabled people

Most people on housing benefit are not paying private landlords, they’re paying not-for-profit housing associations.

@ShinyThingsDistractMe

Why do you believe social housing is a massive cost?

The rent I pay, pays for the services from my landlord (the LA).

My social house was built in 1921, the last century has seen it pay for itself over and over again.

How is my house costing you?

It might be that there is a profit on your property - but that's not true of the vast majority.

Social housing means that the council is responsible for massive repair and maintenance bills, often on ageing housing stock and with a small (but not that small) number of tenants who due to various difficulties will cause major issues with damage to property itself or antisocial behaviour that needs management. There is a higher rent default than in the private sector. Then there's the cost of employing people to assess and manage the lists as well at the properties themselves.

Right to buy has not only reduced numbers of properties, but also taken a disproportionate number of higher quality stock out of the market.

Personally though, I don't mind if social housing runs at some loss - it's there for a reason and which of us knows if we might be in need some day. But I do when there's such a shortage that means that some people in deep need aren't being housed, those on lower incomes can't get access, while others on middle and higher incomes can sit pretty with a lifetime tenancy or buy and reap the profits.

[quote BlakeDreary]@FanGirlX I work on a development that has social housing. I'd say 90% of the occupants are not British nationals (and they aren't refugees either). One of the reasons we are struggling to maintain supply with demand is because we are overpopulated. Living in the capital city is a privilege, those who can't afford to live in it don't have a choice but to move further out. The same should be applied to social housing in my opinion. People need to consider moving out of the city for social housing. [/quote]
Thank you for that figure. I do think that we shouldn't be offering social housing to economic migrants, until we have housed local people.

I was an economic migrant in Singapore and Australia for a few years - I wasn't entitled to any state subsidies, nor should I have been.

@Kendodd

So now we have established that council housing is actually a long term benefit to the public purse, what is the objection to having more of it? I think it's just ideological. As stated in my post upthread, there has been a shift in our thinking and I don't think it's put us in a better place. I believe most housing in Singapore is social housing?

We haven’t established that at all, but even if there were a guarantee that the taxpayer would profit in the long term, that wouldn’t mean we can automatically afford it in the short term.

Being able to afford it isn’t the only consideration in London anyway, there simply isn’t enough space to house everyone that wants to live in London.

I agree with your ideals that low cost social housing should be available to pretty much everyone, but it’s never going to happen because the cost would be huge.

If we were to start a large expansion of SH in London and other popular areas, central government (the taxpayer) would have to pay for expensive land, expensive builders and materials, the administration for all of that, the administration for getting the right tenants in and the ongoing management when they’re in, the maintenance and regular safety inspections needed to comply with the law, and the property would never be sold so making back costs would be impossible that way.

Do people really think that minimum rent being dribbled back over decades is ever going to cover the bill for that? Never mind be a long term benefit to the public purse! There’s just no way it would ever benefit anyone other than the minority of lucky individuals that got a new house.

I believe most housing in Singapore is social housing?

Public housing in Singapore isn’t social housing as we know it in the UK. A significant proportion (I think even the vast majority of it nowadays) is owner occupied and sold at a slight subsidy to middle-income households, and apartments in major cities can still cost upwards of the equivalent of half a million pounds. It’s more akin to the UK’s Help to Buy and Affordable ownership schemes. It’s also only available to Singaporean citizens, among whom birth rates are among the lowest in the world, so public housing isn’t required to house thousands of non-native poor people.

@Kendodd

Why should high earners (doctors, solicitors, barristers) benefit from low cost housing? Why shouldn't they benefit from low cost housing? Shouldn't all housing be low cost afterall it's an essential need we all have.

No because land is a finite resource. Finite resources cannot be ‘low cost’ for all.

@Whammyyammy

The councils should just wave a magic wand and London would grow and more houses should appear, enough to satisfy everybody's wants.

There aren't enough houses, simple. What do you expect them to do in reality?

Maybe London can grow into the sea and then we can build more houses and make them free for everyone. Why just stop at ‘low cost’ housing in a major global capital. Honestly, it’s like people live in a parallel universe when they make these fairytale arguments about everyone having the ‘right’ to live in London.

It makes absolutely no sense for the government to provide people housing based on their social networks, especially in a big city. Over time, people who live close together are naturally going to have social networks of people that are more and more tightly packed together if they live in a small area if they have children. So if you lived in a block of flats where 100 people lived and they all had 2 children (very simple example), and those children had two children, in fifty years there would be 400 people or so who might have come from or lived in those flats. The density gets greater and greater, and the interconnectedness grows over time. There comes a point where there are just too many people in one physical place.

It must be easy in Scotland, my brother in law and wife, sold ther house , rented privately for a while, got on the social housing list and within a few months got a house, they are in there late sixty. They live in shetlands.

Without knowing more about the Council’s new housing policy, I can’t give an opinion on it, but as a related aside, as a Northerner, I have never understood the attachment to London for those struggling financially! Of course there are jobs where the options are limited outside London, but that aside, why struggling with crazy prices housing etc when moving out of London would remove much or all of the financial stress? As for family living there, for a single parent, this will be important. Otherwise though, people move away from their home city for jobs all the time, but so many won’t consider it to ease financial stress. If a Londoner sells a small mortgaged terrace house in a good area of London, there is a good chance that they could buy a detached house in a lovely area outright in the North!

Yes I agree about the cultural shift with you!!
Learnt a lot about this at uni studying social policy !!
The neo liberal / conservatives hone the home owner, the owning of property as the ultimate goal and can be seen as a transferal of state power unto the individual- once you become a homeowner the responsibility lies with you and essentially removes social rights (hence the dismantling of social housing).
The goal now is to buy buy buy a house when there is nothing or was nothing wrong with renting other than now of course the cost. :( not everybody needs to own their house at l all imho and I wouldn't want to strive for this (but unfortunately since the cost of renting is more than a mortgage, that would just be silly).

People who have been given family houses years ago should have to move out into smaller flats or bedsits once their children reach 18. We are surrounded by council owned properties, two and three bedroom houses, who have single or couple occupancy now kids are grown up. It’s absolute bullshit. They have lovely holidays abroad, several cars, gardeners etc while we’re stuck privately renting and barely making ends meet.

Beggars can’t be choosers as the saying goes