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?

How many people can live exactly where they want? Very few. Many people who private rent or own can’t afford to live in London or can’t afford to live in the area of London they want. That’s being an adult.

Just because you have a “support network” in an area doesn’t give you a right to live there forever either. I can understand that it might be tough but that’s life. You can’t expect to live in a hugely expensive and desirable area because you grew up there and the taxpayer just has to foot the bill. That makes no sense. Why should we pay for someone to live in an expensive area that most couldn’t afford themselves.

Social housing is subsidized- it needs block grants from the taxpayer to build and pay for it to the tune of billions a year, even now. The idea that it pays for itself is simply wrong. It absolutely doesn’t. It strikes me as a bit unfair that some get to live with subsidized rent for life when many living in social housing are not in need anymore. Also right to buy is a huge handout of cash from the taxpayer to an individual.

I grew up in social housing so I don’t know what the answer is but I don’t think it’s fantastic thinking and pretending we can all just live exactly where we like. We have to be realistic

It's not really about people demanding to live where they want. Obviously, it would be unreasonable for someone who has been a resident for many years in one place to demand a home in London, Manchester or any big city where housing is in great demand or in a pleasant country town that they like the look of. It is about people who have lived perhaps all their lives in one area, with family and friends around them, being asked to move perhaps 100 miles away to an area where they have no connections whatsoever and no support to fall back on when times are hard. This would be especially difficult for people with young children.

Meanwhile, so many flats are being built and sold to landlords who rent them out privately at extortionate rates, sometimes to people who only buy them as an investment or use them infrequently.

@ellyeth

It's not really about people demanding to live where they want. Obviously, it would be unreasonable for someone who has been a resident for many years in one place to demand a home in London, Manchester or any big city where housing is in great demand or in a pleasant country town that they like the look of. It is about people who have lived perhaps all their lives in one area, with family and friends around them, being asked to move perhaps 100 miles away to an area where they have no connections whatsoever and no support to fall back on when times are hard. This would be especially difficult for people with young children.

Meanwhile, so many flats are being built and sold to landlords who rent them out privately at extortionate rates, sometimes to people who only buy them as an investment or use them infrequently.

But thats exactly what people do every day to get suitable housing

More than half of my NCT group had left London within 2 years to somewhere outside of London, where they had no support network. And now they have a new support network!

DH moved to a whole other country, hundreds of miles away from the place he grew up and where all his family live, because that place had no suitable jobs

I am 120 miles from my nearest parent

It’s normal for most of the population to have the make these choices and decisions to move in order to give you and your children better opportunities, housing, schools
Why should a tiny percentage of the population be exempt from that because they are on a housing waiting list..?

The answer is more social housing. Much more social housing. We did have quite a lot in this country once upon a time. Then it was sold off.

In our LA the authority has literally just closed and wiped the list clean. They've asked all existing applicants to reapply and the new criteria is much much stricter. We were housed a matter of weeks before this all happened but we would have been at least two priority bands lower on the new banding criterias.

Many areas are desperately struggling.

Anyone who sublets council housing so they can live elsewhere should be reported, have the property taken from them, be fined, and be banned from future council housing. They are literally stealing from taxpayers and preventing desperate people in need from getting housing help they'd otherwise be entitled to.

The answer isn't more social housing. Its turfing out folk who can well afford to buy a home of their own. And stop the sub-letting.

They aren’t allowed to do that though? And selling off properties to tenants is decreasing the stock, especially in more ‘desirable’ areas.

@ellyeth

It's not really about people demanding to live where they want. Obviously, it would be unreasonable for someone who has been a resident for many years in one place to demand a home in London, Manchester or any big city where housing is in great demand or in a pleasant country town that they like the look of. It is about people who have lived perhaps all their lives in one area, with family and friends around them, being asked to move perhaps 100 miles away to an area where they have no connections whatsoever and no support to fall back on when times are hard. This would be especially difficult for people with young children.

Meanwhile, so many flats are being built and sold to landlords who rent them out privately at extortionate rates, sometimes to people who only buy them as an investment or use them infrequently.

How can you say that after seeing at least two posters on here Staithes know someone subletting a council property...maybe the problem should be sorting that out that first theb seeing how much more is needed.

I vant even believe those posters haven't even reported those people where is your civic duty! Let alone they are ripping us taxpayers off u mean fgs no wonder people are sick and tired of working and paying into a system and people are abusing it and noone reports them.

Just because you have a “support network” in an area doesn’t give you a right to live there forever either. I can understand that it might be tough but that’s life. You can’t expect to live in a hugely expensive and desirable area because you grew up there and the taxpayer just has to foot the bill.

Why on earth not? People aren't asking to be housed in palaces for heaven's sake, just to be able to survive in the area they've grown up in. It's no wonder we have fragmented/ nonexistent communities and an epidemic of mental health problems and loneliness if this kind of attitude is normalised. Normalise being able to live a decent life without having to move away from your loved ones and essentially being gentrified out of your own home town. It's revolting that we allow this to keep happening tbh.

@Aspiringmatriarch

Just because you have a “support network” in an area doesn’t give you a right to live there forever either. I can understand that it might be tough but that’s life. You can’t expect to live in a hugely expensive and desirable area because you grew up there and the taxpayer just has to foot the bill.

Why on earth not? People aren't asking to be housed in palaces for heaven's sake, just to be able to survive in the area they've grown up in. It's no wonder we have fragmented/ nonexistent communities and an epidemic of mental health problems and loneliness if this kind of attitude is normalised. Normalise being able to live a decent life without having to move away from your loved ones and essentially being gentrified out of your own home town. It's revolting that we allow this to keep happening tbh.

Because someone has to pay for this privilege, that’s why. When it comes to London, net contributors (not necessarily rich people) cannot afford this privilege. It no is true for all major capitals of the world. Living in London for free or subsidized by the taxpayer is not a right and not should it be. If you are offered decent housing elsewhere, take it. This entitlement culture is what has led to hardened attitudes towards welfare. Nothing is ever enough.

It's not an entitlement culture. It's about communities not being decimated. Why should London be an elites only place, how is that of benefit to anyone? And who is going to clean offices, do care work, serve coffee etc if everyone on low income is priced out of living there?

@Aspiringmatriarch

It's not an entitlement culture. It's about communities not being decimated. Why should London be an elites only place, how is that of benefit to anyone? And who is going to clean offices, do care work, serve coffee etc if everyone on low income is priced out of living there?

False argument. Incomes are low because of the subsidies. The low incomes would be higher if the coffee drinkers and office dweller had to pay proper wages for people to do these jobs, rather than the taxpayer subsidizing their offices to be cleaned.

@Viviennemary

The answer isn't more social housing. Its turfing out folk who can well afford to buy a home of their own. And stop the sub-letting.

Definitely, councils need to do an audit

False argument. Incomes are low because of the subsidies. The low incomes would be higher if the coffee drinkers and office dweller had to pay proper wages for people to do these jobs, rather than the taxpayer subsidizing their offices to be cleaned.

Even though you've said the net contributors who presumably are buying the coffees etc can't afford to live in London either? How much higher would incomes have to be, and what are people supposed to do in the meantime?

Just because you have a “support network” in an area doesn’t give you a right to live there forever either. I can understand that it might be tough but that’s life. You can’t expect to live in a hugely expensive and desirable area because you grew up there and the taxpayer just has to foot the bill.

How come it's a different line we hear when it's Cornwall or the Lakes or Suffolk or some other 'beauty spot'?

Vulnerable families and disabled people didn't ask for their home town or city (or village) to become 'highly desirable'. They didn't ask for the much resented and envied (by people living elsewhere... within their communities, near family, and support networks) 'benefits of investment'.

The importance of support networks to vulnerable families and disabled people is immense. It is absolutely not ok to dump vulnerable people far away from their home, communities, families, and support networks - even more so not ok if it's during a period when they are already experiencing great distress, trauma, or other difficult life circumstances.

And people wonder why the demand and bill (to the taxpayer) for mental health services is going up...!

The low incomes would be higher if the coffee drinkers and office dweller had to pay proper wages for people to do these jobs, rather than the taxpayer subsidizing their offices to be cleaned.

I don't think this makes economic sense. Benefits for working people must if anything raise the amount workers have to be paid, because they give them less incentive to work. Similarly, a minimum wage causes some workers to be paid more than they are worth, otherwise there would be no point to it.

People working on minimum wage in the UK are, on average, being paid more than they are worth, not less. (I don't have a problem with the status quo, just pointing out why I think people saying they are underpaid are wrong.)

@Aspiringmatriarch

False argument. Incomes are low because of the subsidies. The low incomes would be higher if the coffee drinkers and office dweller had to pay proper wages for people to do these jobs, rather than the taxpayer subsidizing their offices to be cleaned.

Even though you've said the net contributors who presumably are buying the coffees etc can't afford to live in London either? How much higher would incomes have to be, and what are people supposed to do in the meantime?

Well, yes, incomes can only go up by so much. Businesses - the many small and medium-sized sized ones - would face going bust.

But the taxpayer can't afford to keep subsidising employers either.

We need lots more social housing.

It's a financial as well as moral issue.

The public health housing and homelessness emergency costs (the taxpayer) billions and billions.

Directly, with the funding of very expensive temporary accommodation and high housing benefit bill.

And indirectly through the costs resulting from the knock on consequences - increased demand for domestic abuse support, mental health care, social services, the criminal justice system, etc.

The importance of support networks to vulnerable families and disabled people is immense. It is absolutely not ok to dump vulnerable people far away from their home, communities, families, and support networks - even more so not ok if it's during a period when they are already experiencing great distress, trauma, or other difficult life circumstances.

Completely agree Tealightsandd. It baffles me why people are so in thrall to free market economic principles when it comes to the frankly insane housing situation in this country and the many many families affected by it.

Currently violence against women is high profile. Media, government and opposition, and the public. All expressing concern for victims. Yet 70% of murdered women are killed at home. In many cases, it's because they can't afford to leave. Due to the high cost of housing.

Moving on to mental health (funding increased demand costs the taxpayer hugely). Experts have noted the impact of poverty, homelessness, and housing insecurity. Bad enough for adults but devastating for already vulnerable children who need stability.

There's another thread on here from a few days ago. Someone is moving house long distance. She's being quoted £3-5000 for the removal costs.

It's not so simple as telling low income families and vulnerable individuals to 'just move somewhere cheaper'.

Btw 'somewhere cheaper' won't stay somewhere cheaper if we keep on socially cleansing people there on mass.

And of course more people especially women will be unable to work. Particularly lower income parents reply on family support with childcare to be able to work. Paid for childcare is expensive.

@Aspiringmatriarch

False argument. Incomes are low because of the subsidies. The low incomes would be higher if the coffee drinkers and office dweller had to pay proper wages for people to do these jobs, rather than the taxpayer subsidizing their offices to be cleaned.

Even though you've said the net contributors who presumably are buying the coffees etc can't afford to live in London either? How much higher would incomes have to be, and what are people supposed to do in the meantime?

As much as it takes to live in London. Supply and demand is that simple. If you don’t pay people enough, you won’t get the staff, until the taxpayer starts subsidizing low pay of course.

The taxpayer wouldn't need to subsidise low pay. If we had more social housing.

Disabled people always forgotten/erased (ever since Blair's war on them).

They're not rubbish to throw away.

Vulnerable disabled people and families caring for a disabled child need to stay near to support networks.

@Tealightsandd

The taxpayer wouldn't need to subsidise low pay. If we had more social housing.

Social housing IS subsidized.