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?

I bet you expect ppl in that "subsidized free housing" to wear masks and have vaccines to protect you. Suddenly all in it together then arent we!!

Yes, flats are being built left, right and centre but there should be priority for people in the UK not overseas investors.

It's a complete myth that London new-build flats are being left empty, the current Mayor of London commissioned research which proved it wasn't true.

Given the flats are occupied, and that flats are in the UK, the people occupying them are UK people, since they live here. So the flats are occupied by UK people, you already have exactly what you want.

It’s not a leap of imagination to expect that wages would up for those jobs which are low paid today.

Really? People have been struggling for years however it’s not happened yet.

@TheFairyCaravan

It’s not a leap of imagination to expect that wages would up for those jobs which are low paid today.

Really? People have been struggling for years however it’s not happened yet.

Because we subsidize low pay. Surely you have not missed that fact.

It’s all a farce because the councils sit on millions of pounds of investments and could build council houses, some do build small amounts but a hundred or so not the thousands needed. The Government won’t allow mass building of social housing as its not their policy. My London Borough rehouses many from inner London Boroughs council lists while telling local families they have to move away from the area for cheaper private rental. The whole system is rubbish.

@RandomLondoner

Yes, flats are being built left, right and centre but there should be priority for people in the UK not overseas investors.

It's a complete myth that London new-build flats are being left empty, the current Mayor of London commissioned research which proved it wasn't true.

Given the flats are occupied, and that flats are in the UK, the people occupying them are UK people, since they live here. So the flats are occupied by UK people, you already have exactly what you want.

That's reassuring but I still think overseas investment should've limited or even stopped,especially when the person does not reside here at all and it is purely an investment

My db was a resident in a Far Eastern country for several years but he wasn't allowed to buy a property there as he wasn't a national

While I agree more sh should be built I cant help but think the whole giving tenants to bid on the property THEY want to live in has given them the impression that they can be picky. Yes that might work in some places where there is ample sh but in places like london I just dont think it works.
I wouldnt say it was the tenants fault either the council/ha have told them to bid on properties they want to live in so they do.
Cant blame them for not bidding on one 100 miles away.

We live in a LA that has done this. They have built zero homes for social rent , just relied on a trickle being supplied by the developers (who have built thousands of private homes on new estates). Then they booted 1000's of people off the waiting list , so if you have kids but live with parents you cant even join the list now. Then they wonder why all the young people are leaving the area and there are no staff for the care homes.

If she has a support network lucky her; quite understand why she wouldnt want to leave [missing the point].

I dont know what the solution is as the obvious one is never going to happen (build A LOT MORE council houses).

In the town I live in, offices are being converted to flats. The rumours is that they re being brought by london boroughs to house people.

About forty miles from london.

@Standrewsschool

In the town I live in, offices are being converted to flats. The rumours is that they re being brought by london boroughs to house people.

Makes good sense.

Really? I think the bidding process is inhumane. Cant win though can they. Because they also get moaned at for having a smartphone to do the bidding on.

@anniegun Well the more affluent will have to care for Granny themselves then.

Yes, very cruel to give people subsidized/free housing

Social Housing isn't subsidised or free. Rent is due on it just the same as private properties. It's not subsidised either, it doesn't include profit margins for the landlord, in most cases social housing pays for itself, and in many areas of the UK its not that much cheaper than private renting - we have council properties here that are actually more than some private rentals.

I think it's realistic.

Lots of people have to move away to be able to afford housing; why should it be any different for someone on SH?
I don't know anyone who's been able to 'afford' to stay in the area they grew up in; whether that's due to rent/buying costs or lack of job opportunities, etc.
People move away for many reasons and there shouldn't be a 'right' to stay where you were born.

Government to build more social housing, stock incredibly depleted. A Conservative govt will not though as against their ideology.

I bloody hope they won't. Social housing should not exist at all, at least not for anyone physically and mentally competent to live without daily help in their everyday life.

There should be one method of allocating housing, ability to afford it in the private market, and the people who need help with that should get it through a rational system that quickly adjusts to changes in circumstances, i.e. housing benefit/allowance.

(I would support changes to the housing market so that secure tenancies are available for whoever wants one, at market prices. I also have no objection to not-for-profit landlords such as housing associations being in the mix. Local government should not be landlords though, as it leads to conflicts of interest. Nobody with an interest in the property market should be in charge of granting planning permission.)

Social housing is an archaic hangover from past political stupidity, politicians can't be seen to get rid of it, but if it didn't exist, it wouldn't be invented, because it's a stupid way to subsidise the poor.

(Yes I know people think some social housing isn't subsidised. My short answer is wherever there's a waiting list, there's a subsidy. Waiting lists are what happen when market forces are not allowed to allocate resources.)

Of course it's realistic. Not everyone can live where they want and that includes people who require council properties. Those of us who pay for our own housing outright, with no subsidy, have to live where we can afford to live and it should be the same for council tenants. No one has 'the right' to live anywhere. Just because you were born in London doesn't mean you can afford to stay there. That's life and anyone who thinks differently is an entitled arse IMO.

As someone has already said upthread, the issue is that once you have “won” a council house you can keep it for as long as you like, even if the reasons that you initially qualified are no longer applicable. Eg. Children grow up and leave home, previously vulnerable people are no longer characterised as such, etc. There should be a review every 5 years to see whether people still fit the criteria. Otherwise there is no incentive for people to ever leave and move back into the private rental market. This was sort of the idea behind the bedroom tax, that it would incentivise people who were living in properties bigger than they really needed to move to smaller places and free up space for families etc. It was just a massive shit show and didn’t actually work in practice.

What started this was the right to buy, which both the Tories and Labour have endorsed, and no one seems strong enough to abolish, although it should be stopped.

Same with tenancy for life; it shouldn't be allowed. SH should be kept for those in need; not their dependants, etc, and if circumstances improve they should have to move into private housing.

I agree tenancy for life is ridiculous. It's social housing why should you just be allowed to stay there forever. I'm afraid if you want to benefit from state subsidised housing you don't get to choose where that is

It’s a sad situation, but it’s not cruel. Plenty of people who own their own houses in London and other expensive areas are having to watch as their children, friends and family members move away because they can’t afford to live in the area they grew up in. It’s normality now. Living in London has become a privilege, so if someone is in a situation where they’ve been offered subsidised housing in London and turned it down, I can’t find much sympathy at them having to move away.

I think the single biggest thing the government could do to relieve poverty and provide some security in the UK is a massive expansion of social housing. And before people start with the 'we can't afford it' bollocks, housing generates rent, how do you think so many buy to let landlords got rich?

I agree we need more social housing, but it’s not bollocks that we can’t afford it. Buy to let landlords quite often don’t make any profit until they sell their properties because they have mortgage, tax and maintenance expenses to pay for. The profit only comes from a sale after house prices have continued going crazy for a few years, in the meantime it can make no profit or make losses, but that’s why people do it as a (risky) retirement plan. Even then they can only do it by charging market rate, if they charged social housing rent there’s no way they’d ever generate profits. Unless the government plan to build a whole load of social houses to eventually sell off, it can only cost taxpayers to build large amounts of social housing, it will never pay for itself.

@MercyBooth

Really? I think the bidding process is inhumane. Cant win though can they. Because they also get moaned at for having a smartphone to do the bidding on.

Choice Based Lettings were introduced under Labour as best practice, because they provided at least some illusion that people had a choice in where they might want to live. Formerly, in most council areas, you reached the top of the list and were just allocated whichever property of the correct size was available, with little thought given to whether it was near your place of work or children’s school etc. That was generally thought to be inhumane and ignorant of people’s needs.

I don't agree with social housing except for people who can't manage. It encourages dependency and entitlement. And certainly not for folk who can afford to buy their own homes. Why should brand new houses be built for social tenants.

@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.

Actually all of them were offered housing in London, just not all in the same Borough so some declined. The same cladding was used on many buildings across the country, and is a national scandal and tragedy. Misinformation doesn't help, but I do think someone or various people should have been accountable for Grenfell, and punished accordingly.