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 agree with reviewing tenancies. If you get any help with rent the bedroom tax lands on you like ton of bricks but if you pay rent yourself can have 4 bed for 20y after kids have left home. No one says thrown out on your youngest 18th birthday but making 5-10y plans and juggling so families of 4 in one bed can exchange. Obviously more to it than that but at present we do nothing even when more overcrowding than ever.

[quote OverTheRubicon]@HousingOne I also agree with tenancies for life in principle - however unless there is enough housing to keep up, then surely this just keeps many people in the fear you mention with private rent, but with no end to it and often in far worse financial/logistical positions than those who got a tenancy for life and now have better paying jobs and the financial buffer that comes with over a decade paying below market rents.

It could be something reassessed every 5 or even 10 years, and be somewhat fairer.[/quote]
But whatever "measure" or "threshold" you put in, people will just purposefully stay under it. So everyone complains about the old 16 hour work rule on UC, you'd just be making a new rule to ensure people kept their tenancies. So potentially trapping people in poverty just so they could keep the roof over their head.

LA actually want working people in their homes, they are far better maintained generally and better at paying rent. Which keeps the pennies rolling in.

I agree however with tenancy review once members of the household leave, people in social housing should update the housing officer when a joint tenant or occupant leaves, at which point discussions should be had about downsizing, and appropriate support for a transfer.

But this is nothing new, when I got married in 1972 we couldn't afford to rent in the area of London I grew up in, 10 years later having saved all we could whilst paying rent, we couldn't afford to buy in the area of London where we were renting so had to move out again, London has always been like that

Some of us have moved to a foreign country for a better life.
No sympathy for those whining about moving away from their "support network". So much entitlement.

no idea why people need to live in the centre of a capital city who are never going to work. Move key workers into central housing. As for moving away from support net works, what do people do who move for work?
There isn't gong to be a big social housing explosion, ever.

Having always live in x town / paid your rent on time / kept your garden tidy does not mean that you will be offered a property above everyone else

In my area (also NE England) we have a rural allocations policy which means that if you have always lived in a certain area or work in it then you would have priority over other applicants with the same banding as you. The policy states you have to have a connection to the parish for the property you're bidding on either through family, community links, or work. There are some new build houses coming up soon that will be subject to this policy.

I agree however with tenancy review once members of the household leave, people in social housing should update the housing officer when a joint tenant or occupant leaves, at which point discussions should be had about downsizing, and appropriate support for a transfer.

You do have to update the council if the joint tenant leaves so that they can be taken off the tenancy agreement. A lot of councils offer incentives to people to encourage them to downsize when the time comes but they don't force it, plenty of people do take them up on it and there are also mutual exchanges available where tenants can swap their homes with each other. In a lot of cases though there aren't suitable properties for people to downsize to. I know someone who wanted to downsize after their children had left home and the only one bed properties available were second or top floor flats (three storey blocks) with no lift, they had mobility issues so it was no good and all the ground floor flats were two beds so they weren't eligible for them and the available bungalows were all too far from their daughters who helped with their care. They stayed in their three bed house with the stairlift and other adaptations until they passed away.

of course it is subsidised - otherwise you can just rent privately in which case there's no issue is there?

Its not subsidised.

The majority of council houses were built decades ago and the cost of building them has long since been repaid many times over by tenants paying rent to the council. There is no subsidy. Council housing is actually a public asset that brings in more money for councils in rent than it costs to manage and maintain.

As for renting privately, I can't speak for all areas but around here a private rent and a council rent aren't that much different. A two bed property in the nearest town is £375 a month private rent while a two bed council property in the same street is £360 a month.

Many people have touched on the fact that a lot of older tenants are in social housing too big for their needs, my Dad is one of them, when he moved into his 3 bed social housing house 40 years ago it was because he was working, you had to be working to get one, they even went round his old house and examined his furniture and he had to go before a panel, he is now at 89 on his with mobility problems he would love to move into a smaller property, his house is far too big, he hasn't been able to go upstairs for 2 years, his huge garden perfect for a family is unmanageable he has to get gardeners in to keep it tidy, in short its a house for a family not a pensioner on his own and he feels guilty that he is there, BUT the council will not lift a finger to help him move, all they tell him is to go on the home swapper site, he has no computer and there is no-one near him to help him ( I live 200 miles away).

Over the road from him are lovely one bed flats he is friends with the young family who live in one, they would love his house, he would love their flat but the council say they can't swap as the family are not entitled to a 3 bed, so why cant the council step in, find a family who need to move from a 2 bed to a 3 bed., move the other family to the 2 bed and give my dad the flat, surely something can be done to free up a 3 bedroom house with a lovely garden so that a family can have it, I would love someone who works in housing to explain to me why that cant happen.

@Oldsu

Can't you put him on Homeswapper?
If his neighbours could help him with the internet he might be able to find a family with a 2 bed who need a 3 bed and his young neighbours could move into the 2 bed freeing up the 1 bed. I think 3-way swaps are allowed.

@flippertyop

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

Part of the reason is that when it means moving people into far away places, you run into the same problem of destabilizing communities and support systems.

If there was proper planning where communities had a variety of different kinds of housing, and you could be moved into a smaller flat more or less in your own neighbourhood, it would be much less of an issue. But it requires enough housing.

In a way the idea of social housing works better when the intent is for it to be for a larger portion of the population, rather than just a smaller group of people, so there is a good stock of housing of different types in every community.

[quote urbanbuddha]**@Oldsu

Can't you put him on Homeswapper?
If his neighbours could help him with the internet he might be able to find a family with a 2 bed who need a 3 bed and his young neighbours could move into the 2 bed freeing up the 1 bed. I think 3-way swaps are allowed.[/quote]
Hopefully my nephew will be able to help him, but the point is why should he have to, why cant the council organise it, surely it's in their best interest, its not that he wants to move for the sake of it he will be freeing up a house in an area that was on television a few years ago about the lack of housing stock

@WildBluebell

Some of us have moved to a foreign country for a better life. No sympathy for those whining about moving away from their "support network". So much entitlement.

As for renting privately, I can't speak for all areas but around here a private rent and a council rent aren't that much different. A two bed property in the nearest town is £375 a month private rent while a two bed council property in the same street is £360 a month

That's still £15 a month that the council tenants don't need to find, plus they don't have to have hundreds locked in a deposit, nor to factor in the cost of finding a new place and moving, or the risk of moving. And in places like London, where the private sector rents can be £1000 or far more for a basic 1 bed, the difference is larger again both in % terms and absolute £ terms.

Our council help with deposits, they also have accredited private landlords who are able to advertise via the council homefinder website.

For balance, we also have some new build social housing properties here that are £110-£150 a week (depending on size) whereas comparable private lets are £90-£110 a week.

The point of my post was that social housing is not subsidised.

It's interesting this whole shift that social housing should only be for the most desperate people, and even they're resented for it. This wasn't always the case. Social housing used to be for everyone, the point of it was to provide good quality secure homes. Houses have now been renamed 'property' and are all about money and investment. And before anyone starts with the 'no money' 'we can't afford it ' 'nice idea' nonsense, this change isn't about money, theres been a cultural shift in thinking that's driven this.

@WildBluebell

Some of us have moved to a foreign country for a better life. No sympathy for those whining about moving away from their "support network". So much entitlement.

But that was a choice. A considered, researched, choice based on your circumstances. It’s not a choice for them, and it completely disregards their circumstances.

The point of my post was that social housing is not subsidised.

I'm all in favour of social housing, but yes it is massively subsidised. It is now essentially a form of benefit, and that is why it is massively oversubscribed. It also eats money, which is why the government prefers to divest itself of the responsibility.

I think there is a massive need for more good quality social housing, but the initial cost is huge, the maintenance cost is huge, and the rents come nowhere near covering those costs.

I think you're being very short sighted.
If people are in private rented very often their rent is subsidised in the form of HB anyway. I also worry about the financial time bomb when generation rent retire, the tax payer will be picking up the bill to house them.
Seems to me that in the past people would could afford to buy, bought a house, paid for it while working, then had only maintenance and minimal ongoing costs when retired.
People who couldn't afford to buy got a council house, paid rent all their working lives and got HB when they retired, this was effectively money moving from one council account to another, so essentially, minimal ongoing cost for the public purse.
Now the people who couldn't afford to buy live in private rented, what will happen when they retire?

It is now essentially a form of benefit, and that is why it is massively oversubscribed

No it’s over subscribed because it’s the only way millions can have secure housing.
Paint their babies nursery, put pictures up in a house, not have to move every year. Keep their children in the same schools with their friends, be part of a community. Maybe give their child a pet, maybe plant flowers in the garden you will be there to see flower.
Not having to pay find £5000 every time your landlord gives you 2 months notice.

Renting as a family is hard, it’s depressing and the insecurity occupies your brain constantly.

If people are in private rented very often their rent is subsidised in the form of HB anyway

Not any more it’s not. Most landlords can’t and won’t take any forms of benefit.

However your absolutely spot on about the generation rent time bomb with retirement.

If we look down on social housing because it may take longer make a profit say 30-40years to pay off the costs. That is much better than paying private rent to a landlord who gets a free paid for by benefits home every 25y and walks away with it all. Then we still need pay rent for another 25y to another landlord. Over all the public benefit because In social housing once costs have been paid their rent then goes fund someone’s else’s home. Instead of landlord home number 2

I'm all in favour of social housing, but yes it is massively subsidised. It is now essentially a form of benefit, and that is why it is massively oversubscribed. It also eats money, which is why the government prefers to divest itself of the responsibility. I think there is a massive need for more good quality social housing, but the initial cost is huge, the maintenance cost is huge, and the rents come nowhere near covering those costs.

You're wrong, social housing is not subsidised and it pays for itself via the rents collected. Most council properties are older and have paid themselves many times over. Accounts for my local council show that they received just over £2 million in rent each year and spend £1.1 million on repairs, maintenance, and other costs.

@Kendodd

It's interesting this whole shift that social housing should only be for the most desperate people, and even they're resented for it. This wasn't always the case. Social housing used to be for everyone, the point of it was to provide good quality secure homes. Houses have now been renamed 'property' and are all about money and investment. And before anyone starts with the 'no money' 'we can't afford it ' 'nice idea' nonsense, this change isn't about money, theres been a cultural shift in thinking that's driven this.

I don't think it should only be for the most desparate.

But I think the situation at the moment is so bad that you have to be pragmatic about who gets it and who doesn't.

Thats a long term decision by government to pander to Nimbyism - all three parties are guilty of it and not doing more to build housing/knock right to buy on the head sooner.

Too many people coming into the country ,we cannot house them all.

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?

Yes, just googled, 81% social housing in Singapore.

Eviebeans

If we weren't all so ground down at the moment we should all be marching for lots more good quality social housing to be built.
I'm old enough to remember when it was known as "council housing" and could be your home for as long as you needed/wanted it and paid the rent“

Me too, born in early 60s, when council housing was a perfectly normal, acceptable way of living, no-one was looked down upon for doing so and most family homes were of a reasonable size with a little outside space.
Then came “right to buy”. Lovely, except those homes weren’t replaced, councils were prevented from replacing them. So wrong.