To think the mismanagement of social and council housing is an absolute scandal?

[MistressoftheDarkSide]

https://news.sky.com/story/families-in-england-left-homeless-despite-33-000-empty-council-homes-13149141?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=discover&utm_campaign=CCwqGAgwKg8IACoHCAowwr36BjCtxzYw4JusAjC__94C&utm_content=bullets

Because surely it costs more to fork out on temporary accommodation in the long run? It's a ridiculous racket designed for profiteering.

Our council has jobs going in the department managing housing if anyone thinks they could do a better job. Your input would be appreciated.

Yep There is nothing that encourages ambition better than the risk of losing your home 🙄

This.

You know how people can't get a plumber, plasterer, any tradesperson. Imagine that x100. Plus the state people leave their homes in. Floods, poo, smeared 'liquids' on the walls, drug stuff of various kinds so the emptying takes forever and is dangerous for staff, full (I mean to the ceiling) of items that have to be removed, multiple repairs, full guts, and no people to do the work. Materials have shot up so even if you can get a tradesperson, you have huge bills for materials. Over and over.

I've seen a home repaired to the point of perfection then, in a couple of months, completely destroyed. I've seen someone move in and less than 2 weeks later the social issues are so bad the police can't cope. It's not the housing staff doing that. In fact the housing staff are miserable from the waste.

The multiple issues of MH, physical health, lack of supports, addiction etc. are all playing out in social housing. Housing staff have the privilege of working inside other people's private lives. And sometimes there are slow motion tragedies playing out in real time. The old days of mixed communities, all of human life, playing out, grannies helping young mums, all that good stuff, that's rare. People wanted social housing kept for 'those in most need'. Well, those in most need are also those with the hardest challenges and the least to spare for their communities. Good solid mixed communities should be the norm.

I would say 'rant over' but I never stop ranting about housing.

Call me an old fashioned idealist but I think our aspiration for social housing should be to create communities, places where people can put down roots long term, raise a family. Not temporary holding pens for the poor.

Where we have places where people want to live long-term (rather than the situation @MrsTerryPratchett describes), then whooo-hooo, success! The LAST thing we want to do is tell people in those communities is “sorry - you’ve done too well for yourself, now fuck off”. Because creating ghettos where only the people with the highest needs in society live Does Not Work. For anyone.

And you might say “that’s all very well, but desperate times need desperate measures, we ca’t afford for any of the little social housing we have to be occupied by anyone who isn’t in dire need” - how do you police that? Who is checking your payslips to determine whether you still deserve the home? Where do you draw the line? How do you stop cliff-edges where people get a pay rise and are suddenly no longer eligible to stay in their home. The Conservatives proposed this about 12 years ago and it was abandoned sharpish not because they had a sudden attack of conscience but because it was completely unworkable in practice.

(I never understand how this policy idea was from the same genius minds as massively increasing right to buy discounts, but will leave that for another day).

@4fingerKitKat I also don't see many people going for that promotion, or upping their hours, or bettering themselves when the consequence would be becoming homeless.

The key question is out of the 33,000 how many are in a fit state for human habitation? How many are in areas of high need?
Personally I think the concept of tenancy for life and inheriting tenency is outdated and needs to end. Review tenancies every 5 or 10 years and if you are under occupying or on a higher income you have to move or start paying market rent. Gets move properties back into the system for vulnerable people and more money for the housing associations to renovate and build.

What state are those 30k homes in?

The guy from the article seems to think it's irrelevant, they should be good enough for rough sleepers . That's not how it works though, councils are bound by rules and regulations and they become responsible once they open the doors. They can't put people in, even homeless people in uninhabitable properties(no electricity,no running water) or worse, dangerous (structural damage, asbestos etc). If anything goes wrong, it will be their fault and are liable.

It seems they're stuck in a vicious circle now. People need housing NOW. Building or repairing work takes time, so they spend the money on temp accommodation. This means there are less and less funds to actually do the building and repairing work. There's not enough money to do both at once. On and on it goes.

One problem is that the homes that are available are not always where people want to be. I acquired a number of neighbours a few years ago when people in London were offered money and a better home to move.

If you were in a 3 bedroomed flat you got a three bedroomed house with a garden.

The article talks about a tower block. That has been empty for nearly 10 years, it is not going to be suitable for anyone to live in.

I don't agree with assessing the tenancy every few years, I've lived in the same place for 20+ years as have most of my neighbours. We all know each other, are good neighbours and the place benefits from that.

We should be looking at 'all of life homes' that can easily adapt to changes of circumstances.

That was a brilliant scheme. I knew a a few people who got places under that scheme. One got a fabulous garden flat near Holland Park that needed complete restoration, made more complicated by the fact that it was a listed building. Luckily, he was a very talented carpenter with an interest in historic buildings, so it was right up his street.

Councils can't fund large scale repairs and renovations out of their day-to-day budgets, they have to borrow the money. And to borrow money they have to get approval from the govt, the "pot" of money available has shrunk in real terms and building costs have risen massively.

It's really short-sighted, because councils are losing rental income from the empty properties, which are falling further into disrepair while they are unoccupied. And they're spending huge amounts on temporary accommodation because they can't get the money to fix the empty properties which could be providing much-needed homes.

The country desperately needs a programme of investment in social housing stock so they can bring empty homes back into use.

The pot to fix homes I thought came from ring fenced account that has the income from rents. I don't think councils can borrow money for revenue items like this just capital works.

I agree with MrsTerryPratchett: The multiple issues of MH, physical health, lack of supports, addiction etc. are all playing out in social housing. … The old days of mixed communities, all of human life, playing out, grannies helping young mums, all that good stuff, that's rare. People wanted social housing kept for 'those in most need'. Well, those in most need are also those with the hardest challenges and the least to spare for their communities. Good solid mixed communities should be the norm.

And with 4fingerKitKat: Call me an old fashioned idealist but I think our aspiration for social housing should be to create communities, places where people can put down roots long term, raise a family. Not temporary holding pens for the poor ….
The LAST thing we want to do is tell people in those communities is “sorry - you’ve done too well for yourself, now fuck off”. Because creating ghettos where only the people with the highest needs in society live Does Not Work. For anyone.
And you might say “that’s all very well, but desperate times need desperate measures, we can’t afford for any of the little social housing we have to be occupied by anyone who isn’t in dire need” - how do you police that? Who is checking your payslips to determine whether you still deserve the home? Where do you draw the line? How do you stop cliff-edges where people get a pay rise and are suddenly no longer eligible to stay in their home. The Conservatives proposed this about 12 years ago and it was abandoned sharpish not because they had a sudden attack of conscience but because it was completely unworkable in practice.

All of this is true. Also, the ‘hard to let’ scheme worked well for single people who wouldn’t have had a chance of a council flat otherwise.

Back in the 1960s and 70s my relatives, ordinary working-class families, lived on clean, comfortable council estates with no major problems. They were all in work and were expected to keep the place clean.

Importantly, most of them had parents and wider families living nearby. I did a lot of baby-sitting, which strengthened my relationships with younger relatives. It was good for everyone.

Then apparently someone decided that housing people near their families was ‘indirect discrimination’ against newcomers. People arriving in the area with nowhere to live went to the top of the waiting list.

This broke up long-standing communities, with all the predictable consequences: lack of family support, isolation, antisocial behaviour etc.

The cognitive dissonance around this from certain posters always makes me <head desk>

"Social housing should only be for the most desperate and tenancies should be for a fixed term only"

"oh no im not buying a house near that social housing estate. Its a right ghetto"

This thread has some excellent points about child free people and social housing policy

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5072881-to-think-the-level-of-state-involvement-many-posters-expect-is-bonkers?page=1