No more council houses 'for life' - thoughts?

[Ewe]

Link

A large part of me thinks that with the social housing crisis as it is then this is most certainly a good thing. However, when I start to think about it in more detail I find myself wondering how this could possibly work? How much notice would people get? Would you enable them to downsize if in a house too big? When adult children have left home etc.

I do agree that something needs to be done but it does seem like yet another thing that is going to negatively impact people on benefits (his aim, no doubt!) along with cuts to housing benefit.

for new tenancies?

would like to see private rentals regulated then...

I confess to not really knowing how social housing works, do you still receive housing benefit but just use it to pay straight back to local council?

What do you mean see private rentals regulated? A set time on how long people can claim HB for?

Where my Uncle lives there are lots of little old ladies/single people living in big family houses while lots of young families are cramped in to small flats. I think if someone offered the choice of more managable accomodation he (and most of his neighbours) would take it if it was in the same areas but if if they tried to tell him to move he would go mad. IYSWIM.

Well, yes, it would make sense to keep a yearly (or so) check on income and number of people living in the house. Encourage up/down sizing and give notice to those earning above (say) the national average wage.

A fixed term with no reference to circumstance doesn't seem right to me.

you can live in social housing and pay the rent as normal....not all claim HB

private rentals can charge £800 a week for a house the same as mine,which is HA and £118 a week

"How much notice would people get?"

Presumbly they would sign a tenancy for a fixed period and so would know when that period was coming to an end, hence there would be no 'notice period' as such because you would know when your lease was up, just like when you rent privately.

If your circumstances have changed when your 5yr tenancy is up for renewal and you no longer fit the criteria for then you have to find alternative accomodation, either by moving into the private sector of by being downsized into another social housing property.

FWIW, it sounds like a reasonable idea to me on the surface. Hopefully it will prevent situations where you have families in genuine need living on top of each other in overcrowded housing when there are empty nesters or elderly folk sat in 3 bed properties.

I know there is an element of emotional attachment for old Mrs Grimes who has lived in 'her' house for 40 years and will be 'downsized'. Whilst I do feel sympathy for that, the truth is that social housing is in very short supply and the hard fact is that it is there for 'need'. Old Mrs Grimes doesn't need 3 bedrooms and a big garden. If we had an abundance of social housing and everyone was happy where they were, then fine, but that is not the case and people in property which is too large for them need to be moved on for those who are overcrowded.

they offer cash incentives here (or did) to get the older people to downsize....but they dont take the offer

Tricky... presumably some of the areas where people see council housing as a choice 'for life' are nice, functional communities and the houses are well maintained by the tenants, effectively for free. I doubt moving people on just as they approach retirement age is going to help issues like social exclusion.

On the other issue, I do think that councils should be forced to build one new property of similar space for every one sold under Right to Buy. Total madness to me that they aren't.

Driven to distraction, the article does mention changes in circumstance

dont new build housing estates have to provide a certain percentage of their builds for social housing??

Cash incentives ? We are PAYING people to persuade them out of houses they shouldn't be in in the first place ?!

[boggle]

I agree in principle with this idea

certainly older people do much better in accomodation where they have warden 24/7, access to other services such as podiatrist and anything waht they fancy doing in their spare time

cheaper than providing them with other care and I read somewhere that they live healthier lifestyle and are much happier like that rather than being transferred to the home when they are very unwell

I may be wrong, but it seems like the only way forward if the government wants to provide for what society wants

Tiffany think lots of builds have to provide 'affordable' housing, the idea being it allows key workers to buy - but it's not council housing stock, and the cynic would say its a way of developers making maximum buck from undesireable plots through shared ownership schemes etc. Also it's not universal.

I think it's a great idea - fixed term tenancies will allow the providers to check the situation on a regular basis, plan their housing stock better, and stop the situation where people with a good household income are paying subsidised rents.

And as it will only apply to new tenants, the elderly (now) won't get kicked out.

But they should end Right to Buy - makes no sense

Yes, they do. If the development is ovr a certain sizethen a certain % of it has to be 'affordable housing'. Not sure if that has to be housing association or council or can be just stuff like shared ownership/key worker buyer schemes.

I don't know.

I'd worry this would create ghettos - neighbourhoods where the entire population is unemployed; people who don't 'invest' in the area (emotionally rather than financially) or care about their home as it's not really theirs and they won't be sticking around. There would be no established neighbourhoods, just people passing through.

What about the kids that start school in an area and are then forced to move? What about the people who don't want to find (better) jobs as they will lose their right to a council home?

great idea

should go further and re-assess existing tenancies to fixed term too

why shouldn't your needs be reassessed regularly when you are getting something from the state

I agree on principal but are there really so many houses where there are single occupants only?

I think its right too..Its not ideal - ideal would be plentiful accessible council housing available to all on a predetermined income .. but we are far beyond that stage ..
Surely social housing is meant to be help to get back on your feet as such - when the time comes that you are doing ok - surely its time to hand back that house to someone who needs it desperately ?

Duritzfanisscaredtofindherselfagreeingwiththetories....

so....i think its housing association....i am on the list for a bigger place,but we have to bid here.....and there are 3 new build sites throwing up new houses every week

my brother bought a luxury 4 bed new build onn an estate,then was most miffed to find that a load of houses were for HA tenants!!

Yes, it could be seen as a disincentive to work, hadn't thought of that. Especially if you're on the cusp of earning threshold and wouldn't be able to get comparable housing privately.

I clearly didn't pay enough attention when reading that I thought the fixed terms would be for a shorter period, more similar to a private tenancy with annual renewal of contract. People would potentially 'play' this type of system, getting a job immediately after 5 year review to maximise earnings/time in council house to best benefit them?

Right to Buy was/is great for the individual in that they get to get on the property ladder when ordinarily they could not afford to buy a 'normal' (ie non ex-LA) property. The opportunity to buy a property would have been beyond them financially, in most cases and so they would have remained a social housing tenant (generally private rents too high for these buyers too).

Right-to-Buy has also begun to improve areas traditionally seen as 'dodgy'. Many RTB homes are on their 3rd+ private owner now and the areas are slowly gentrifying. Now before everyone leaps on me, I know most social tenants are not dodgy, rotweiler owning, bits of old motorbikes and broken glass in the overgrown garden types but the private owners do tend to take more care of their properties than the renters(understandably, I suppose, maintainence is the landlords responsibility).

However, obviously it was utterly crap for the country as a whole in that it began to decimate social housing stock and left us with long waiting lists and whatnot. Mind you, that said, even without RTB there'd be a problem, I think. Anyone got a stat on how many houses have been sold via RTB to date ?

Yes, there will always be people who try to play the system.

we still have RTB here....even in brand new homes

thing is,i've done alot to my HA home....new interior doors,aerial,outside tap,decoations...done it properly bit by bit and really looked after it.....my housing officer was astounded at how i transformed the building site garden!!only been here few years,plan more

i probably wouldnt have done half of that if i knew i'd have to be moved on in a few years.

would tenants really look after their homes?