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.

the bureaucrats will define genuine need. They will have targets to meet, and some will probably involve moving people out and moving needier people in. Arguments against moving out may be met by "computer says". I am not sure that nothing will change, I don't think this is just spin. This is such a momentous change from the past, that it may well be real.

Its the definition of 'genuine need' that bothers me. Some bureaucrat somewhere telling me that I don't 'need' my house anymore because my dc are old enough to leave, or because I'm earning a little bit over their threshold.
The people who abuse the system now will always abuse it. You will get people having more children so they don't lose their homes,and no doubt claim benefits for them or not looking for higher paid work in case they earn too much to stay in their houses. While hard working honest people will be penalised (as usual )

Something needs to be done. I live in an HA house about to move because my circumstances have changed and I can now get my own house. For the past 6 years I've been on the council waiting list to move areas.

In the area I wanted to go to there are plenty of elderly people, one person in a three bedroom house. Sorry but these are rented houses, it isn't theirs, no matter what. I also know of people who live in a cheap rent council house yet there are wages coming in from the parents and the children - they then buy their house for some ridiculously cheap amount and sell it for massive profit.

I've rented, I always take care of where I live but I know it is not my property. Even after nine years in the same house. Why shouldn't people expect to be given a house according to their needs and then to be moved on when circumstances change - i.e. better off, growing/shrinking family.

It is social housing, you want to stay in a place - buy one.

I don't think you can buy council houses for ridiculously cheap prices anymore, certainly not in this area anyway.
My Mum enquired about it about a year ago and was told the house would be sold them at the market value, which is still way out of their price range.

twoifbysea - that's the difference between a secure tenancy and shorthold or whatever they call the six month lease. I don't think the answer to inequity is to make everyone equally miserable. I think we should try to make everyone better off. Hence more protection for tenants in the private sector would be my answer.

Not chucking people out of their council homes because they have the temerity to go out and earn a living or have adult children living at home who also work (some of the complaints that have come up on this thread).

"While hard working honest people will be penalised (as usual )"

exactly right. People will be made to jump through hoops and many will give up and suffer the consequences. It's similar to the fact that many pensioners don't claim for all of the benefits that they are entitled to and have paid all their lives for, because the forms are too complicated to fill in.

"It is social housing, you want to stay in a place - buy one".
So what if you can't afford to buy somewhere because you work 40 hours a week in a shop for £6.00 an hour and house prices in your area are astronomical?
Is it only the rich that have the right to security now?
Twoifbysea - you are lucky that you can now afford to get your own house, unfortunately there are a lot of people who aren't.

edam - despite using the word subsidised in my post (which I meant to mean 'cheaper'), this is such a good point:

"Council tenants are not subsidised. They pay rent. (Some may qualify for housing benefit but so do people in private rental so it's irrelevant.) The rent is not discounted - the gap between private rental and council house rental reflects the madness of our housing market and the prices private landlords pay for property"

You are SO right. Council/HA rents are a much more realistic reflection of earnings in this country.

Another one standing up and applauding Expat - she has it spot on.

cat64, ask some old ladies who have lived in the same house for years if they would be happy with that? In the new climate that is being engendered they will be pressured to leave. Newspapers and the media will run endless stories of selfish people wishing to stay where they are, and will show pictures of needier people. Unfortunately, the general public will be led by the nose as usual and will start agreeing that these selfish people should move out. What right have they got when there are needier people in the queue? Instead of the public demanding that more houses be built, they will be on the side of the Sun, talking about selfish scroungers. Slowly, slowly the right to council homes will vanish as the hoops and hurdles to get one and stay in one are made higher and higher.

i do agree with cameron regarding tenancy assignment. i do not think that tenants should have the right to assign their tenancy to someone else.

i also think that people who have three bed homes and their kids have left - should be forced to downsize. housing should reflect your circumstances. you should not automatically be allowed to keep a 3 bed just becuase you have lived there for 50 years. yes i understand that its a home of memories etc - but its hard shit. families need that accomodation.

As a socialist my grandfather refused to buy his London council house. Council houses are there for people in need. Owning a house is not a right, it is a luxury.

As soon as my grandparents no longer needed a house they voluntarily moved into a flat that met their reduced needs.

When you are part of a society it should not be all take, take take.

expatinscotland

No-one is saying that people are going to get kicked out of the social housing system. Just that they will be periodically re-assessed to see whether they should still be eligible, and whether their circumstances still match their house.

Council houses don't belong to the occupants; they belong to us. As taxpayers we need to ensure our houses are used effectively.

As your DH is clearly deserving you will have no problem keeping your council house.

The new "leases" will be for medium/long fixed terms (five or ten years) so people will have plenty of time to plan for any transition.

The coalition is already bringing private sector rents down by capping the amount of housing benefit at £400 a week.

The abuse of housing benefit has artificially inflated the private rental market. If it is brought down to sane levels it will have the effect of reducing rents more broadly.

thats not bringing rents down. as lots of private rented discriminate against people on Hb anyway. its usually for the working poor who will have to find the difference and become poorer.

so the working poor cant afford private rented and if cameron does but a financial cap on social housing - they are just fucked.

haahaaa. you think this is going to bring rents down? now this just makes me laugh.

yes, the coalition so cares. they have such a finger on the pulse of the working poor who wipe their old relatives' arse because this is beneath themselves.

I was going to say something similar custardo. I rent our home, my rent is actually very reasonable for what we have but it is still a sizeable sum of money. Fiddling with housing benefit will not change my rent.

too right, custy.

Well some landlords have to discriminate against housing benefit - often they can't get insurance for housing benefit tenants.

This is stupid. If the government went back to the old system of paying the landlord directly (instead of giving the housing benefit to the tenant), and the landlord was not held responsible for overpayments to the tenant, then the insurance companies would be far more willing to insure housing benefit tenants.

However overall housing benefit has very much distorted the rental market - how can it not? The total amount paid out each year in housing benefit is ginormous!

'As your DH is clearly deserving you will have no problem keeping your council house.'

it is not council. in many areas, there is no more council. the council tranferred what stock they had left to either one or more HAs in exchange for their debts being written off by the Treasury.

what if he were not living in such a place? what if he were still private letting?

he'd need HB. if it's cut by caps, he'd be fucked.

because they do not understand or care about the working poor.

and they don't realise how much they need the working poor, either.

so let them go and find out, if that is how they wish to play it.

'This is stupid. If the government went back to the old system of paying the landlord directly (instead of giving the housing benefit to the tenant), and the landlord was not held responsible for overpayments to the tenant, then the insurance companies would be far more willing to insure housing benefit tenants.'

But they are not. They are not going back to the old system. They are not compelling insurers to take people on HB. They are not compelling councils not to pursue landlords for overpaid or falsely claimed HB. They are instead cutting and capping.

you can opt to have it paid directly.

the real villain here is the hb department who - probably down to being ill equipped, trained or just bloody useless take weeks upon weeks to process lcaims, which would leave private rented landlords out of pocket.

and

just becuase lots of money is paid through hb - doesn't mean it isn't needed.

afaics, the intention is for social housing to be for those who don't work - how could it be to help the working poor.

this means ghettoisation of the underclass.

at the moment where i used to live, there was a real mix of working people, and there is on lots of estates whwere i work. with people who work in a variety of industries living alongside those who do not work.

mixed communities are better - socially better - it just makes sense

Sorry, expatinscotland, no-one needs more than £400 a week in housing benefit.

And yes, I am aware of the "30%" instead of "50%" rule change too. People who don't get housing benefit don't automatically get to live in median quality homes - they live in what they can afford. Of course we should pay for people to live in dignity but there is nothing undignified at living in a 30th percentile home.

If someone wants to live in a better home then they should pay the extra rent themselves.

And those who say that cutting billions out of housing benefit won't reduce rents don't understand the basic laws of supply and demand. If there is less demand for median quality renting then the rental price for those houses will drop - that is completely basic economics.

Custardo Of course the money is needed - that is a completely separate issue. What I am saying is that irrespective of the reason it exists, housing benefit distorts the rental market.