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.

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

Do you not realise that that cap is for select areas of London? And that other caps apply elsewhere, lower in relation to where you are?

Are you really that ill-educated about it all?

Do I need to repost the link that spells out exactly what the caps are, per area, based on the new 30% rule?

Then you can come and tell the millions of working poor in privately rented accommodation outside London, 'Sorry if you're fucked,'?

I would like to see the link expat if that is OK.

lemme dig it up. it was on a thread last week.

Thanks.

expatinscotland

My very next sentence showed that I am aware of the 30% rule, and I find it perfectly acceptable that people on housing benefit are paid enough to live in a 30th percentile home.

I know this is emotive but you should at least read what I write before criticising me!

So now you assume I am not reading what you write, long.

Yes, that must be it. Keep quoting that £400/week, knowing full well it's for select areas of London alone, as Gospel, and then grouse and proclaim that those who are aware are just not reading the drivel you write.

Here it is, drafty:

30percentorbust

Off to bed. DH has to work split shift tomorrow to pay for Cleggeron et al's fat pensions whilst they make it hard for us to eat, God rot every last one of them in this life and the next.

What exactly is wrong with the 30% figure?

Why should it be 50% (or any other figure)?

I don't know what rents are like all over the country, but the benefit applicable is calculated based on local rents. I think 30% is a very fair figure. There is absolutely nothing wrong in living in a 30th percentile home.

OK goodnight.

I don't understand the 30% thing.

Can you explain?

draftywindows

Imagine there are 100 2-bed houses for rent in a town. Arrange them in order, from cheapest to most expensive.

Then the amount of housing benefit available in the town for 2-bed houses is calculated at the moment based on the rent of the 50th house.

From next April it will be based on the rent of the 30th house instead.

Sorry, not from next April, but from next October.

I am worried about my aprents; the way the town has developed all 2 neds are away from town, parents don't drive and have mobiklity issues, Dad still works but couldn't even access it any more from teh new estates.

i think they should probably put it in new elases and renancies but people approaching teh end of their life- I do remember research from many eyars ago that moving elderly people actively shortens thier lives and my aprents are pushing seventy.

OTOH we don't exactly ahve secure housing ourselves, so can understand where it all comes from.

I did discuss this with aprents and if a bunglaow came up near where theya re thy's adore it (they ahd the cash saved to buy one
but lost the pension a few years back).

They enver claimed HB btw, Dad still working as he always has done.

Thanks

Another round of applause for Expat.
Spot on!

LFN the problem with teh 30% rrate (the only prblem IMO) is the wide areas they use

Here no home is available at 30%, we'd have to move far away from schools etc to find a palce- except we wouldnt becuase nobody takes on HB claimants anyway. We;d ahve to go council. It took me yearrs to get my ds3 into a suitable SNU: hardly surprising I desperately would not want to move him!

We're more than happy to top up the HB atm but not sure if we will be able to from 30% rate.

Of course the thing is these thinsg don't come alone: the same people that are hit by redundancy, or in our case scared of whether we can prove DLA entitlement for ds1 (ds3 will be easy sadly) in a 30 minute appt, or the sick, or... well yes.

I'd support the 30% rate based on communities. i don't mind moving around the town we're in, I dread having to move out of it, losing the schoosl where ds1 gets his ASD help, where ds2 is understood as being a child with challenging circs (techniocally a younfg carer even though i;d not let him take that role), where ds3 has a decent SNU placement. I know some might see it as entitlement (I should point out we never chose this, redundancy not choice) but understandable I think. We've no family for 50 miles, only people we could ever ask for emergency help are here. Losing that would scare me more than a lesser house or whatever. Heck i grew up on a council estate: it's not that at all (we're private rent)

'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 think it varies. Usually I would say you ar right.

but what of someone who elaves their rented home to care for their aprents and when their aprent dies are homeless? Orr the person with low level SN who livs with aprents and then is supported by SSD (if theya r elucky anyway)?

Mum and dad cannot assign their tenancy to anyone who has lived there less than a decade and that seems reasonable; I also think there should be rules about the incomes of those who a tenancy is assigned to. But there are cases where it would be cruel not to have some procedure for it in palce I think.

"but what of someone who elaves their rented home to care for their aprents and when their aprent dies are homeless?..."

thems the breaks - its a bit daft to give up your home. i would be looking to move parent in with me, or find them the appropriate social services support. no need to give up your home.

"...Orr the person with low level SN who livs with aprents and then is supported by SSD (if theya r elucky anyway)?"

i dont understand what you have written here sorry.

Nice as it would be for an old lady to stay in her 3 bed council house for life, it is not reasonable for the tax payer to pay for her to have 2 spare bedrooms just for when family come to stay.

Most people who own their homes cannot afford to have even one spare bedroom, why is it right that they should subsidise spare bedrooms for others?

The same old lady in a privately owned 3 bed house would probably downsize for economic reasons so why would a council house tenant be immune from this economic pressure?

We need to be realistic. Job for life and house for life belong to the past.

Better to house old ladies in one bed flats and increase their state pension, which In my view needs a sizeable uplift.

2shoes Tue 03-Aug-10 22:49:20
why do people say that a HA house is a "benefit"??
we were moved into our HA by the council as they could adapt our existing house.
we pay all the rent and are not on benefits, but we could never afford to move.
couldn't even afford the deposit for the through the floor lift we would need.

Social housing is a benefit, it is something that only a small proportion of society get and it's beneficial to those who have it because it's so cheap. How is it anything other than a benefit?

Obviously it's slightly different in your situation 2shoes as you need adaptions to a house etc, this isn't the case for the majority of people however.

Custy wehat I emant was someone with say AS or a genereal SN who ahs stayed with their aprents all their lives- plenty do that and then when their parents pass they stay put but get some help from social instead to support them.

"ask some old ladies who have lived in the same house for years if they would be happy with that?"

David Cameron has said that any changes will only apply to new tenants.

So if we sit here and argue about kicking old ladies out then not only are we completely missing the debate but we're doing the Government a huge favour and making ourselves look incredibly ill-informed about what is being proposed.

If we are going to raise any voices about this then we've got to make sure that we're talking about the right things and that we can't easily be dismissed as irrelevant.

So new tenants only. And that doesn't raise the picture of old people who have been in the same house for decades being suddenly turfed out.

Rather it could be about young families knowing from the outset that if they have more children they'll get a bigger place. And conversely when their children leave home they'll be moved down to somewhere with less room so another family can have the house.

And it's that that we need to debate and focus on.

Stop doing the government a favour by constantly talking about something that they're not planning and will give them the power to dismiss us with a "they're ill informed and therefore not a part of this debate" type comment.

Bobba I agree if there was suitable housing

My aprents don't want the extra space particualrly (actually they do becuase it emans theyc an provide us with a week repsite in the summer / help with sister's shifts but YKWIM- it's not formally used in any way that could register on a form). What tehy don't want is to be mvoed to an out of town estate where dad would ahve to elave work (he does graveyard shift; buses and rural counties do not mix with shifts and he enver drrove, eyes are too shot), leave the neighbours that pop in on each other, where they can walk into town to buy fresh food.

There needs to be a mix of housing in areas for this to work; all their estate is 3 bed housing.

ANd there needs to be warning- on the beleif that they had a home for life my aprents just blew £2k on recarpeting the entire house.

As for Custy's carers- it ain't that easy! it's not soemthing I will ever have to do, beinga carer already, but if you ahve a one bed flat 200 miles away and your Mum needs care in a larger house you move there. Doubly so if your one bed is a private tenancy as you woudln't be able to move them in anyway.

I'm not anti this, in proinciple; I just think people need fair warning so they don't spend £££££ on thie r home thinking it is for life, and an effort amde to provide housing within the same communities. Otherwise the whole Biog Society thing eats itself as well doen't it? Give back to your community- well, if you still have one. Moving mass loads of elderly people (and it really would be like that- I would say when I was a girl 50% of the homes on our estate were occupied by elderly couples or widowed people whose famillies were long flown) and just causes mass problems to shift entire swathes of people like that, as history shows.

A question as well: a few reports have said 'when peoples children grow up'- we will have one, posibly two of our children with us for life sue to SN. We're not in HA housing ATM but could end up in it, if we did would they count the boys as good reason to still need a larger house if we are provising their care? I am presuming so andthat the 'children' thing is just an easy way of putting it?

Ewe - benefit is the wrong word as it is associated with state benefits such as job seekers allowance and gives the false impression that the rest of us are doing council tenants a favour.

Anyone under 60 on this site hasn't really contributed more than a few pennies to council housebuilding as very few council houses have been built since RTB came in in the 80s.