Limited council tenancies

[Biscuitscoco]

Council housing only for two years Guardian report

Surely this is wrong?

we wouldnt be able to afford private rents :( which would mean moving away. for some people not an issue. for us a major issue! we have family support here, dh medical team is here, as is dd2 SN support.

i wonder how people would feel if their mortgage company could reassess them every 2 years and pull the plug on their house if they wanted(I know it isn't the same but a home is a home whether you rent or are lucky enough to be able to buy)
imo this is another way for the goverment to hit the poor and make the good old MC people feel better.

oh yes the DSS and No children thing does bug me (partially through semantics - the DSS hasn't existed for year).

I have been incredibly fortunate to find 2 homes in the last 2 years that would accept me and my children.

The unemployment situation in this town does mean that more LL have been faced with the choice of "limited choice of/no tenants or people claiming HB/with children"

"People need to know there family home is safe and secure for as long as they need it."

This will be brought up in defence of this proposal so it's got to be answered.

Why should people in social housing be more deserving of stability than those who privately rent?

As more and more people do privately rent due to the high cost of housing they're going to hear that argument pretty sympathetically. Why should people who already benefit from cheaper rent also benefit from long term stability?

And I'm not actually saying I disagree with you when you say that. But the as people not in social housing feel more and more under the screws that kind of argument will enable the Government to get away with almost anything when it comes to social tenants and there's got to be a way of responding to it.

"ruthless landlords in the private sector who get away with all sorts of shit."

That's as much of a stereotype as the people in Social Housing being feckless loosers watching Jeremy Kyle re-runs all day.

Yes the stereotype exists, but it's the general or even the common experience.

i watch jeremy kyle.

well i watched it.

once.

twas shit.

"Why should people who already benefit from cheaper rent also benefit from long term stability?"

wasn't that part of the reason social housing was set up in the first place - to offer stability to those who couldn't afford to buy??

misdee - you've done better than me - I only managed about 5 minutes of one episode

'Why should people in social housing be more deserving of stability than those who privately rent?'

for some, they are in social housing due to low incomes. to move every 2yrs, or 6months would put us at more a disadvantage than we currently are at.

its been a while since i was in private rentals round here, but recently looked into the osts out of curiousty. £950 pcm for a 3bed house 5mins walk away from here.

I hate all this "private tenants have it so bad, lets make council/HA tenants suffer too" shouldn't we instead of being jealous of those with cheaper rents/lifelong tenancies, be aspiring to raise standards in the private sector?

It just seems so petty and mean spirited. We went on to the housing list as we were living with dp's Mum. I trawled for rent ads all the time, the cheapest lets were £650 a month for basically a bedsit. Fair enough I was unaware of the housing benefit thresholds at the time etc. I didn't know that on dp's wages, we would even be entitled to Hb. If I had, we would have scraped together the deposit and moved out. 3 adults and a child in a 2 bed flat for 2 years wasn't great.

We were actually very lucky to get a council flat and eventually a house. It actually says on the website now, most people who apply will NEVER be housed. We were right time right place for the house, would have no chance now.

Plus It really rankles that property developers/mulptiple homeowners are getting there nests feathered and mortgages paid for via Hb. If we lived in a private let, we would get lots more housing benefit, we would be labelled feckless scroungers, landlord laughing all the way to the bank. At least in social housing the rent goes at least some way to imroving and building more (ha ha) housing stock.

It's never been and probably never will be in our reach to buy a house. As long as I have somewhere to live I don't care, not everyone can earn above the national average, it's just not feasible, why should we suffer because of this.

This house must be at least 50 years old, I'm sure in rent it has been payed for 10 times over, so it is no way subsidised by the tax payer.

I can understand the need to re-assess those living in social housing at regular intervals to see if they still 'qualify' for that property, but I feel that 2 years is just not enough. Yeah, I realise it's crap being on a low wage, having to private rent due to lack of social housing, and having no security I'm there myself - but surely instead of pissing on those who have got social housing (whose rents are going to be massively increasing anyway), we should be forcing LL's of PR properties to offer longer tenancies? Social housing is there for a reason, but I do feel that when you have family A in a 2-bed flat with 2 adults and 3 dc, and you have family B in a 3-bed house, and they are elderly and can't even use the upstairs - then something is wrong with the system.

And I do agree - BUILD SOME MORE FUCKING SOCIAL HOUSING. That would take the power away from the BTL LL's.

Five years between assessments would be much better than 2 yearly gaps. I hate the fact that we have no security in PR, but do you think if I was offered a council/HA property that I'd turn it down? Not on your nelly!

And the council flats I've had in the past have been in a terrible state when I've taken them on - one of them had damp running down the walls, and mould growing up them, had to scrub the walls with bleach, buy fungicidal paint to help it, and bleach all the walls daily. No carpets in there, so had to pay for all that myself. Had to pay for all my white goods. The toilet was in such a bad state - totally black and no cleaner would shift it - that I had to replace the toilet myself, as the flat was not due for a new bathroom for another 10 years+. Then when I had DC3 (DS2) - I had 'intentionally overcrowded' myself and had to leave. Only 17 months after paying for all these things.

Turns out my council shouldn't have done that, but now they're basically making that policy.

At the moment these are just proposals: could it be the Tories are playing a particularly scummy game of knowing that the Liberals don't want to end life tenancies and hoping that if they suggest two years, their coalition partners will settle for five or ten and feel that they have won?

And yes, DP and I get faaaar and away more HB being in private rented (well, we fucking don't, the LL does), than we would get in social housing ATM, in fact if we were in a local HA property, I don't actually think we would be getting any HB. . So how exactly will it save the government money to raise the rents in social housing?? Surely then, as well as paying BTL LL's a fortune in HB (taxpayers money), they will also be paying council - or more likely HA (private company...) a fortune in HB. Jobs for the boys much? Hardly any council housing stock remains now, 90% of it is owned and run by housing associations which are private companies that want to make a profit...

More security and rules for private lets would be much better.

Where tenants are assured longer lets and both have better protection. Would lead to more trust between tennants/landlords, better understanding, better housing and better quality of life for a lot of people.

If you are going to buy a shit load of houses to let out to people at profit then it should come with social responsibility. After all, these folk who buy loads of houses on credit are partly the reason why folk like us won't be able to afford a house of our own any time soon.

housing associations are not private companies. they have charitable status, they are social landlords.

any profit on their books is only to remain solvent viable entities.

any other monies goes backi nto the business into stock, staff and re-development costs.

they are not private companies. they are run by a board, on the board of any HA will be residents.

i don't agree that if you buy a shit load of houses to let out that you should have social responsability.

that is a business to make profit, not a charity.

'I hate all this "private tenants have it so bad, lets make council/HA tenants suffer too" shouldn't we instead of being jealous of those with cheaper rents/lifelong tenancies, be aspiring to raise standards in the private sector?'

That's taking the negative view on it.

It's not about making other people "suffer".

If people in social housing say "we need stability to do the best for our families" then response from people in private tenancies is going to be "are you saying that my family isn't stable and that I/we don't do the best for it?"

So the Government's initial statement, "why should private tenants subsidise not only cheap rents for social tenants but long term homes that they don't get" is going to go down well with certain people.

Then trying to defend the social tenancies by being seen to say that people in private tenancies are not doing the best for their families is just going to get their backs up.

And that's how the Government will get this through.

We've seen them do it with the Housing Cap by playing the "why should private tenants subsidise people to live where they couldn't afford to" card so I'm pretty certain we'll see them try to present this the same way.

Fair enough Custardo.
A lot of the private lets around here are ex-council houses.
It just feels wrong to me.

Guess that's just my take on a solution.

I do think if you are going to be a landlord then you should have to meet better conditions for private tenants. A lot are quite good, but a lot more are pretty dodgy and exploit all sorts of loopholes. Ditto for tenants I suppose.

I guess what I'm trying to get at (in a roundabout way) is:

1. More sensible rules
2. Better standards for all
3. More assured tenancies/ a fairer deal

Anyhoo, off to bed. Got a 3am and 5am feed to do......[yawn!]

I don't understand what you are saying BadgersPaws, by saying that people need secure tenancies, this is in no way a judgement on those that don't have them. Private tenants subsidise noone except landlords, as far as I can see.

If you are in an insecure tenancy where you are moved on every 6 months, you are a victim of the current system, not social tenants .

Honestly these arguments about private v council, etc are a race to the bottom. Some people seem unable to look at the whole, eventually nobody will be entitled to anything. God forbid someone else gets something I don't. The whole entitlement thing bothers me, it will end with noone entitled to anything, except the fucking super rich obviously. People are so blind, we are all truly the slave class.

"by saying that people need secure tenancies, this is in no way a judgement on those that don't have them"

This is going to be played out as a private vs. social housing thing and saying that a family needs a secure tenancy will just isn't going to play well with all those families in private tenancies.

And that "why should they get something that we don't other than cheap rent" feeling is going to come to the fore. That is exactly how the Government played it with the caps and that's probably how they're going to play it again.

"Private tenants subsidise noone except landlords, as far as I can see."

All tax payers subsidies the low rents of social housing, those rents would not be possible without the Government funding the building of the property leaving the HA/Council without a large mortgage to pay.

"Honestly these arguments about private v council, etc are a race to the bottom."

Yup but they're a card that this Government is more than happy to play and we've got to be ready to respond to it.

i love the way people are falling into the trap that imo the goverment set.
they want people in private rental to hate people in social housing, so that when they make life shit for them , the people in private rental will (they think) support any crap cuts they make.
it is all PR

2shoes- is the Government not seeking to solve a fairly serious problem in social housing

no not really huddspur - they're just trying to get rid of the problem and in the mean time creat another one (but it's much easier for them to ignore the people they've chucked out of social housing/are already in private rented....()