Limited council tenancies

[Biscuitscoco]

Council housing only for two years Guardian report

Surely this is wrong?

"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."

But not all private tenants are tax payers.

please correct me if i am wrong, but to my knowledge the only public money that HAs get ( other than rents through benefits ) is from teh housing corp - and that money is for new development of homes.

the homes that many on this thread agree we need more of.

we meed more social housing

housing associations build new housing - not all social housing - some might be key worker or part rent part buy schemes - and the housing corporation then pays PART of the building costs of the new homes - not all.

so...well...WTF???????! with all this taxpayers moeny bullshit

what exactly do they mean?

their other money comes becuase each property they have is mortgaged - i understand

huddspur no in a word
moving people out after 2 years will not solve anything.
the waiting list are massive
there are very few if any social housing houses being built.
so how many "new" tenants is this actually going to affect......
we await the next step, when they move on to existing tenants......

Isn't reasessing peoples needs and means every 2 years a sensible thing to do. It will ensure that people aren't in council houses when they don't need to be or in homes that exceed their needs.

btw i think the govt sets the formula for working out what rents HAs can charge.

I agree that something is wrong with the system when there are elderly couples in 4 bed houses while I have been told we will be on the waiting list for at least 10 years.

However, every two years is just too often. Possibly every 5 years would be fairer but at 10 years folk would at least feel they have some security whilst at the same time would still free up properties.

I have been pretty vocal on here about my housing situation. We privately rent and have been for 4 years, during that time we have moved 3 times never through any fault of our own.

We have been ripped off for our deposit at one place, cannot decorate to our own standards (and despite popular belief most run of the mill private lets are not particularly well decorated round here), and worst of all have no security. Basically we can be out of here within 2 months of our LL deciding he no longer wants us here and he doesnt even have to give a reason.

Everyone has tenants rights but as a private-renter they are impossible to enforce as the LL just has to decide you are PITA for wanting repairs carried out, then you are evicted.

We pay through the nose to rent this ex-council semi, while the girl at the end of the street pays 1/4 of what we do.

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said that we need to give private renters more security and make rents more affordable. If I knew I was here for the long-term it would certainly make life less worrying.

hoddspur...are they suggesting that social housing should only be for benefit claimants?

let me think, if i was a benefit claimant, and i got offerend a job, imporved my circumstnaces to a point where i was working at sainsburies 40hrs a week, and the only help i recieved was WTC. i am them assessed. and the assessor says that i now earn enough to rent privately and i must move.

i think i might not take that job for fear of losing my home.

ridiculous.

i do think that people shouldnt have lifetime tenancies, i do know that in brighton and london for instance, we have some rich people in social housing properties, famous people sometimes!

if you can afford your own yacht at brighton marina, if you ring in informing the housing association ( as is the required policy) informing them that you are visiting australia for 3 months. then yes, the likley hood would be that you are earning too much

i think if you have a joint family income of over 50k thats a decent threshhold.

there currently ( asfar as i am aware) isn't a threshhold.

i also think that there are an awful lot of people who live inproperties for 20 years - their kids move out and they have a three bed house.

i think its right to move them to a more appropriate property and the LAW does allow for housing assoications to do this.

it isn't implimented becuase its seen as rotten practice - no one in the sector does it and as a soical landlord - you would look like a complete teat if you did. so changing this culture is appropriate and there should even be regulation and perfomance indicators maybe to enable and force housing associations to look at this.

i dont think council or social housing should be for life, but it has to enable you to make a life and to support you if you are working poor.

custardo- would the welfare reforms mean that if you refused that job then you'd have them withdrawn and even though you'd still have your council house you'd still be in a mess.

I just to see a situation where my parents and my brother live in a 4 bed council house because that was the size of house they were allocated when me and my sisters still live there. I think that peoples needs to be regulary examined and I don't think doing this every 2 years is a bad idea.

so you are asessed and told to move out ....where will the money come from for the new place??

what happens if you lose your job? cant pay the rent....go BACK onto housing list....for some people,this could be a cycle they are unable to change....and will be costly all round

and also,with this re-asessing....will they then move crowded families into larger accomadation?? will it work BOTH ways??

I don't think I've ever felt more relieved that I'm private rented (paid for by HB) than now actually.

Obviously LL could decide he's selling up etc etc.

However, if he doesn't do that - then at least I know if I do manage to find a job next year that he's not going to throw me out because I'm doing too well for myself and relying less on the state to provide an income for me.

ha- you have to be joking Tiffany - you don't really think they'd move families already in social housing into bigger properties do you?

Of course not - they'll want to reduce the social housing list so it looks like they're doing a great job - so will move a family on the list into the bigger place.

tiffany- I hope that the plan is to move overcrowded familys into more suitable housing if it is vacated due to the new assessments

baroque....they still have to stay within the law tho...each area seems to have different overcrowding regs

don't be silly huddspur - the government know that if they can turn round at the end of the current term and say "look we reduced the social housing waiting lists by x amount" its going to "look" a lot better for them than if the list lengths don't change much and they just put current social housing tenants into more suitable accommodation.

baroque- can they not do both

ILoveTIFFANY good question
who is going to foot the bill to move these people into new accommodation??

yeah if you REFUSED the job, but there is no incentive to go for it in the first place.

i'm not upto date with the benefits system - but govt say that mums have to look for a job when the kid is what? 7, 10 yo?

well if i was inclined to work when my child was for example 2 years old - i wouldn't bother incase i lost my home

2shoes - presumably, if the people have been assessed and found to be too financially viable for social housing, then presumably, these people will have to fund their own costs - cos they is rich innit

great custy imagine all those people who will be £5 over the limit.

custardo - think it's currently 7, but reducing to 4/5 (when the youngest starts school) next year. Though they are (currently) saying that LP's will be able to look for work within "child friendly" (my words not theirs) hours

huddspir - I doubt it - the waiting lists in many areas are YEARS long.

I guess it depends on how low they put the threshold...........but if they put it too low then they're going to end up with an increased housing benefit bill.......

i know we have to wait on the detail and this is all presumtion, but i am worried that the varied communities that we have recently seen as a feature of many social housing estates ...due to people who work hard but STILL cant afford to buy...this variation in the community will be lost.

the govt will in effect be creating Housing Benefit only ghettos

Let me just get this straight in my head..

• housing benefit allowance will be cut after 10+ months on JSA

• housing benefit will not match the average market rent (larger discrepancy than there is already)

• social housing will charge more rent, closer to the market rent

• housing benefit gets paid from the govt/council to the tenant, and if in social housing, back again. This will be higher amounts. We will assume for now that the social housing rent will not rise above the local housing allowance for housing benefit. And has allowance for those who get less HB.

• social housing is already means tested and difficult to get

• I assume it will be no easier to keep housing when means testing is in

• I already know that there are a lot of people who aren't eligible for social housing with current means testing, who can't afford private rent without housing benefit.

In theory it may work financially, but they need to look very very very carefully at the means testing otherwise they are not saving anything, just transferring the cost from social housing to housing benefit.

And it doesn't take into account social issues, eg. social housing areas will only house poor people, which isn't the greatest thing for improving areas.

Or the amount that those in social housing have put into their properties. Can you imagine spending a fortune on your property, (reflooring etc) then being told to get out? How thrilled would you be?

Also, if they are going to be kicking people out then surely they are going to have to bother making social housing habitable before having people move in? Because they don't now.

I think its all bad timing, so much is happening a the moment, job cuts, benefit cuts isnt this country demoralised already? There are many things in place to improve the econmony, i really do think social housing could be reviewed at a lator date. But then it could be in place to encourage people to move forward and perhaps buy as i may be perceived that people intensionally go for social housing for life, but where is the incentive when you are the one made redundant or unable to find work?