Limited council tenancies

[Biscuitscoco]

Council housing only for two years Guardian report

Surely this is wrong?

We live in a council property. We were in a small bungalow (1 bdrm and 1 box room) and overcrowded. We were lucky and found an older couple in a 3 bedroom semi-detached that wanted to exchange with us, as their children had all grown and left home and they wanted a smaller property. Win-win situation as far as we were concerned.

But even in this situation, we had to replace carpeting in this property (they had a dog that from what we can tell wee'd often in the living room and dining room and the carpet was disgusting), as well as stripping the smoke-stained wallpaper in all the rooms and fixing a number of botched DIY jobs they had done. We've been here over 2 years and are STILL slowly doing things as we can afford them.

If we were in a situation where in 2 years they would tell us we couldn't stay, we wouldn't make the effort or pay to do some of these things to make the house nicer to live in. We would have to live in a dreadfully nasty property, as we would have to save every penny to pay for moving. 2 years is a ridiculously short period of time.

I don't have a problem with tenancy for life, as long as that person is living in the property. I don't think they should be allowed to sublet it - it should be occupied by the original tenant. And they shouldn't be allowed to buy the property, as it should stay to be eventually used by another family. I would rather see some sort of graduated scale of rent and such so that it's not a case of "oh, you have a job now? out you go!"

They'll find some creative way to kill them, Riven, for sure.

Any widget not producing money for their coffers is useless.

In some ways, its right that the social and private sector are brought more in line. Two years is still a longer contract than most private tennancies anyway.

If a shorter two year tennancy makes people want to not treat the property with respect or ensure its liveable then perhaps they need to look for a private rent that comes furnished etc. Its not too much to ask that in return for subsidised rent that a family looks after the house.

I would have like to have seen a cap on moving upwards though size wise, totally unfair that those in social housing can reproduce several children knowing that they will be given a larger house (often fully paid for) yet those who own mainly have to live within their means and limit the number of children they have.

With regards to moving, yes its timely and hard work to pack etc but no different to private tennants having to more when the landlord decides to sell, finds a better offer etc. Its very unequal at the moment and does need an overhaul.

But maybe private tenancies need to be brought more in line with social tenancies in terms of security of tenure etc rather than make everyone suffer instability and constant threat of removal?

no. private landlords are such becuase they are a business and in it to make money. they are not a social enterprise, its like asking costa coffee to bring its prices in line with a soup kitchen.

as a society we should be proud that we have these safety nets, things like the nhs, education and benefits.

i understand completely that the govt has a fine line between ensuring that benefit freud is reduced and persecution of people becuase they are on benefits.

what worried me is that ssocial housig in this thread and in general is referred to as the place people who are on benefits live

social housing is full of people on benefits that we pay for our taxes no?... well no, not always. with house prices so high you get ordinary people living in social housing - people whoclaim HB and people who don't. driving instructors, care givers, admin officers

so is DC saying that social housing should only be for those who receive HB? becuse that is very dangerous indeed.

I'm not on benefits, and all my neighbours seem to have jobs (at least they leave home in the mornings looking like they're heading to work...) Housing benefit paid to private landlords is costing the taxpayer money, not social housing which is already paid for, and tenant's rent more than covers the upkeep of.

It would be much better to see the private market better regulated - something more along the lines of countries like Germany where it's almost impossible to evict a good tenant and rents are affordable.

I agree Custardo that you cannot do much about the costs of private rents (any more than you can do much about the price of buying a house) but I don't understand why they have to be let on 6-month tenancies. As a private landlord, I would be delighted if someone wanted take out a two year tenancy, it would mean that I wouldn't have any void, wouldn't have to think about readvertising, interviewing prospective tenants etc etc. Six months seems a really short term which doesn't really benefit anyone except the minority of landlords wanting to make a fast buck and the minority of tenants needing to move around quite a lot.

moonunitalpha- why should it be almost impossible to evict a tenant?

Because a secure place to live should be a basic right in a developed country. Why should it be possible to take someone's home from them on a whim?

Providing housing is a serious responsibility - it's disgraceful that landlords can do it as a hobby or an easy way to make some money.

Landlords own the property and so within reason they should have full control over it. If they want to evict someone once their contract has come to an end or because of non-payment then they should be allowed to do so

I agree that they should have the right to evict for non-payment or serious damage/anti-social behaviour but a lot/most LLs don't own their rental properties, they have mortgages on them which the tenants are paying so surely the tenants should have some rights about security of tenure as well?

Non-payment, fine - that's a good reason. You can't take someone's job without good reason, so why is it ok to take their home?

Expat completely hit the nail on the head when she said that the Tories think that being poor is somehow a personal failing. It's your fault.

I hate this government, I hate what they stand for and I dread to think what will happen over the next 5 or so years.....

Plus, thinking about this, it's just going to concentrate all the problem people into the council estates. Anyone who is decent, gets a pay rise and gives a shit about their community will be booted out and the left will be the low life criminals and junkies.

Estates will become no go areas.

I agree Dr Northerner. Why else would they think throwing someone out of their home is fairer than ending the right to buy.

This is misguided on so many levels. Families need security. Asking already deprived children to move and change schools. Surely this will only increase the low attainment levels of the poorer pupils. What about the emotional impact on kids if their parents struggle to cope with the upheaval.

We need more social housing to be built.

"If a shorter two year tennancy makes people want to not treat the property with respect or ensure its liveable then perhaps they need to look for a private rent that comes furnished etc. Its not too much to ask that in return for subsidised rent that a family looks after the house."

This isn't about looking after a house. This is about spending out of your own pocket to make a house liveable. If they are going to bring social housing in line with private rent then they need to make sure houses are in a fit state to start with.

Put it like this, if you were private renting would you paint the walls and change the carpets knowing you could be kicked out?

Right now, everyone I've known who has had to move into social housing has had to redecorate due to the shabby conditions, and it has already been mentioned that when people leave their additions to the property are ripped out. If there is no long term guarantee, then why should they redecorate?

You can do basic maintenance to a property and it still become a worse state as it needs redecorating. Flooring especially needs replacing after a time.

I grew up on a council estate and lived there till I was 18. My Dad always worked as a builder and a joiner but money was never plentiful. He never ran a car, we never holidayed abroad, and Dad would never have afforded to move out and rent privately or buy. f we'd have been moved on, God knows what would have happened.

I had a stable, family life, in one family home for all of my childhood. Everyone deserves that.

I wish people would drop this line about rents being subsidized.

I have read this morning that they are going to give five year tenancies with a period of 6 months notice to quit but also offer the right to buy at a discounted price. I can't see how this would solve the problem of a shortage of social housing.

I don't think the Tories are really interested in solving the shortage of social housing or even saving money - this is more about undermining the concept of social housing/stable working class communities. Same as right to buy was in the first place.

If you privately rent, you have a choice to accept or decline a property based on the decorative standard. Most private LL's know this, and have to keep their property(ies) at a standard that people are willing to pay the market rent for. You wouldn't take out a tenancy on a PR property if it had damp running down the walls, no carpets/flooring and mould growing up the walls, would you? Yet that is exactly what is expected of people in social housing.

Therefore, people in social housing often have no choice but to pay for these things themselves, or live in unsanitary conditions. You would hardly pay hundreds of pounds to carpet an entire house if you were going to be forced to leave in 2 years and you knew the carpets would be thrown in the bin at the end of that time.

No-one in Private rented has to worry about the cost of getting carpets fitted when they move in, no PR LL would get tenants if they had no flooring. Has anyone seen the price of carpets these days? So yes, people in PR do often have to move every 6 months rather than 2 yearly, but can you imagine the extra costs over, say, a ten year period, if you had to recarpet an entire property every 2 years?

Both sets of people (those in social housing and those in private rented) will have to bear removal costs, but if you are moving white goods as well, like people in social housing are, that costs more, as you may well need more trips to move your stuff.

So you would have added moving expenses of carpeting and added expenses of removing white goods.

I am currently in private rented, but have been in social housing in the past, and I can gurantee it costs just as much, if not more, to move social housing every 2 years than it does moving between private rented properties every 6 months.

It's so depressing that instead of trying to make things better for people in a bad situation, we'd rather just make things worse for people in a marginally better situation.

As long as it doesn't affect the politicians I guess MoonUnitAlpha? :(