Westminster council to charge high earning council tenants higher rents

[DillyDaydreaming]

Good idea?

Haven't thought it completely through but I would think this is right and fair.
The families they are looking at are earning over £50k and a small number are on over £100k.

Why would it put people off trying to earn higher salaries - these families will comfortably afford a "small increase" in rent which could be ploughed back into social housing.

So - is this a good thing?
What's your opinion?

Link

I think that this is a great idea. I think that all council rents should be means tested. It would make sense if the rents were increased to market levels for people earning this sort of money. Then there would be less incentive for them to remain in the property and families who acually NEED the property can be rehomed.

Just read the link, they aren't going to change it for existing tenants and surely new prospective tenants earning that sort of money would not qualify anyway?!

Makes a lot of sense. As pointed out above, anyone earning £50k+ wouldn't qualify as a new applicant anyway. It's a good way to bump up revenue but it doesn't improve the availability. Next step has to be to tackle under-occupancy.

I wonder how many people earning £100k plus are actuallyliving in council accom?

Not many, I suspect.

Ben10 - existing tenants just means those who are tenants before the rule changes. Anyone who becomes a tenant after this rule comes in (if it does) would do so on the understanding that they would be charged more if their income goes up.

Ah, RustyBear

Now I get it!

If I heard the report correctly it was about 200 households which had an income of £100k +. tbh I feel that with pressures on social housing reassessment of entitlement to such a lease should be reviewed every 5/ 10 years. After all the tenants benefit in terms of having maintenance costs etc met by the state, security of tenure and , in some cases, a less than market rent.

How did they get that info?

"wonder how many people earning £100k plus are actuallyliving in council accom"

In Westminster £100k PA doesn't go that far (especially for a family).

When lived there (several years ago) dh & I probably earned about that between us. Even then - it wasn't enough to buy more than a tiny one bedroom flat. Luckily we lived in housing association type accommodation (our neighbours were young lawyers, MP's, journalists & minor celebs).

Westminster has the second lowest council tax in the uk and only had about 250000 residents. This proposal is interesting as the council has always fiercely opposed suggestions for an increase in the past.

has 250000 residents

This may be appropriate for some areas. I live in the North West in social housing houses are boarded up all around me. You only live there if you need a cheap house, my ex neighbours who are on benefits have all moved because they can get a higher rent paid in a better area. I stay because my work allows time off and i go camping so i am not there permantley. My DD is in SN ED so doesn't have to go to school in the area. This system would create gettos elsewhere in the country.

I walked my dog around the back of my estate last night and was shocked to see ten newly built bungalows boarded up also. The kids in the area have made it impossible to make a home on the estate. There has been an initiative (rent free weeks, new kitches etc) over the last year to get working families into the area and this has improved things. The plans need to be regional not national.

i think over 50k is fair enough. as these tenants could probably afford to buy a house on that kind of salary. definitely no lower than 50k though. especially in london.

If I still lived in a council place (my parents still have it, both retired not getting much cash) and I or them where earning such epic amounts of money I wouldn't be at all bothered if the council asked us to please look for somewhere else as council property are for those who need it most, I live in West London, rent privately I think if an individual earns 30k they should be asked to leave as they can clearly find a 1 bed flat with that amount, obviously the amount should depend on how many kids/disabled etc people live with you and how many bedrooms you would need.

But things are well fucked up the other day they reported on the news about a crack down by councils on illegal flats, people converting garages and the like into crapholes and renting them out, the councils are telling the landlord to stop renting the outhouses/garages etc without any care at all about what the tenants are going to do when they get kicked out, no one would live in a converted garage if they can afford the stupid prices of rent in london.

And then today I learn that there are people in council housing earning 50k+ a year that the councils still have a duty to house, it beggers belief, the minimum wage is about 9k a year after tax, you can't even rent a bed set in the capital if you earn under 15k, most shop staff, street cleaners etc are on fuck all money where are they to live? where is the care for them? , When I worked FT I got 11k a year not enough to rent, give the poor priority or raise the minimum wage, someone needs to take some responsibility and do the maths.

That must be under very special circumstances because the council no longer has a duty to house people in the way that the used to. They have to help but that includes hostels and b+b not housing as such.

I am in the posistion of getting back on my feet after being widowed so a person history and the level of debt should also be taken into account not just earnings. Even at 50k+ a year, their work may not be stable and it is best for the family to stay in secure housing than have to move around.

I totally disagree and its about high time a sensible cap was put on the social and private housing markets, this in turn could have the knock on effect of reducing council taxes which are in turn handed out as housing benefits. I live in N.I were there is no council housing with social housing being under the control of NIHE which in turn deals with housing benefit for their own stock of housing and also private housing, there is a firm cap on benefits here of 370 pounds per month regardless of location or the size of the house/flat. Increasing the rents in Britian will only increase the council tax to pay for the mad sky high rents so no one will benefit in the long run.

In the UK countil tax is not used for HB but i agree that we should be looking to lower the rent on private rentals and have a better mortgage help scheme. Also the HB rules and mortgage interest benefit needs an overhaul. The majority of people who claim HB in the UK are pensioners/disabled and the working poor, it is a small amount of HB claiments that are unemployed.

Absolutely Birds; 80% of people claiming HB are not unemployed according to Shelter.

DO I ahev an issue with surcharges for higher earning council residents? Nope. A lot ofthings you cn have in a council house- such as adapted properties- mean it's not easy to move on but that doesn' mean low rent has to be aprt of the deal. Just not so low there's no room for manoevre for people trying to save a deposit to buy their own place and move out.

We're in private rented but high risk for needing council housing as we have a few disabled kids and therefore a shakier future than many. however if we could pay a higher rent it would not be in anyway an issue for me. it's teh security / ability to adpat / general willingness to have us that would be required rather than the subsidised rent.

Birds, sorry I thought that council tax was used to pay HB, I pay a single bill called Rates which includes water but this bill seems to be a lot less (500 per year) than what people in Britian pay in council tax alone, I wondered why the council tax was so high and assumed it was paid out in HB, why is council tax so high in Britian, I cannot understand this.

CT in my area pays for parks, leisure, roads maintanance, bin collections and a whole range of facilities. HB comes out of the welfare spending bill.

We need to raise the minimum wage, it's one thing saying that private rentals need a cap and they do need to do something about the cost and over crowding in London, but it reaches everywhere, house prices are too expensive, the landlord may be renting out part of the house to pay the mortgage put a cap on there and they may loose the mortgage so instead they start cramming more people into shared places, as stated the council tax is stupid, then you have the utility bills, everything needs to be tackled, it's all related to each other.

I pay 800pcm for a 1 bed flat, the council tax is 120 a month, and this is the cheapest place we could find that actually had a kitchen rather then a mini sink and double hot plate "kitchenet" crap and thats not even counting the gas, electric and water.

But ... but ... but ... I don't understand why high earners are entitled to council housing in the first place. [Dons flame proof vest] But I am very easily persuaded so if someone can please explain it to me in VERY SIMPLE terms I will probably come round!

I guess they either weren't high earners when they applied, had become homeless or had high priority for the type of property offered (ie disabled) for hwich there was lower demand.

I understand that but can't help feeling that in view of the shortage of housing, each individual situation should be reviewed periodically. Not saying that people should be thrown out onto the street, but perhaps they should be given a year to find an alternative?

I feel a bit narky about this because I have a cousin, a partner in top 5 accounting firm, who married a chap who had a council flat in Westminster. They now have 2 children and were upgraded and have a 3 bed flat in one of the nicest parts of Westminster which they had the right to buy. Then they sold it at a vast profit. In the meantime, they have bought a house, with no mortgage on it, which they rent out.

She earns a 6-figure salary (and don't we know it!) and he also works part-time and is a SAHD the rest of the time. Oh, and their two little girls are privately educated.

To me, that's not right.