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?

Sorry, that was a bit ranty . And I'm probably missing the point big stylee.

Doesn't Westminster have a history of some 'atypical' people in council accommodation though?

I agree it seems strange to me that people are given a tenancy for 1 place for life, although clearly other needs should be considered not just income, trouble is who is responsible for deciding who is 'needy' who considers how the person with 'no' income can afford to live? do they spy on people to see if they are working cash in hand?

I don't even understand how 2 able bodied working adults can get HA accmmodation TBH (not a dig at anyone I've come accross it before)

ilovecrips-they usually have to be low earners or in a specific job health care assistants. Also there are hard to let areas so they will rent to working people. Most will start off in a flat. If you think about it there should be housing for working single people. I have seen, in my work, single mens life fall apart very quickly bacause of the lack of stable housing. Housing is a fundamental need that impacts on the abilty to gain a job, credit and even CRB check etc.

There isn't a housing shortage, there is a shortage of affordable housing. Which is completly different.

To apply for HA housing you have to fill in a form and supply proof of everything that you put on the form, as with DWP forms. Those working cash in hand are rarely pulling in enough income to make that much of a difference anyway.

Every Local Authority will have a statement on housing provision as will every HA.

like my old neighbour birds
fixed cars, worked in the building, owned his own house outright, also owned another

(we were private rented though)

actually I disagree why should there be housing for single working people, housing for the poor, the needy, the disabled, those with issues yes but just for single working people ummm I'm not (yet) convinced

thing is there are people in London earning easily enough to rent privately yet living in HA seems a bit wrong to me

(gerrymandering was the term I was looking for earlier it was Westminster wasn't it?)

Ok. And my cousin's DH is entitled to his flat for life, I suppose. Fair enough if them's the rules. Still doesn't seem quite right to me. Even if there is no shortage of accommodation, as such, I'm not sure why they should be entitled to the financial help.

Apologies for sounding so Daily Fail.

I thought that this is why the govt want to change the rules (despite everyone protesting)?

why on earth should he be entitled to a flat for life (there again why should anyone be entitled to buy them but I guess that's another thread)

? ?
I forgot those earlier {grin]

I love that you bothered to go back and add them!

Is he getting free housing then, he doesn't pay rent?

The principle came about after the creation of the welfare state and the slum clearance/compulsary purchase programe. That housing was made the governments business. There were enough council houses until Thatcher sold them off and stopped building more. It is the lack of affordable housing that stops people from working. People have to live somewhere. If you are young and not on a good wage or don't have family to start you off, what are you supposed to do? Private rents are very expensive in some areas. Home ownership only works if you are in permanant work which many parts of the country aren't. Unstable housing causes more social problems and ends up costing more than housing people.

No, I think they must pay rent. I should investigate further before being so judgmental really.

Ryoko ..That is crazy money for a 1 bedroom flat. I rent out a 4 bedroom house to a young family @ 390 pounds per month including rates (N.I) which includes water, the heating oil and electric is extra paid by the tenant though warm water is free in the summer months due to solar heating panels. I see the high rents as nothing more than a trap which people cannot escape from unless they earn a fortune, the most anyone coud get for a 1 bedroom flat in my area is about 200-250 pounds PCM including rates.

Private rented houses in the areas where people tend to earn just above min wage start at £470 per month, in the city that i live in. My HA house is £270 per month but having said that alot are boarded up because only the working poor will live in the area. It would be cheaper to get a mortgage but the problem is that the employment where i live is unsteady. The government needs to rethink the system for the unemployed homeowners so people will take the chance to buy. The deposit needed now is also out of many peoples reach. Without HA housing alot more would be homeless or trapped in a cycle of poverty.

You pay rent in housing if you cannot claim HB- HB is set at a level that covers costs really so is not for profit I guess.

There's a change in process so that council houses will be reviewed- ATM it's a lifelong tenenacy. that in itself is a good diea and i would support it IF it were a decent length of time- say 5 years plus; talk ATM is of a two year span (was cut from an initial 5) and as far as I can tell that will simply be a disincentive to move forwards with careers etc as people won't ahve the chance to save for deposits etc but will lose their home. It may be the LHA's house but is their home.

Without HA housing, when this place eventually goes (we have it until teh LLs children want it- was left to them in a will, in some kind of trust) we would almost certainly be homeless and cannot access B&B. Hopefully by then our income will be mroe stable but even then no private rented is likely to take 3 autistic children, much less someone who is self employed (as Dh is) so much as we'd willingly pay our way the options are reduced massively.

It might sound a bit silly to some but it would also mean that those in HA housing could not consider having pets as very few private LL's except tenants with pets. Also what would be the point of decently decorating and doing the garden? It would definatly create gettos.

I agree OP, once people are earning such a good salary it is right that they contribute back into the system to help the next person and expand the scheme.

Am I the only one to whom it has occurred that, if councils could charge higher rent to higher earners, there would be an incentive for them to favour those who could afford to pay more?

MsHigh - I do think its odd that these high earners have council houses.

How that happened I dont know, but if people have benefited from stable accommodation and have managed to reach a high paying job since the time they entered HA accomodation, it is right that they should contribute more as their wages increase.

The income should be ringfenced to provide social housing only, allowing the HA to increase provision.

Great idea. Better idea = end their leases.

I think all council houses should not be as they are now but shoul dbe decently decorated and maintained rental houses with long-terms lets, where the rent is means-tested.

No-one needs to put money into the house because it is maintained by the council, just as a rented house is maintained by the landlord.

Rents go up as you earn more, so once you earn a decent amount there is no sudden barrier to stop you from moving on into private rentals or buying somewhere.

You spend to your means. Everyone does. If you are paying very low rent, and your earnings go up but your rent does not, then you will get used to having that much extra cash after paying your rent and won't be able to make the jump from the lower council rent to market rates.

I once shared a flat with a girl who also had a council flat in Clapham (not purpose-built in scary estate - Victorian conversion) which she sub-let for a vast sum.

She said it was quite the norm for mothers to write to the council when their child was 16 to say that the boyfriend/stepfather was violent/abusive and the council then housed the child separately. My blood was boiling when she said that it was quite usual and all her friends had managed to get flats that way.

This girl was in investment banking.

I don't know that it would create ghettos: the people on Mum 's / my old estate who look after their places aren't the ones who expect to move on but the ones who have pride, regardless of their level of social mobility. Mum's garden looks like a showhopme, next door is privately owned then rented out and is a state.

Gramercy there may well be people doing that, I can't say it's something I ever came across though when I was growing up. Indeed, i've knwon the council leave 16 year olds and older in horrendous conditions rather than house them separately (the one with a toddler on her Aunt's couch 8 to a 3 bed comes to mind, or single mum in a B&B refused housing because she turned down a house next to the one her ex was expected to retuurn to after leaving prison for attempting to stab her).

conculainey

Yes I know welcome to London, if DF could move somewhere else with a guaranteed job we would be gone like a shot, but thats the catch 22, don't want to move blind, don't have the savings to tide us over until another job is found.

This place is cheap, the one bed places over the road built in exactly the same style at the same time are £1,200 a month (not over a tube station see), my dad pays the council more then you charge for a 3 bed council flat on one of the biggest estates in London.

Have a look at the RightMove website at places in London you will be shocked, we need government to step in and stop the madness, but that will never happen as half the MPs are closet landlords.

I don't think that council house tenants should be forced to move on once their income reaches some notional "enough" figure. It would be a breach of trust. Why should people have to plan around having to leave their home if their income were to increase?

The problem arose because council houses were sold and not replaced. It's not fair to target innocent council tenants for that; blame those who made it happen.