Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Westminster council to charge high earning council tenants higher rents

103 replies

DillyDaydreaming · 11/05/2011 07:01

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?

OP posts:
operalover · 12/05/2011 23:41

I'm a council tenant in another London borough and I'm expecting this policy to come into force in my borough as well. It won't affect me as I'm an existing tenant and my income would be too low as well. But I think if I was in the position that I was earning enough to be charged a higher rent, I'd probably choose to buy the property rather than pay market rents and not get an investment at the end of it. You still get a £16k discount on right to buy and council flats tend to be priced lower than other properties in London.

So I think many councils won't necessarily see more rental income as a result of the policy, they'd end up losing even more of their housing stock, and the result would be seen as unfair, which would defeat the aim of the policy in trying to make the rental policies appear more fair to the public.

sahm3 · 13/05/2011 10:39

A council house shouldnt be for life, yes it should be means tested, but high earners shouldnt be eligible!

onagar · 13/05/2011 10:53

Since rich people were not going to get council houses anyway their stated reason is a bit thin.

Once they have established that they can change the rent when they like they can change where they draw the line so to get rid of all the poor people in Westminster.

A good thing too. We don't want important people and tourists having to look at the poor. It might put them off.

Birdsgottafly · 13/05/2011 11:11

It depends on the rate set to be considered a 'high earner'. I am getting back on my feet after a very tough period including being widowed. I am requalifing myself because my youngest DC is disabled and i want to be earning a level that i can pay for her internet access etc and so that she doesn't live in poverty. The way that the benefit system is going towards disabled people terrifies me. I have put alot of time, effort and money into my HA house. I live in a 'hard to let' area it would not make sense to move me on whilst my neighbours who do nothing to increase their chances of earning or even working have a tenency for a lifetime. I am getting to an age were i would not get a mortgage even if i had the deposit.

Peachy-perhaps the tenents in the private rent don't have pride because they know that they will have to move out at somepoint. I would not stay in my area if i had to pay more rent, i stay because it is a cheap house. My ex neighbours are all ex neighbours because the HB will pay to live in a better area. The working poor are trapped where i live.

This thread does show that we need postcode policies not even regional, let alone national polices for housing.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 13/05/2011 19:03

Maybe birds though tbh it's as much the LL no bothering isn't it? After all their house. And six months after the tenants went still a tip.

Like you we're batttling a failing disability system (2 with asd, 3rd child just regressed and been referred for assessment! DH (redundancy) and I (carer) both retraining in hope of cobbling some sort of working system together between us). I'd dearly lvoe to stay out of LA housing and in this area as we are settled now and it's our home but know nobody else would touch us despite an excellent rental history; if by some further collapse of luck we ended up in LA Housing tbh I;d not want to move again, I'm ready to trya nd rebuild our lives not take constant batterings and changes.

MsHighwater · 13/05/2011 21:54

It appals me that social housing is seen (by some) as a sign that you are down on your luck. I'm no historian but it seems to me that social housing was made available to provide decent housing at a fair rent for people who could not afford to own property and who would otherwise be at the mercy of (potentially) unscrupulous private landlords (Rachman was, according to my dh, a notorious example in London in the 50s/60s).

I see people talking of social housing as though anyone living in social housing must or should want out. I think that makes it easy for people to see policies that could see tenants forced, or coerced, out of their rented home as acceptable. IMHO, policies like that are neither right nor just.

I own my home (with dh) and, as long as we can afford it and as long as we choose to make it so, this will be our home for life. Social housing tenants ought to retain the same right.

Birdsgottafly · 14/05/2011 10:07

Mshighwater- you are right the saying after WW11 was 'homes fit for heroes'. It wasn't just 'slum' housing that was cleared, there was a whole new urban plan which put restrictions on building houses for sale. Housing was seen as much as the govenments responsibility as the NHS. It was the Thatcher years that saw a complete turn around on housing policy and the rise of unscrupulous landlords. Property became profit and just another commodity.

onagar · 14/05/2011 11:06

MsHighwater I agree completely.

the assumption that social housing is a bad thing that we need to limit the use of is one that must be popular with the unscrupulous private landlords themselves. After all if there were enough social housing that current private tenants had an alternative then those same landlords would have to treat them decently and with some respect.

It would benefit all tenants including private ones to have more social housing. Also social housing can be profitable to the local authority if done properly. They don't give it away free now despite what some people appear to think.

Peachy · 14/05/2011 17:16

MrsHighWater I agree totally on one level but on a practical level ther aren't enough houses at this point so if people stay put people who are newly down on their luck become stuck in B&Bs etc

new builds would be the lofical thing but when we have a Government (any party, all of them) made up of landlords it will not happen

MsHighwater · 14/05/2011 21:06

Peachy, you might have a point but it does not change the fact that the solution to the problem must involve the provision of more affordable rented housing. Things do change, even when it seems unlikely. 2 weeks or so ago, people thought that the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament made it virtually impossible for any party to gain an absolute majority. Wrong!

HHLimbo · 14/05/2011 21:30

Hear hear Ms Highwater.

The current housing situation is the ideal time for government to invest in increasing the social housing stock.

wubblybubbly · 15/05/2011 00:08

Well said MsHighwater.

I grew up on a council estate in the 70's. Our families were all hard working, good decent people who took care of their homes and their community. It was a desirable place to live.

I've no idea how much people earned, but we were a real mixture. There were elderly couples, young families, single parents, families with grown up children all living together.

The fact that we had a home for life meant we took time to get to know each other, to get on with our neighbours and we looked out for each other. We had that community spirit that seems so lacking these days.

It's a great loss to our society that successive governments have opted out of any responsibility to provide the citizens of this country with decent, affordable housing.

sundaydreams · 15/05/2011 15:40

Some councils are building new council homes. I was allocated a new one in Islington a couple of years ago. There is quite a lot of affordable housing being built locally at the moment, I believe there was a policy to ensure that all new build flats had a certain percentage of affordable accommodation in London. A lot of London boroughs have quite nice estates, certainly not seen as a place full of people who are down on their luck.

sausagesandmarmelade · 15/05/2011 18:03

I think social housing should only be for those on low incomes (who it was designed for in the first place).

VoteAV · 15/05/2011 18:11

I don't think they should have a council house at all.

MsHighwater · 15/05/2011 18:22

sausagesandmarmelade, the trouble is that, to try to ensure that only those on low incomes are in council housing, you have to act unfairly towards anyone whose circumstances improve.

VoteAV · 15/05/2011 18:24

Why is it unfair, it is meant for people in difficult circumstances.

MsHighwater · 15/05/2011 18:33

VoteAV, presumably you hope that people will not be in those difficult circumstances forever. Would you like getting a new job (or a better one) to be the cue for you to have to leave your home with all the disruption it would entail. What if you could not find (or afford) housing within commuting distance of your new job? I suppose, at least when you lost the job as a consequence you'd qualify for social housing again. Until you got another new job...

wubblybubbly · 15/05/2011 18:42

If council housing is only for people in 'difficult circumstances' then they become ghettos almost, certainly not a place where 'nice' people want to live.

So 'nice' people live elsewhere, meaning the only people left in council housing are those who I suppose are known as the under class. Not exactly socially inclusive.

I think it's odd that governments don't feel any obligation to provide decent and affordable housing. Government is surely only there to improve the lot of it's people, housing is pretty fundamental to that IMO.

VoteAV · 15/05/2011 18:53

People have to move house all the time because they can't pay the mortgage etc It has happened to me. If a person is earning 50 - 100 k why should they get any social help. Its insane when there are huge numbers of people earning less than 20 k on the waiting list.

Choufleur · 15/05/2011 18:57

I think it's a good idea. It may not increase rents when implemented but within a few years some people who are now being allocated council housing will have seen an increase in their income.

Think RTB to be stopped completely but that's another argument.

wubblybubbly · 15/05/2011 18:59

Well I think the answer is simply to build more social housing VoteAV, with long term leases so that people can, once again, rent a home for life.

That's all people, whatever their position on the social/income ladder.

There is a lot to be said for the inclusive nature of good social housing. It's good for communities and good for society as a whole.

EldonAve · 15/05/2011 19:02

High earners may remain in council housing due as you can usually transfer the lease once eg parent to adult child

Given Westminster has 2300 homeless households do these high earners need to stay in social housing at low rents?

VoteAV · 15/05/2011 19:03

In an ideal world I would agree, but we would never be able to build enough. If a person was earning 500k and owned other housing cars etc how would you feel about it then ? I used to work in the council housing office. We had one bloke who was totally loaded who would phone constantly demanding new windows, property painted, better boiler etc. Then you have young couples living in poverty with nothing at all who cannot get a home. It just doesn't work the way it is at the moment. I really wish it did.

MsHighwater · 15/05/2011 19:05

There are long waiting lists because there is no longer enough housing for everyone who needs it, VoteAV. It's that simple.