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?

Absolutely but if you are earning 100k you can rent privately whereas if you are earning 15k you cannot.

VoteAV, the problem is not that the high earner has a house, it is that someone who needs social housing does not. Increase the supply and you solve that problem. You can use also the dramatic examples you like. The problem (with RTB and with this Westminster proposal) is that the majority of people adversely affected by it will not be wealthy cheats but ordinary people who do not deserve the instability and uncertainty that would be the consequence of running things as you suggest.

A tenant is entitled to carry out works to their council house (with permission and appropriate conditions) at their own expense. Otherwise, the word "No", is available for use in these circumstances.

We could still have waiting lists, with those most in need at the top of the list. I would imagine that you already own property then, no, there is little need for you to also have social housing! A quick check on Land Registry would be enough to establish that.

As for cars, no, I don't think owning a car should preclude you from accessing social housing. I'd love to see a street with mercs and audis parked up alongside the fiats and nissans. A total mix of class and income would be my ideal really.

I do think it could work. I do think we could build enough homes if we really wanted to. I just don't think we want to. We're happier to spend billions funding the private pensions of BTL landlords.

VoteAV, what if you are earning £30k and the earning limit is £29k? Your relativley extreme examples might make your argument look winnable but they are not representative.

I'm pretty sure that someone who has other property would not be accepted onto a LA housing waiting list.

OK if you say so. I will leave it to you to sort out I worked in the system for many years. I met a great many cheats in my time. It is not as rare as you think. They may be entitled to carry out works, it doesn't follow that they will if they can shout until they get it.

I would like to see it done your way. I was working in social housing because it mattered to me a great deal.

I do think owning a BMW or two and a second home should mean that you cannot get social housing, and I am not a daily mail reader .. so there

I think social housing in principle is a good thing, but the problem is it is viewed as a for life option and I don't think that's right. There is a vast difference between finding yourself on the skids and being allocated a flat to help you establish yourself and then a few years later finding something better and staying in a council flat with a view to buying it later to make money.

I'd favour reviewing tenancies every five years an also putting a stop on sale of council properties to tenants. Because there are people abusing the system, subletting properties, but also people whose kids have flown the nest in large properties when they don't need to be (and as fuel costs go up and up, won't be able to afford to heat!)

There needs to be a rethink on how it works IMHO. Because what's worked in the past (apparently) doesn't seem to work now.

I think that the reason it doesn't work now because all the good council houses were sold off and never replaced!

The street I grew up in doesn't have a single council owned property. In fact, in the whole estate, I'd say over 90% are now privately owned.

• No more sell off of coucil properties.

• Rents increase on a sliding scale according to ability to pay, up to the level of similar private accomodation.

• The funds generated through increased rents are ringfenced for investment in further social housing, hence allowing another family to enjoy a stable, long term, affordable home.

VoteAV, I work in the system now and the cheats are overwhelmingly the minority.

I would rather see a system that sustains some cheats than one that leaves people to sink or swim.

whomoved, the main thing that has changed is that houses have been sold and not replaced. Increase the supply and it can work again.

Yes, I agree they are the minority and increased supply is the best option.

Still sticking to my guns with the earning 100k and not keeping the property though.

It was a brilliant plan to sell off all those properties wasn't it

I too live in an area where there are no council houses for many miles (seven in fact). There are some housing association flats for the elderly seven miles away, but apart from that it's B&Bs or bugger off round here. Agree more stock is required. Round here if you want to develop a site you have to include a percentage for 'affordable' housing. Which in this area means you build houses and sell them to nurses/teachers. But I don't think they have to remain affordable IYSWIM. They are sold and then sold on without restriction. So I don't get how they achieve the objective.

VoteAV, one of the problems I have with that is that there will be a point where a slight increase in your salary will tip the balance. So people earning £100k should lose their home but as long as they only earn £99,990 they are ok? What do you suppose will happen?

It does not matter where you draw the line; there will always be those just below and those just above. Not a recipe for contentment.

Excluding car owners from housing is ridiculous; many of us live rurally, need a car for work (not just getting to- my lst job was for a charity where I drove around half the day), for mobility purposes (not just blue badge holders, we have 2 X lower rate mobility and without a car could not access very uch at all, including the SNUs the boys attend!)

Couldn't even make hospital appointments given clinic times / school runs / bus times.

Homeowners generally cannot get help although I understand that there is some excludion for people whose houses cannot be accessed byt hem- rented out, but scratchy on the details there.

They reied to build affordable hosuing in my village- would be perfect for us, we're already ehre so hardly lowering tone LOL- but even the Vicar was out campaigning against it. So it was dropped, too many well off powerful people horrified at the idea not understanding that the people high enough up the list to get it woudl be disability affected and elderly local famillies. With a local witing list of thirty thousand nobody else woudl stand a chance!.

peachy thats disgraceful, people campaigning against it, what awful snobs!!

Lot of that around our way sadly

Just how it is here

The LA I work for is building a small number of new houses next to some privately owned houses. Some of the adjacent property owners protested (to no avail) and one of the points they raised was that there were some police officers living in the street and they would be unable to hang out their uniforms on the washing line in view of the council houses!

These kind of attitudes are, IMO, precisely why we need to have a more socially inclusive housing policy.

@ mshighwater

and yes i couldn't agree more wubblybubbly - there should be affordable long term secure housing available for anyone who can't afford to buy their own home IMO. in my street (housing association) most people work anyway.

People earning six figure salaries should be kicked out of council accommodation - that's not what it is there for.

Nancy66, no-one should be kicked out of their home. That's not what public services should be doing. I'm happy for people not to be given council housing while they have a 6 figure income - which the rules already stipulate, I think - but once someone is a tenant, it is wrong to force them out, unless they have breached their tenancy agreement, just because their circumstances have improved.

This problem would not exist (at least to the extent that it does) if there was sufficient social housing. Councils were compelled to allow tenants to buy, initially at breathtaking discounts, yet were forbidden from building new stock with the proceeds. I don't know exactly what the expected outcome was but what has happened is that much of the best housing stock has been sold off leaving stock with a high proportion of properties in poor condition to be maintained with less income from rents.

"only had about 250,000 residents" (re Westminster)

crumbs, where are you comparing it with to say "only" 250K residents.

When I lived in Sussex, Brighton and Hove TOGETHER added up to approx 250K residents. Where I am now in N Wales, there are approx 100K residents if you count all the villages too. 250K people is a significant number (else B+H would not now be a city).

"mumblechum1 Wed 11-May-11 07:51:49
I wonder how many people earning £100k plus are actuallyliving in council accom? Not many, I suspect."

Here is one a Mr Crow

"As of 2009, Bob Crow's basic salary at RMT was £94,747; a 12% increase from the previous year. His entire pay package with bonuses and pensions was £254,978; on top of this he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548"...Crow lives in a Housing Association property [20] in Woodford, Greater London, with partner Nicola Hoarau, with whom he has a daughter (born August 1992). He has another daughter, Kerry Anne Crow, from a previous marriage to Geraldine Horan"

"Crow is reported to earn £63,000. He lives with his "missus" (they're not married) Nicola Hoarau in Woodford, Essex. When Hoarau, a tanned, blonde, thirtysomething, was appointed to by the RMT to run its credit union, there were accusations of cronyism, although Crow said at the time she was the only applicant."

Xenia, it sounds like Mr Crow's income is quite variable - does hea earn £95k, £255K, £146K OR £63K? Just as well, perhaps, that he stayed in his HA property with its predictable rent, in case his income drops and he can't afford a mortgage.

btw, what is your source?