Council housing rents to be means tested?

[Triggles]

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/19/social-housing-income-cap-shapps

Apart from the source, ideas on this? (civilised please without all the benefits bashing, although I suppose that's probably being overly optimistic )

I can see the point where this might prompt those that can possibly afford it to buy their property, removing more council properties from being ultimately available.

They're saying it will help them allocate housing more efficiently, but I struggle to see how. I don't think the housing goes to the wealthy now anyway, they're too far down the list tbh. Isn't it just another expense to means test everyone?

That's either incredibly naive or just ridiculously stupid. I would think most people can correlate "not being able to pay higher rents" to "being evicted" eventually.

And this...

To some extent, I suppose, it is. But I think it just seems to be wandering into dangerous territory. Social housing already carries such a stigma for this now, won't this make it worse?? Will this lead to demonising all the "scroungers in social housing?"

I don't like the idea and I think in practice it would make very little difference.
I simply don't believe that there are people with household incomes of more than £60k p/a who are living in council houses.
It's empty policy making designed to look tough without actually doing anything.

A better way to address the housing shortage is to build more social housing and introduce rent controls to cap private rents and offer secure tenancies instead of tackling these rich people in council houses who don't exist.

^ very true.

gamerwidow - "I simply don't believe that there are people with household incomes of more than £60k p/a who are living in council houses."

Bob Crow earns vastly more than that and is a council tennant

I don't think people earning over a certain amount should be entitled to live in a council house. Don't think means testing is a good idea though. It's too open to fraud. And there are people earning a lot of money living in Council houses so I read.

£100,000-a-year Dobson defends his council house

from 2007 Ken's £117,000 aide lives in £90pw council house

This would be a good idea if it didn't incentivise them to buy their place and take the house out of circulation altogether. Cameron is also increasing the right to buy discount and flogging them at well below market rates.

Spiteful and ideological destruction of as much council housing as possible.

Yes, Frothy I noticed that as well. It seems they are trying to get rid of council housing altogether. Then the poor will have no jobs, no support, and no housing. I'm not altogether pleased at how it's all panning out.

gamerwidow you have no idea

Bob crow lives in a counil home he is the highest paid union boos the the uk

Also their are a fair few mps who live in counil homes

Next door to us live in a council home he is a police man their basic pay is 27k he most likey earns far mire as he is a cid he has just married a GP so they are on about £80k my council rent is £100 a week

You have no idea

FrothyOM it's a false hood that some how you would eventaly get these homes back

A young couple move in to council housing live in it for the next 60 years they then pass it on to their kids which is their right then the kids buy it cheap the now old couple now put their nm down for sheltered housing

You don't often get the houses back the majority of homes sadly comes form evictions now Adays

Actually, I don't have a problem with someone who has more money living in a council property. It quite happily disregards the whole "benefit scroungers in council properties" scenario. I do prefer the available properties to go to those who are in more need of them, though.

I also am not happy with the government seeming to make a push to sell them all off. They need MORE council properties, not less.

I got a council flat recently and it's not a new build, some of them do get passed back to those in need. There was too much of what you described though mrbojangles but they have stopped the inherited tenancies now. Shame they won't stop right to buy too.

But the house Crow lives in is no more available to people in actual need of a property than it would be if he bought it, just because it's designated council property and he pays a ridicilously low rent. In that case the right to buy thing is a red herring.

I can think of people in my area of central London in that position. For example a couple who got housed when they were new parents, and had been evicted from private rental because they had nothing. Now trained as a chef and teacher. They pay around £500 rent a month. They earn just over £60k gross between them but there is no way they would ever be able to afford to buy anywhere in central London as they would never be able to save enough for a deposit. They are in their forties so unlikely they would get a mortage even for shared ownership (of which there are no properties locally). They have kids at local schools, work locally and have their all their friends and social lives locally. Of course there are people worse off but why should they uproot their whole lives, move away and find new jobs (assuming that they could).

Sure there are plenty in London who can pay a fair Market rent.

But I dont give a flying fuck as all discussion about it by politicians s just to confuse the issue, turn people against each other, encourage benefit bashing, - all to avoid the fact we need to build masses more social housing instead of keeping lots of buy to let landlords happy!!!

Beingfluffy - and in what way is your example a case in point against adjusting rent according to the tenants' means?

Ha I knew as soon as I wrote that someone would have an example to contradict!
I will modify my statement to I don't believe that there are enough people earning over £60k living in council houses for this to make a difference.
It would be interesting to see some figures on the percentage of council tenants in each income bracket, I suspect the majority will be low earners and a tiny minority will be high rate tax payers.
My mum, dad and sister live in council housing and I grew up in council housing, the people they and I lived alongside were not high earners. I think the examples listed by others are exceptional but if someone has stats that show otherwise I'll be happy to be proved wrong

I don't think any councils keep that information on incomes. I've had council house tenancies for 13 years, over different councils, and the council have never asked me about income. They might have done when I first made my application - I can't remember. But there's no system to keep the council updated on income levels, so they'll have to start collecting this information and calculate the adjustments for each household, which will cost loads.

I wouldn't be surprised if those on higher incomes decide to buy their properties as a result of this policy. Personally I think a secure tenancy is better than ownership, as you get most of the advantages of owning but fewer risks. But with the bigger RTB discount and a higher rent, it will make more sense for those who can buy to do so.

It will make more sense perhaps, but at the same time, it will reduce the stock overall for the long run. I'd rather see RTB stopped altogether, and more properties be available for tenancy by building more as well.

The market rent around here is £1000 pm for a studio. A flat similar to that they have would cost around £2000 - £3000 pcm. It is just a small 2 bed flat in a conversion but because this has become a very fashionable area in the last few years and there is a shortage of supply the rents are extortionate. Nobody on a normal wage could afford "market" rate. It is something of a misnomer for that sort of flat. Most of them were derelict properties that were bought and done up by a charity to house local people in need. They were not funded by the government or the tax payer but now count as social housing as the charities and housing trusts seem to have picked up the baton as the council sold off many of its properties and won't build more.

When council houses or 'homes for heroes' were first built, they were not intended to be ghettos for the poor. If there are a range of people of different backgrounds, educational levels and income levels living in them, all the better. If all their children go to the same school, even better again for educational achievement and aspirations

Of course, experience tells us this is not the case at all, despite the odd example here and there of the exception that proves the rule

The current govt simply wants to remove the govt, local and national, from every area of public life so we can no longer complain to them or expect them to do anything about
High rail prices
High electricity prices
High gas prices
Education
Housing
Healthcare
Social care for the elderly

When council houses or 'homes for heroes' were first built, they were not intended to be ghettos for the poor. If there are a range of people of different backgrounds, educational levels and income levels living in them, all the better. If all their children go to the same school, even better again for educational achievement and aspirations

Of course, experience tells us this is not the case at all, despite the odd example here and there of the exception that proves the rule

The current govt simply wants to remove the govt, local and national, from every area of public life so we can no longer complain to them or expect them to do anything about
High rail prices
High electricity prices
High gas prices
Education
Housing
Healthcare
Social care for the elderly

Although I agree with it being means tested, I don't want to see council houses going to people who have just arrived in the country, never contributed and have no intention of working/integrating.

Social housing should go to people with a strong local connection, in full time work on a low pay in necessary occupations (nurses, teachers, cleaners etc) or the severely disabled. It was never intended as a lifestyle choice for those whose predicament improved and was originally for those genuinely in need.

I agree sliding scale on rent,means tested,based on ability to pay
doesn't bib crow live in council house?he's well paid

It is not the right of a couple as tenants to pass on the house to their children. If one of them dies tenancy passes to the other. When the surviving Partner dies, it goes back into housing stock.