Councils offering up to £30,000 to get tenants to move out. Would you?

[HecateQueenOfGhosts]

story here

If you are in council accomodation, would you take it and move into private sector, or use it as a deposit to buy a house?

Do you think you'll take them up on it?

"Westminster council gives residents grants of up to £25,000 to relinquish their homes, with the proviso that they will not be rehoused should they become homeless again. Hillingdon offers up to £30,000. Kensington and Chelsea council will spend more than £700,000 this year on rental deposits and removal costs for tenants who are willing to move from social housing to private rentals"

london centre of the universe again.

the rest of the plebs get 3k per bedroom.

i think it should be implicit in the tenancy, that when your children reach 21 you have to downsize

I think so too, actually. Having a couple in a 3 or 4 bed council house that they had when they had the kids at home, while many families are living in b&bs is wrong.

hmm so if they just use the money to move into the private sector, and are on benefits, you'll have money left over, meaning that you'll lose your benefits. So will have to live on the "savings" until they're all but gone. At which point you may still be living on benefits, and if you then end up screwed after the money runs out, as you're back on benefits and become homeless you're screwed.

Good idea in principle, however I think the "if you ever become homeless tough shit" is a bit dodgy as no-one can predict the future......

mind you what is also wrong, and the reason they've had to come up with this idea is that councils across the UK have sold of thousands of social housing, leaving a shortage.

That is VERY wrong. I think the right to buy was a fucking bad idea.

Wouldn't have been as bad if they'd had a 'lose one build one' policy, but oh no, that'd be far too sensible.

fecking thatcher

Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here...>

I agree faq my loaded mil owns a council flat through right to buy and has no mortgage on it so makes a healthy profit in rent whilst she lives in a huge house elsewhere. It's not right.

this is true - council housing allowed lots of people to get on the housing ladder and there should have been a policy of lose one byuld one - you are quite right.

i know that the ha i work for offers moving costs and sundry expenses to people downsizing.

also perhaps what would be cheaper would be to use the money to help people stay in their current homes (private/owned properties) rather than adding to the already massive social housing lists.

Wouldn't have cost the council 25k for me to be able to stay in the family home - and they'd have saved more money in the long run not having to pay my HB.

umm.... no i dont want my tax paying for peoples mortgages that they can't afford.

sorry!

Agree with faq. Surely it makes more sense to give the 30k to those facing losing their houses?

Plus I am in privately rented and after a string of bad houses and landlords I am desperate to move into council. If I were in council they would have to buy me my own house to get me to move. 30k would not encourage me to move back into the private sector.

Especially as, faq says it means you would lose benefits and what happens when the savings run out?

I think the right to buy was a good idea managed badly. They should have had a lose one build one/buy scheme in place.

But also my town is full of boarded up houses that that haven't sold due to their condition. And I'm sure it's not the only one. We have streets and streets of empty houses. Why can the council not just put money into refurbing these houses?

considering how much the banks have been given by taxpayers recently i think the govermnet should strongly encourage (force) them to make every effort possible to stop people loosing their homes.
There are plenty of things banks could do to help out alot of people - give them interest only mortgages for a certain time, mortgage holidays, refinance loans over a longer period. If banks could look at pending repo's in a more reasonable way then people could keep their homes and the tax payer wouldn't beforced to pay out again.

Shesells is right, if I were a council tenant there's no way I'd swap that security for the six months lets you get in private rented. Unless I was desperate to move out of a grotty area.

I reckon 5k would have prevented me from having to move. I didn't qualify for HB, so they could have given me a on off 5k which is less than what they'll pay me this year in HB........

in london the loose one/build one idea doesn't really work - where could they have buill all these houses? the only way they could have replaced all that were sold is with towerblocks - who want to live in a tower block?

yes downsizing should be compulsory and not renumerated apart for moving costs.

i would be really pissed if i was paying for someone who couldnt afford to keep their mortgage - really pissed if my tax was tiding them over a rough patch - if i couldnt aford to get on the ladder.

no, we have a safety net for if you fall - and we should - but i don't believe that we as a society need to prop those up in danger of falling

you would then i presume get to keep your OWNED house, make a profit in the long term? leave an inhertitence to your children.

whereas people who can't fford to get on the ladder - dont get that -

nah i'm not paying for someone else to keep a capitalism dream

Riven - the reason being that council rents are cheaper than private!

We are in housing association - very nice 3 bed house, cost us £350 a month. To get the same private rent we would be looking at £650 per month.... totally above what we could afford.

I dont agree with paying people to move out,but I do feel there should be a downsize option. There is a woman down the road from us, on her own with adult children in a 3 bed house, and yet on the other side of the road, there is a family of 6 in a 2 bed house. Hardly fair.

lisa - as I said 5k would have "secured" the family home for the future. That would have been it, they wouldn't have paid me any more money for my housing costs.

By the end of this year alone HB will have paid me over £6300.

As it is they'll now be paying out close to 7k a year for the next X years until I'm working and earning enough to pay the rent (and it's not an outrageously expensive rent for this area).

nancy - in london there are many, MANY derilict houses that could be done up. There are also many wastegrounds, empty, decaying sites that could be used. There seems to me to be a lot more wasted space in and around London than you'd think. Nowt wrong with tagging onto the outer edges of London either.

re helping people to not lose their home - I agree, giving money seems unfair, but I think a government loan, with a charge against the house, would be better.

And yes, they've bailed out the banks (who are carrying on as normal, lining their pockets, having their bonuses and being bastards to the general public who are footing the bill for all this!!) which I think was a big mistake.

Another issue is that in a lot of areas it's really hard to find landlords that will accept people on benefits. I am on the housing list but, because I'm not homeless, I suspect that it will be years before I get offered somewhere. I am looking for somewhere to privately rent, but unless I uproot my son and move him to a different area I am going to struggle to find a private landlord that will accept me. In the mean time I am sharing a bedroom with my daughter

there are loads of derelict houses in our town.

I used to do an area which had 200 houses doing my Avon round. This was several years ago, but there were 40 empty houses, and I learnt from neighbours that nearly all of them were council places that needed a lot of work doing to them. They could easily have done those houses up but majority of them are still empty now!

oh and as for "capitalist dreams"

well actually we bought our first house because it was cheaper than renting at the time. No capitalist dream, just financial sense to be paying out £200 a month less on our housing costs each month!

faQ, i sympathise with your situation - in fact i was you in the early 90;s - my house was reposessed - and 4k would have been all it took.

however financially prudent it might be - its just - not - right to prop up people who can't afford their mortgages - profit from which will go to their children

a position that people in social housing and those who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder will never be able to do for their children

financial sense -just isn't an argument - or else my taxes for the CSA would be better spent actually given directly to single parents rather than chasing absent parents.

small crime below a value of the 10k it takes to take something to court, might as well just be ignored......its not about the finance - its about the principle.

go to my chidlren - are you kidding?

No way - plan was to live there until the mortgage was paid off and I was getting grey, sell it and spend the money on ME!!!

If my kids are lucky then I may be in a financial position to help them with a deposit (for private renting or to buy a house) when the time comes, but they sure as hell weren't going to get a house handed to them on a plate - damn they've got to learn that if they want something big they have to work for it

Agree with lisa- bad idea FAQ. I wouldn't be happy supporting home owners who have over stretched themseves cause they wanted a bigger house.

The baby boomers will profit from right to buy but not the rest of us I'm afraid!