Discrepancy between social housing rents verses private sector rents - how is this legal/fair?

[floffy]

I cannot understand how the discrepancy between the cost of social rents versus private rents is not breaching some kind of equality/discrimination/human rights laws .

My neighbours live in an identical sized property to ours, they have the same number of kids with no disabilities and roughly the same income as our household, yet they pay 1/3rd (or less) of what we pay and have a secure tenancy, whereas we have to always wonder whether our landlord will extend past 6 months. How can this possibly be legal or fair?

Everyone pays tax, it subsidises all sorts of things, some of which you use, some of which you don't use, some of which you don't use yourself but should be bloody glad it is there. OK?

Now has no-one read my very long explanation of how we can use council houses and housing benefit in a smarter way? I'm not suggesting paying less at all, I'm suggesting being cleverer about how it works.

as i have said on countless threads about the housing crisis, IMO it isn't that social housing is too cheap its that private rentals are too expensive. actually scratch that - thats actually FACT not just my opinion.

and this is from someone in social housing.

I see no one has taken this back to it's roots and addressed this in anything but MONEY terms, originally social housing was developed to make sure communities were mixed and that social cohesion was achieved. In other words, see all those big estates with loads of chavs that Mn' ers seem to be so exercised about? Well that's what you get when you chuck all the poor in one place. It is also why many of the schools, social services, and employment starts to suffer.

It is a basic principle of right wing politicle ethics and hegomany that people should sink or swim by there own ability, this thread is as much about that as it is about the much needed discussion about building MORE social housing for rent. People may not like the fact that they were stupid enough to get mortgages that they cannot now afford but thems the facts. Like wise just because people took private lets for reasons to do with schools, work, better area, then tough titty no one forced you. Plenty people never get to make that choice and they work out just fine.

The reason Social Housing was originally started? To ensure that EVERYONE had a HOME that they could afford the rent for AND their other basic living expenses. And I think that this is even more pertinent today, when wages compared to "Housing costs are MORE disparate than they were when Social Housing was started.

The ONLY thing that raising Social Housing results in is MORE PUBLIC FUNDS BEING SPENT ON HOUSING BENEFIT. Which seems counter-intuitive to me when you look at the Government's stated aim for raising rents, as an austerity measure."

Well said huntycat. Council houses were flogged off at much lower than the market rate. Then no money was invested in building more. So WORKING people on low incomes now need housing benefit to pay their (private) rents. The housing benefit bill is massive. The government is slashing the hosing benefit rates but there are a less homes affordable on HB rates than HB claimants. So, some of them will end up in temporary accommodation which costs a mere £400 pw. Now that's economically illiterate.

Exactly, OpinionatedMum. Pay rent on a 2-bed Council House of £450pcm, or pay rent on temporary accommodation of £1,200pcm...

And that is meant to be economically literate?

When wages meet housing costs, then Housing benefit will no longer be necessary. Until then, PEOPLE NEED HOMES.

You can't get the proles to do your shit-work for you if they don't have a HOME to go to at the end of it - that way revolution lies!

I work, DH works and we pay taxes. We are entitled to £56 a week in HB which we do not claim and have no desire to claim.

In the eight years we have lived in our home I have saved Bradbourne and chums in the region of £23,293 - why because as it is our rent is affordable if we make savings in other areas. Car-12 yrs old, we haven't taken a foreign holiday for over 12 years, we rarely eat out, we don't go to the gym, we buy all our clothing, furniture and household effects second hand, we mend and recycle and we budget for food very carefully.

Could OP and others claim to be so careful over their budgets and would you perhaps prefer me now to pay the full market rent-at your expense?

If the government genuinely wanted to bring down the cost of housing benefit, they could re-introduce rent controls, making private renting affordable so people wouldn't need to top up their income and build more social housing.

They've refused to do this. Only conclusion is, they don't really want to cut the housing benefit bill, they just want to make life even more difficult for ordinary working people.

I'll just go down the garden to eat worms then...

Pattimayo, social housing isn't means tested -yet. However putting your name down for social housing doesn't guarantee you'll ever get it as alllocation is based on housing need (eg homelessness and with dependent children, severe overcrowding, vulnerability based on age or physical or mental condition which would be allieviated by the provision of housing)having atested and it's likely that there will always be someone whose need is greater than yours. Homelessness doesn't mean literally not having a roof over your head. It could mean living in someone elses household There's no such thing as buggins turn when it comes to social housing

You CAN'T stop Housing benefit like Al0uise suggests, UNLESS you are willing to sacrifice a whole generation to out-and-out HOMELESSNESS. It has been shown through various studies that even if you abolished Housing Benefit today, it would take 20 YEARS for rents to stabilise at a level affordable to the LOWEST paid workers.

So that is 20 years of homelessness for those that cannot afford to pay for a HOME - despite being employed in 80% of cases. (80% of Housing Benefit claimants are IN LOW-PAID WORK).

What do you suggest we DO with these millions of people that would become homeless overnight? The Workhouse? Or just abandon them to their fate, if some die, it doesn't matter, it will all be alright in the end? In 20 years time.

Do you class a whole generation of people as 'collateral damage' for fixing the problem of rent versus income?

I fail to see how this can be a WORKABLE solution for a country that derides others in the developing world for their humanitarian records. Because this would be a humanitarian DISASTER, of unimaginable proportions.

And of course - those that are homeless will stop working in those NMW jobs. So they wouldn't be doing the shit-work like taking away your rubbish, or wheeling your hospital bed to the operating theatre, or looking after your SN dc at school, or looking after your elderly mother or grandmother in their care home. Most people in NMW jobs that I know personally would rather starve and be homeless than be made to go into a workhouse-type situation (and we HAVE discussed it, given the Welfare Reform Bill).

So there REALLY would not be anyone LEFT to do those jobs...

I originaly took your statement to be a argumentative reply to mine OpinionatedMum. On reflection I may have been wrong, you may just have been putting forward a more pragmatic point of view, to which incidental I agree with, and your HuntyCat.

However I add the following link, and yes I know it is wikipedia but it relates to the statute of law enacted by the 1949 housing act, so you can go to the source if you or any one elses wishes to verify I spoke the truth, Beveridge address the 5 great giants in his "cradle to grave" vision, housing being one of the five "giants. It was always intended that after the 2nd world war the barriers between classes should be blurred if not broken down. Where do people think the idea of social mobility comes from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1949
www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/learning/bitesize/higher/history/labour/five_rev1.shtml

One of the iniquities of Right to Buy in my opinion is that flats that have been sold off are now in the hands of private landlords who are renting them out at vastly inflated prices. The student daughter of a friend of mine sharing a 3 bed flat at the top of a London tower block with 3 other people at a rent of £90 each a week excluding bills and community charge. This works out at £360 a week

It is NOT that social rents are too LOW - it is that private rents are too HIGH. There NEEDS to be some process whereby Private Rents are not PAYING the LL's mortgage. If the LL cannot manage to pay the mortgage on their BTL property from THEIR OWN EARNINGS FROM WORK, then they should have their mortgage refused. They are PROFITTING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Which is immoral IMO.

BTL LL's should NOT be allowed to charge ANYTHING MORE than the SOCIAL RENTS (on the old assured tenancies) IN THEIR AREA for their property. If this means that they cannot afford it - then they shouldn't BE BTL LL's. It would VERY quickly return the Housing market to where it SHOULD be, due to repossessions, from LL's that CAN'T afford to be LL's, rather than house prices being artificially over-inflated in this way.

There would then be available housing for everyone. Rather than some people having 2/3 or more, while others don't have one at all. And it needs to be collectively remembered that a house is a HOME, and everyone NEEDS a HOME. A house ISN'T a pension, or a way to provide for your loved ones. It is a HOME. It's not 'emotive language' for the sake of it - it is the TRUTH.

Hunty Cat

1. What's with all the capitals?

1. So if all the private LL like me are not allowed to make a profit and sell up what happens to all those families then? If I sold up I would be making 12 people homeless

1. What do you mean by if they cannot afford it they should not be BTL LLs? Who is going to house these people then? I put up deposits for my houses I maintain them and house families who would otherwise be homeless.

So destroying the portfolios of BTL will somehow change the housing market? It matters not what the prices are (within reason) there is still no availability for mortgages for people so they cannot buy them no matter how cheap and particularly if they have been made homeless from a private LL selling up. What are my tenants meant to do then? Where will they go with no council housing available and no private LLs.

As I have said I set my rents just under the Local Housing Allowance so my tenants are not forced to find anything further is they are on full benefit. I feel this is a fair thing to do and a good compromise.

Honestly, you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of economics do you and clearly have no thought this through. Again this is much more about bashing a few BTL LLs and making them culpable for a problem started by Thatcher and about to be perpetuated by the New Tories. It wasn't even that they sold off the council houses it was more that they chose not to reinvest in housing stock.

I think yet again it is much more about you and others on this thread begrudging people like me their small portfolios as an investment for my children (and my pension as I have never been in a position to pay into one). I am not ripping anyone off, I am not charging too much and the other LLs I personally know are in much the same position. I cannot understand how people can be LL's if they only charge the same as Councils and HA's. I just cannot make sense and will shrink the market rather than expand it.

And £360 a week in London for a 3 bed is absolutely the norm.

"They are PROFITTING FROM SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Which is immoral IMO."
that's just capitalism which is why cameron re-indroduced right to buy recently

btl landlords can charge what they like becuase of supply and demand

the proplem is lack of housing

not rent structuring

if there was more rentable housing abailable on the market - market forces would foce the price down.

this is about development

housing will only be available for 'everyone' if there is sustainable housing development which includes rentable housing.

hunty cat only used capitals as a virtual 'bolding'. of the word -

you are renting to make a profit - a by product of this is that you are housing people - but that isn't the reason - so don't come across all philanthropic

the portfolois of the btl landlord do not matter - as the solution is to create more housing - and let the market to the rest .

Not pretending to be philanthropic but I am being fair. I did it because of a sn child and could not work effectively as a single mummy (at the time) - works for us as a family. I do however make a decision not to rip people off in the process - there is enough room with sensible planning to make a profit and not screw people into the ground so they can pay their rents.

I cannot understand why it is wrong to make a profit, it is a job I do. I develop properties also and I pay tax and contribute so am not a burden on the system, in the long term these investments will ensure that one child of mine in particular will not be dependant on handouts either.

I do think given the opportunity that I have ie. to have a small portfolio and give myself a small income most people would give it a go. I did put up the deposit and no one gave anything to me, it is all my own hard work and now (finally) it turns a profit.

Sustained housing development is the only way as there are actually not enough houses to go around. The thing is it is actually very difficult to build in most areas as no one wants housing developments near them hence the Tories relaxing the planning rules.

And what I did consciously choose to do is to only rent to people on benefits because I had been in this situation myself in the past ie. on benefits and not able to get anywhere to rent. I also did not take a deposit from the last family that moved into my bigger house (daft I know) because they just didn't have it and no one else would house them so I might not be a philanthropist but I am a nice person and try to help others. And FWIW it is not easier to get rent paid just because your tenant is in receipt of benefit, they have to be two months behind to have it paid direct.

Brandysoakedbitch but £360 a week for an ex council flat which was built to house families in need is extortionate and I bet my bottom dollar that the socila housing families living in the same block are'nt being charged anywhere near that amount. My point is that everytime council housing (ie subsidised housing) is sold and then let by a private landlord, it's housing lost to people in need.

yes but alos if someone gave you the opportunity to buy a flat at a big discount as many council tenants were able to do then surely you would take it and get a leg up on the property ladder. I know it doesn't sit well but loads of people have taken these opportunities and this is just a consequence of the properties being passed on. Look I don't agree with London prices, it is utter bloody madness but it is not an unrealistic rent for a 3 bed is all.

Blame Maggie Thatcher, she started all this madness

brandysoakedbitch I don't think anyone is blaming individual owners and LLs for taking advantage of the economic situation given to them. I think most of us had we been put in the same position would have done the same.
However it was a mistake to allow social housing to be sold off at rock bottom prices and then not replaced. High private rents are the problem and it's not right for the government to keep subsidising them so private LLs stay in profit. Private rents need to reflect what the market can support without government subsidy.

Yes but how will there be a private rental market if no one is allowed to make an investment or a profit - it will kill it and being as private LLs make up such a large number of people that provide homes to others, what happens to those tenants? I applaud the sentiment but it is only sentiment and is nor workable if no one is allowed to make a profit. It is perfectly legitimate that a Landlord makes a profit from his investment. It is a dangerous proposition to try and level them off, it will not and cannot happen. Social LLs can support lower rents because they own the housing stock, they make investments using these portfolios. Private Landlords have mortgages and these have to be paid. I think people have a fantasy that private LLs are making a huge income. It is rare. If someone bought their council house and then le it I think it is in the tiny majority. Most ime are like me who financed it from a deposit from my own pocket as a better return on investment than a savings account and their profits can be woped out in a couple of % interest rate rise. Someone has to house these people. The British will never tolerate a rise in taxes to fund social building projects - not ever, let alone the NIMBY lot who don't want affordable housing near them (true in my village - you would think they were building a prison the way they talk about it). Private LLs might be an uncomfy truth for some but the do house a huge amount of people (not always on benefits of course) and they need to be operating in a free market if they operate at all. The assumption here is that all Private LLs are subsudused by HB which of course is not the case. Nearly all the private LLs I know will not touch people on benefits so that is no subsidised is it.

Agreed again it was (and is again) a mistake to sell of social housing but here we are again with Shiny Dave doing the same and in fact increasing the discounts. They are making promises that this money will be reinvested in social housing but let's be honest the average Tory voter idiots does not give a flying fuck about social housing for people on low incomes.

In countries in Europe, where renting is more popular, the law protects tenants, not landlords.

The rent can only go up by the rate of inflation

The landlord cannot, ever, evict a tenant as long as the tenant keeps paying his rent on time

Two simple rules that make renting a more viable option for everyone.

As a result, there are much fewer private LL, and more housing associations. it works out much fairer.

When I moved here I could not believe how easily I got kicked out of my rented flat, just because the LL's brother needed a place to crash for a few months. I kept having to move for reasons not related to my behaviour as a tenant. It would have been stressful with children in tow!

*"Nobody should have to sell their home to pay care fees."

Why not?

If you're moving into a care home you don't need the home you're moving out of.

Do you really think public money should be used to subsidise large inheritances for the children of homeowners?*

So, my house, that I and my husband have worked our arses off to afford - getting no help from the government at all, even when we needed it, should have to sell our home when it comes to a stage where we need some help from that same government we have paid into all our lives??? That is really going to teach our kids that working hard is worth it!! Why do people seem to hate those who have tried hard, got lucky or whatever. Seriously, I find that quite appalling.

"Why do people seem to hate those who have tried hard, got lucky or whatever."

Um, what?

I have my own home, so does everyone in my family.

I just don't think our trying hard/getting lucky/whatever means my children should get an inheritance subsidised with public money if I should need expensive care at the end of my life.

I guess you support higher taxes to pay for all this residential care of the elderly? It's recognised to be a major problem coming down the line.

We have to figure out a way to pay for it.

But sure, if your children need to be "rewarded" for your hard work at everybody else's expense, then that's totally fair.

well it is going up we had letter through door

saying new tennants will now have to pay 80% of the market rate for the area .

Which be intresting as Hb only covers the bottom 30% of the area

I am thanking my lucky stars i moved in before Jan this year and have lifetime ( as adapted house) becuase its going to be tricky for anyone now