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?

I just find it a little unfair that it seems ok to take away what we have worked for whilst paying taxes and asking for nothing extra in return for them (just waiting for someone to remind me that schools, doctors etc are part of taxes, so thought would get that out of the way) I did not say my children shoud be 'rewarded' at everyone elses expense. The comment I was quoting suggested to me that we should have everything taken away from us to subsidide others. That really doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, taxes should be used in a better way of course they should. So why didn't the labour government immediately, on May 5th 1997, stop the selling of social housing?

So now I will be flamed for making an assumption that everyone who is housed in social housing is lazy and feckless - which is not what i am trying to get across.

Salarygamp- if a house is not considered as part of a person's assets for the purpose of means testing residential care costs, you might as well not means test them at all.

The incentive would be for older people to cash up any shares, bank accounts and pensions they have and buy the biggest most expensive house they could afford in order to minimise their assets which could be assessed towards the cost of care.

I agree with the sairy about the selling of homes to pay for care. Often the people who owned their own homes are subsidising those elderly people who have no assets by paying higher fees for the home and the council will only pay a set amount.

It would be nice to pass something on to your children otherwise why should anyone bother if the state is going to seize everything. you have paid tax all your life and not claimed for anything up to now?

I understand that of course, but a statement like 'your children are being rewarded at someone elses expense' is just awful. We hope of course that we will never be in a position to need expensive residential care and obvioulsy the answer is to put more money into older peoples services. Then no one would need to worry about what they had or didn't have as everyone wold be treated the same. the point I am trying, and clearly failing, to get over is that those of us who have managed, and yes, it's very hard now, to be buying their own homes, should not be told they are 'rewarding' their families. We're doing for other reasons that that, and it would have been so much easier and cheaper for us to have sat still and waited for a council house. As i say, why didn't the last labour goverment stop the sell off of social housing straight away? Does anyone know?? Seriously, I am interested to find out.

Very good point about Labour continuing with right to buy.

I suppose selling off the council houses saved the council money so they did not have to maintain them.

No ever comments on sub letting. This is very hush hush but i think there is an issue with council properties being rented out to a 3rd party and I think more needs to be done about this.

"Council tenants in England who sub-let their homes will face up to two years in prison under government proposals.

The plans would see a new criminal offence of tenancy fraud, with a fine of up to £50,000 also possible.

Officials estimate that 160,000 tenants sub-let their homes to other people at cost of £5bn a year to the taxpayer.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps said some people were cheating the system by earning thousands of pounds letting out their council homes at market rents."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16499636

Where I live there appears to be lots of social housing being built. It is relatively cheap to build new housing comparatively to maintaining and repairing old post war stock. For a start there is no VAT to pay on new building but repairing buildings and refurbishing them is subject to 20% VAT.

It is a fair point to make that if people are forced to sell their homes to pay for their care, that it creates incentives to arrive in old age apparently destitute.

But I do think it is fair to expect the well-off to contribute to their care in old age, and I don't think anyone is entitled to an inheritance.

I own a large house, hopefully it or any equity will be passed onto my children but if I get Alzheimers or any other illness I wouldn't necassarily expect the public purse to then pay £800 a week in nursing home fees when i'm sitting on a property worth say £500,000 regardless if i've worked hard for it all my life.

An ageing population is a demographic timebomb for the coming years, especially as stats say 1 in 3 babies born now can expect to live to 100. If we carry on with this attitude of expectation then all we do is saddle our children with excessive taxes to pay for all this nursing home care

I believe it's equitable for people to pay for their care where they have the means to do so but only under an economic and political system that creates inequality and envy.

Another way of looking at this would be to say, no one should own the home in which they live. Acquisition of profit and ownership of housing creates homelessness.

Through creating greater equality in education we could more easily match aspirations to skills with people paid according to effort and not position. Housing could be rented rather than purchased and we could all stop arguing about what the state should and shouldn't provide and what individuals should & shouldn't be responsible for.

Our sick and our elderly could be cared for at equal expense to everyone and we could all stop the politics of envy.

When everyone who needs a home, has a home, when every child who is living in deprivation is given a slice of opportunity I'll set my mind to worrying about the question of care home fees and inheritance.

That sounds horrendous Minimathsmouse no incentive, no design, no choice. It's human nature to care about your own property, if you remove ownership you remove pride.

The country would descend into one big slum.

Whilst people worry about passing on a legacy of wealth through the capitalist dream of property acquisition and argue about fairness, nearly half the worlds children in the developed world are living in poverty.

The American dream of owing property has never worked and after the Credit crisis brought about by the greed of lenders it is now worse than ever with middle class families living in tents. YES children living in tents.

Detroit- do some research, laid to waste by the human desire to profit and acquire.

Al0uise I have owned homes and rented them, my level of pride has remained the same. Rather judgemental to suggest that people who rent create slums.

I think it is fair enough to sell your home to pay for your care. We have just sold an elderly parents house to pay for is care. I am not expecting any inheritance and would rather it went to paying for his care. I am sure my children can find their own way in the world and will also not need any inheritance from me. To be honest we tend to die when our children are grown up and with their own families anyway.

My only concern would be the care provided for people who do to have homes to sell.

I agree there should be rent controls on private rents, to prevent the runaway rent increases and profiteering caused by housing shortages.
This would reduce poverty and the governments HB bills through a more effective mechanism than making people homeless.

Sub-letting of council houses such as those which are under-occupied would be an interesting solution to housing shortages and worth investigating. Obviously if the original tenant is no longer resident they should give up the house.

Me too Margaret, but in the rented homes I had to wait for the ll to decide to get the external woodwork painted but in my own home I make sure everything is painted on a 2 year cycle.

To invest in your own home is far more sensible than to improve a landlords property.

Yes people who live in social housing create slums

A lack of investment, lack of political will combined with poverty and deprivation create slums.

I refer again to the fact that in America, some of the countries poorest families were given mortgages to buy dilapidated properties at rip of rates of interest to stimulate the housing market into upward drift. The banks made a tidy profit hiding these mortgages in other financial products (Goldman sold these at the first opportunity knowing full well these people would most likely default)

Even before the first of these families were turfed out some of the houses were not fit to inhabit.

No ownership doesn't always create pride because if you look at some of the older private housing estates built here in the 70's you find many are in decline.

I think that in Britain it is different and people do take pride in their houses sometimes privately owned sometimes rented. do you not think it depends on the people and what they like to do.

One thing that is creating slums is unscrupulous landlords letting out sheds in the garden. This is a problem in London.

I have never really seen a home as a financial investment so have just done what needed dong as it needed doing, regardless of whether I have owned it or not. I have tended to rent quite expensive houses so the owners have wanted the upkeep maintained.

Controlling private rents will not reduce the HB bill because they are already controlled by Local Housing Allowances for each area. Most private rental are not even rented to HB tenants anyway as anyone on HB looking for another place to rent will tell you, most LL will not touch them. And of course we should be selling our homes to pay for our care. You can give the money away in advance of course and make yourself poor I guess but then you have no choice in your care. Further up the thread I have explained that my Nana has just had to go into an EMI home after a stroke and we had almost no choice in where she goes because there are only a few places that except the council rate. It would be much nicer if she had a home to sell and then I could find a place that is right for her rather than just having to take what is offered. I am not interested in an inheritance I would much rather she had gold standard care.

hmm so becuase i ahve H/a house im not going to invest in it course I will this is my home and my childrens home .

private rented i kept the house tidy and spent money doing bits to it as was my kids home

Council and HA tenants do invest in their houses. My sister's HA house and garden are immaculate and she redecorates at least every 2/3 years. In fact her whole street (all HA) are constantly trying to out do each other to have the nicest front garden :)
My own priately owned house and garden is somewhat less immaculate because I'm a lazy so and so.

"Controlling private rents will not reduce the HB bill because they are already controlled by Local Housing Allowances for each area. "

That isn't so. The Govt have set a cap based on current private rents They cap is still higher than the equivalent current social housing rent.

Specifics:

Winchester 3 bed terrace. LHA rate is £899.99 per month. There are currently 6 houses available for rent in my village (which uses the Winchester LHA rate). They are available for £795-£925 pcm Social housing is £507 per month for the same size property.

So, the LHA rate is set £400 above the social housing rate.

WHY? Because private lets are so much more expensive than Social Housing.

If Private rents were capped (and we know that Social Housing will have paid for itself by April 2012) at similar rates to Social Housing, then the LHA rate would be much less than now.

"Social Housing will have paid for itself by April 2012"

link?