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?

One last try:

If we are talking about fairness for all, then we have to accept that we in the UK are a damned sight better off than vast swathes of the world's population. That was my point.

But you aren't talking about fairness for all, are you? You are just bleating about how you and yours should have a greater share of society's pot. After all, who wants to believe that if the world were fairer they, personally, would be worse off?

So no, if 100% of the world's resources were shared out equally, not everyone would be worse off. Billions of people in places like Burundi, Afghanistan, Congoa and Liberia would be better off. And we in the UK would undoubtedly be worse off.

Cue posters coming along to whine that we live in a wealthy country - therefore they should be given more....

bradbourne - i dont think that was the type of fairness other posters had in mind - they wanted the fairness where they get more, not have to share what that they have with people with less.

'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'

Not the case in Belgium - the law is all on the l/ls side, and if you get away with paying 1 months rent for damages when you leave (no notion of wear and tear here), you are doing well.

You can also be asked to leave if the l/l wishes to reoccupy the property.
The tenancies are longer, 3 or 9 years, but the tenant is liable for the boiler service, chimney sweeping, garden maintenance etc, that Brit l/ls pay for out of rental income.

Any chance we could not want to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Social housing rents are fair rents. In some case private sector rents are ridiculously high because of greedy landlords who have no constraints put on them. So instead of knocking those in social housing why not fight to get private sector pay restraint.

Because as its been explained numerous times away on the thread it can't work. People let their properties for a yield, once the yield is reduced other forms of investment are preferable.

who provides the money for the new social housing?

A diversion of funds from non essential govt. initiatives such as Free Schools and NHS reform would provide the money. Labour is cheaper now than in boom times. Money is saved as the building jobs will take people off benefits. The cash injection from salaries will support existing jobs, thereby boosting the economy. NEETs will be able to find apprenticeships. Long term, less HB is paid to landlords and B&B owners.

Bradbourne, people in poorer countries are often the victims of corrupt, violent leaders and businesses that support them. I would love for all to live in a fairer society.

Dione - arent people in poor countries often victims of us?

Social housing pays for itself and has been making a profit since 2008 IIRC.

When people pay their rent it pays for the cost of building the house. Then the money can be reinvested in more houses! Yay! Happy! Clever! Non-homeless people!

TheRealityMillyTinto, It would be interesting to discuss, but would need a whole thread to itself.

will start one.... just need to think of a suitable title, but will come up with something....

chickenlickn - www.insidehousing.co.uk/subsidy-withdrawal-heavily-criticised/6512262.article

from 2010 would appear to disagree with that. something that makes a profit does not need a direct subsidy.... or am i missing something?

Social housing profit, they invent new ways each year to Justify service charge, they bring in contractors to lay pavement where it is not needed mainly over patches of land and plant in areas where a charge is not been given so they can maintain it through a service charge and pay their staff well above nmw while people living in these properties just get by on the basics, what does social hosing stand for?

Coming back to this thread, I thought I could give a little perspective:

We bid on a council house on 08/02/2012. We were asked for documents on 13/02/2012, and told we were the preferred choice on 17/02/2012.

The council house was classed as a 'void'. The previous tenant had left the property and the council had to do lots of work on it to bring it up to standard.

It needed full clearance; new boilers and radiators, with an extension of the heating system; garden landscaping to make the garden safe (previous tenants had 'stepped' the garden, which meant that there were 3 levels of grass, with a 1 metre drop at the end of the garden; new screed flooring; new kitchen units.

On 02/03/2012 we were told the property was going to be ready on 12/03/2012. We have a one month notice period for our current tenancy. We were told that we had to take the keys on 12/03/2012, despite the fact that our tenancy in the current house will not expire until 02/04/2012. We also would be charged rent from 12/03/2012, despite also paying rent on our current home.

We got the keys on 12/03/2012, stripped the wallpaper, and found that the plaster beneath it has lifted away from the wall in numerous places on every wall in every room. The house is not habitable, and all the walls need replastering.

The council has accepted that they need to fix it. But they initially told us that we still had to pay rent because 'we accepted the property as it was'. I had to point out that we were not given an opportunity to inspect, and we informed them of the problem less than 24 hours after sign up.

I also asked if there was any help with the fact that we now would have to pay two rents for longer than we were told, and was told 'no, there's no help'.

I had to write a formal letter requesting abatement to the Property Services Manager to plead my case. Fortunately, he was fantastic, and said that it should have been part of the original job. He is sorting it.

We are lucky that my landlord is understanding, and has agreed to extend the tenancy by two weeks. The tenant who is due to move in here isn't too pleased.

To move in to the council house we will have to pay for:

Fencing - the entire garden must be secure because my DD has no sense of danger. The council are only responsible for marking the position of the boundary - the tenant is responsible for all fencing.

Flooring - Whenever a tenant moves out of council housing they must lift all flooring and leave the property as it was. The new tenant has to pay to floor the whole house.

Furninshing - All council houses are completely unfurnished. No white goods, no curtains, no furniture of any sort.

I am still very grateful, but I do think that sometimes people get the impression that council tenants get handed everything on a plate. It isn't so.