this is so wrong?

[emmie]

whilst there are long queues for social housing this is going on,
why can't councils stop it.

http://www.walletpop....-by-living-in-social/

[boxtops]

I still think that council housing should be means-tested - that would avoid these situations, surely. Someone can be hard up in year 1 and need help, ten years later they don't. A review every few years would probably be hugely expensive in terms of admin hours, though.

[emmie]

you do get means tested, but someone must realise this is wrong, i do know that a former cabinet minister still lives in a council property, and im sure he has other homes as well. Seems unfair on all those waiting

[boxtops]

The means testing ain't up to much then, IMO, if you can have a catering empire or a full time council job, and still qualify. The bar must be set way too high!

[chelle7272]

You aren't means tested after you move into council property and your income can rise substantially during your tenancy. I also think that if your family size changes your accomodation should change accordingly. If you had 3 children who have now left home you don't need to be in a 3 or 4 bed house when others need the accommodation.

[dave50]

At one time you could only get a council house if you were in employment and you had to get a reference from your employer. Then the rules were changed so that the homeless got priority. What were once occupied by people with pride and decency, you then got the drug addicts and wasters moving in. That was when the rot set in.

[sara3]

I agree with chelle. there are plenty of pensioners living alone in 3 bed council houses in my area.

[ichkeria]

The gentleman across the road from us is in his mid-nineties and lives alone in the large council house he has lived in all his live.
He has resisted all attempts to move him out, but it is his house even if he doesn't own it and he has evety right to stay (he is perfectly fit despite his age).

[chelle7272]

It's not his house ickeria, it may well be his home, but it is not his property. If the landlord was private he would no such right to stay. I understand people feel they don't want to leave the home they have had all their lives, but it's denying others a place to live.

[ichkeria]

If this chap moved into this property before he became wealthy then he has every right to stay there. If not, how was he allocated the place to start with?

If he'd bought it, as many people do, he would have a perfect right to live there and no one, presumably, would complain. Tenants must have rights also, even wealthy ones.

[boxtops]

I disagree, ich - this is public housing paid for by the taxpayer - people who need it should have something appropriate to their needs, and this should be adjusted when circumstances change. Meanwhile people with several children are having to live in small private rents because there's inadequate availability of large council housing.

[ichkeria]

"If the landlord was private he would no such right to stay. I understand people feel they don't want to leave the home they have had all their lives, but it's denying others a place to live. "

So you think old people (or indeed anyone) should be evicted from their family home? A private landlord might try to evict him for profit, but that doesn't make it right. By all means a council can ask tenants if they would consider moving but in my opinion a tenant must have the right to stay put if they are law-abiding people who pay their rent, and especially if they have lived their a long time.
And, of course, the neighbours don't want him to move out (not that that is anything to do with it) as they are all in council houses they bought, thank you very much, and are worried a large dysfunctional family will move in :-).
I;m sorry, but social need has to be balanced against tenants' rights. We idolise home owning in this county for some reason.

[chelle7272]

So you think old people (or indeed anyone) should be evicted from their family home?

I think people should move on yes, it is public housing, and should be for people with the need. I was very grateful to have council housing following my divorce, but now that my son is older and i am earning a decent salary, I have given my property up as othes have greater need than me. And it's not about home owning, I rent privately at the moment.
That may sound harsh, but i expect the families living in B&B's waiting to be housed would disagree.

[Old_Geezer]

I have always understood that council housing was for those unable to afford private purchase or private rent. My local MP is pushing to get those who are no longer unable to use the private market considered no longer eligible for such housing, and told they must relinquish their council house. I'm amazed that was not always the case, or at least I would be if I didn't realise how useless authorities usually are.

[ichkeria]

"I was very grateful to have council housing following my divorce, but now that my son is older and i am earning a decent salary, I have given my property up as othes have greater need than me"

Good for you but, like I say, I think tenants have rights provided they abide by the law. Why, I wonder, is there a shortage of council housing? I bet its not because there are lots of people hogging them who shouldn't be there.
If we stopped allowing people to buy their council houses (or made sure a new one was built for every one bought) and made them sign an agreement to leave once they passed a certain means test, then I would agree. On the other hand we shouldn't be allowed to push people around just because they are at the lower end of the social scale, which most people in social housing are.

[chelle7272]

Of course they have rights. I don't propose that tenants are kicked out if they still have a housing need, but they should be in accommodation suitable to them, i.e.e a one bed property for one person, to free up space for others who need housing.

i agree with you that council housing should not be sold to tenants.

[Quizmonster]

Council houses never SHOULD have been sold - or, rather, effectively given away - to tenants. That was one of Thatcher's grossest errors, given that a 'balancing' commitment to go on replacing them was not enforced on each and every council.
I live in what is considered a 'wealthy' town and so, indeed, parts of it are...obscenely so. However, property here is so expensive that young people who are not rich have virtually no hope of ever being able to buy accommodation of their own here.
"A property-owning democracy" sounds like a wonderful concept, but it has become something of a millstone in reality for many.

[Old_Geezer]

Even if a new council house was purchased or built for each sold, another problem as I see it is that they tend to be offered at a discount. I don't see why the ratepayer should fund discounted houses to folk who have been given the opportunity to pay lower than market rate rent for years.

I believe the rights of the council tenants should not include being able to stay there once the justification for offering them such accommodation is no longer applicable.

Oh it wasn't an error by Thatcher. I'm not so naive to think she didn't know she was buying votes, which surely has to have been the reason for the cut price sell off, sometimes to folk unable to cope with the cost of maintenance. Although I agree the belief they would not need replacing was another of her delusions. In this case that turning the council tenants into home owners would mean the council housing wouldn't be needed any longer, and so not need replacing.

[Haggisdj]

Is there a difference in the rules between living in a Council house and a Housing Association property. Once upon a time you were not allowed to run a business from a Council House.

Single parents who do not have custody of their children are still awarded two and three bedroom properties to allow their children to stay with them at weekends...

[gina32]

dave 50 are you aying that people who live in council house are drug users and wasters?