Selling Social housing

[tonywiltshire]

There is no point in stopping the right to buy social housing, as most Housing associations have done, unless you give notice to people on a high income to move out and make way for low income families. HMRC should be able to provide income details to Housing associations who would give notice to move to people able to buy or rent privately.
Social housing should only be for people on low or average incomes not a home for life for those able to buy or rent privately.

[emmie]

As far as i am aware, or from our council webpage Housing associations are still selling social housing, as to who should live in one, well if the council hadn't had a policy of giving social housing to people who had just arrived in Britain because they had larger families, without considering the locals who had sat on the waiting list for years, this info was from a friend in the housing office, then perhaps those people would have had a chance of a home. And unless the councils go through peoples bank accounts, how would they know how badly/well off they are. For many it's just not feasible to buy.

[cassa333]

I think I gree with you tonyw.

Unless the social housing is rented at the going market rate then high income families should be made to move.

Benifits are means tested, working tax credit is means tested (I think) all the time so it shouldn't be too difficult to find out income and make a call on who is 'deserving'.

For me benifits and social housing and such like should all be means tested. Otherwise the rest of the taxpayers are footing the bill.

[emmie]

In an ideal world we would all own our homes, pay mortages etc, but that isn't always possible. And if i was on a low wage, then suddenly got a somewhat better paid job, am i expected to move, and if so to where.

[tonywiltshire]

To EM10.
Yes, if you got a well paid job you would be expected to rent privately and make way for a low income family to occupy the Social house.

[emmie]

TW i have just got back to this, so rather late reply, but i wondered what would happen if i lost the better paid job, i wouldn't be able to go back to social housing, as you have to be on a housing list, so i could end up homeless if i wasn't able to get another job, as has happened in the past.
Renting privately in London is incredibly expensive, so does that now mean i would not only have no home, but perhaps have to move away to some where i am unfamiliar with, have no ties to. Not exactly the scenario i would expect, or be happy with. Add to that the low income family may be be on a better income ultimately, with council/housing benefit.

[New Judge]

So, tenant A gains council accommodation because he has a need. He gets a job, pays his taxes (and, incidentally, his rent and Council Tax) gets promoted and a rise or two and generally pays his way. For his troubles he is chucked out of his “social housing”.

In moves tenant B. He has no job and no intention of getting one. His rent and Council Tax are met by Housing Benefit and Council Tax credit. He and his partner knock out two or three “kids” and for their trouble they are given larger premises to accommodate their expanding brood. They are guaranteed their housing (adjusted to suit their needs, natch) for as long as they are seemingly destitute.

Fair? I think not.

The fact is that “social housing” has become a resource of last resort (or more properly first resort) for penniless immigrants or those people who have no intention of making any effort to provide for themselves . It is costing the country an absolute fortune and the notion that tenants who manage to support themselves and pay their rent from their own income should be evicted to make way for immigrants or the feckless is scandalous. But it sums up the attitude of the authorities to “social” housing.

[emmie]

NJ, i thought it was just me who thought this outrageous. If we get thrown out of our property, for the reasons suggested, where would we go. I would be appalled if someone suggested it, and we can't all be home owners, much as we would have liked that. Same as having your own home, which you scrimped and saved up for the deposit, and paid for, then informed that as you are elderly it would be a good idea to downsize, so another younger family can get on the property ladder. Some do downsize, but that would be their choice. And the idiot who suggested it, Tessa Jowell, and a bunch of left wing thinkers, what on earth happened to freedom of choice.

[Old_Geezer]

I think you are tying together 2 different issues.

I agree the only reason for council housing is to provide accommodation for those unfortunate enough not to earn enough to buy or rent privately, and these folk should move out and release such accommodation if their circumstances improve.

As for selling public housing stock; are they still abusing the rate payer like that ? I'd have hoped common sense would have prevailed by now.

[Old_Geezer]

em you seem to be asking about problems that those who were never in the low pay category have to deal with anyway. Folk who once were lowly paid are not a special case.

Yes if they can afford their own accommodation they have no reason to expect society to continue to provide. If they later drop into difficult times, then like others who do so, they become eligible for help, but the first aid is probably not moving into a council house. But I'm sure they can join the waiting list with everyone else in those circumstances.

[Old_Geezer]

Given that the council rent will have been lower than the market price, your aunty will not have paid for it many times over, she will have been in reverse gear all that time as the council effectively lost the difference between the charged rent and that of the market. Now that is not a problem because providing houses for the low paid is the only reason government should dabble in the housing market, but it's a little rich to claim the tenants have paid for the property.

How council houses are allocated is a third issue, and consideration of that will 'muddy' the discussion further.

[New Judge]

There is actually no reason why social housing rents should be set at anything below the local market rate. Those in dire straits have their rent and Council Tax met by means of Housing Benefit and Council Tax credit whether they live in social housing or in privately rented accommodation. Social housing rents should be set at the market rate and those in need can have all or some of their rent paid for by Housing Benefit according to their means. This is what happens should they rent privately.

If this were so there would be no issue with “fortunate” tenants continuing to live in social housing as their HB level would be adjusted as their circumstances change. There really is no reason why social housing should be the sole preserve of the destitute. It never used to be. I was brought up living on a council estate and the tenants there mostly worked for a living at a wide range of occupations. My father and mother were both office workers and there were others there from lorry drivers to police officers and nurses. The reason many estates have become areas of depravity is because 95% of the tenants are of similar ilk, often making life most unpleasant for the remainder.

[tonywiltshire]

If a family increases their income to say, twice the National average, and the Housing association is notified of this by HMRC (both HMRC and the HA would need to know who is resident), which would be the next tax year, they should be given six months notice to leave social housing unless circumstances can be shown to have changed, they then rent privately, if their income falls they then apply to go back on the social housing list. In the meantime a low-income family is housed.
Social housing should be for those who need help.

The alternative is that at least one leader of a trade union and one member of the House of Lords have social housing for life, is that fair?

[New Judge]

It's no more or less fair than the two scenarios I painted in my first post, tony. As I said, the rents of social housing should be set at the prevailing market rate and only those in need should get help via HB. Social housing, like the NHS, is a national resource and should be available to all. Opening the accommodation up more widely would have the added benefit of making the population of the estates more diverse and not composed predominantly of irresponsible wasters.

What next? "Sorry, you were receiving treatment for yor stomach ulcers via the NHS but now your circumstances have improved you will have to go private".

[tonywiltshire]

But Social housing rent New Judge is set much lower than the prevailing rent rate to enable people on a low income to have a reasonable standard of housing, there are many people, probably the majority, in Social housing who work and do not get HB Social housing is not “composed predominantly of irresponsible wasters” as you claim. Social housing provides a decent standard of living for those on a low income and people who enjoy a high income should not deprive them of this valuable asset.

The NHS is a free service for people of any income; those who wish to and have the means can use private medicine, which does not deprive anyone of treatment, quite the reverse.