Social housing

[tonywiltshire]

Social housing should be reserved for people on low incomes; it is unfair for people with a high income to occupy social housing when people on a low income are forced to rent privately. I know incomes can reduce as well as increase but would it not be fairer when the joint income reaches, say twice the average income, to be given notice to leave so that a low-income family can occupy social housing. If circumstances reduce income the original family can re-apply for social housing.

I know this will produce some anomalies but would it not be fairer than being given social housing for life regardless of income?

[shaneystar2]

Me neither Lofty . We've downsized as it is .
How much further people expect you to downsize as you get older is beyond me :)
I would never deny anyone the right to a roof above their head .
Thatcher with her me me greed policies didn't help things .
Those who had the money to buy were alright Jack ,those who didn't are in the same boat they always were .
I despair at times .
Watching the One Show last night some financial wizard was predicting civil unrest and even war with all this carry on in the financial swing of things ...all very worrying for the younger generation .
Glad I'm not a youngster any more .
I'm not insensitive to peoples predicaments .I just wish everyone could have a good life and be happy .

[emmie]

Brenden, i did read that bit, but i just don't see how it's workable.
If whatever benefits one is getting stops, then bang goes the mortgage repayments. I would be interested in our councils take on this.
I think Mrs T had the idea of home ownership for as many as possible, as a way to heave oneself up the property ladder, at least that is how i saw it at the time. Our private property prices are beyond what anyone can afford, a local estate agent has a 3 bed home on the market for 50 pounds shy of
4 million quid.

[Brenden]

em, they can apply for income support and tax credits and whatever else is available.

[modeller]

Lofty
I dont know where you live but in the 50/60s 40,000 council houses were built in my area. They were built to house thousands of people from deprived areas of London and when they moved in initially they brought their anti social activities with them . Quite simply they were sink estates. However all this changed almost overnight when they were allowed to buy their homes. What had been a tip became nice places to live with extensions, double glazing, new front doors and well tended gardens.
So Lofty your remarks // If you go onto a housing estate, the houses that are still without double glazing, heating, new kitchens etc. are the privately owned ones!! // couldn't be more wrong at least in my area. Once people owned their own homes they developed a great sense of pride and they knew that what they did it was for them not some landlord. I spent 20 years doing business on those estates so I have first hand experience of the cultural change that took place as a result of the right to buy. My own daughter lived on two of those estates and like most of her neighbours she spent a lot of money upgrading the property. She moved to another similar estate and still happily upgrades the property. I should add my area includes 3 big towns of 100.000 each and 4 local authorities so its not an isolated example.

[LoftyLottie]

Modeller. I was born and bred in London and lived in a council flat built in the 50's. I left London in the 60's when my parents bought there own home in Befordshire. I now live in north norfolk which is a 'poor county'. The people who bought there homes when Maggie made it possible are now finding it difficult to maintain those homes, put in double glazing, new kitchens etc. Those who still remain in council accommodation have had there homes imroved to a great extent over the years.

I wasn't saying that people who had bought there homes had no pride in them - they do. They just can't afford to modernise them, whilst those who didn't buy haven't had to fork out and modernise theirs. It's been done by the council/housing associations.

I think you misunderstood me. Wages in our area are very, very low and there is a lot of unemployment.

[LoftyLottie]

And there were no anti social activities on the council estate in London I lived on in the 50's. There were hard working young families who were thrilled to get a home. I can't understand what you say about people bringing their anti-social activities into council estates in the 50's. That's just not true in any way. London in the 50's was a great place to live with people working hard. My family came from a very poor area in South London!!

[albaqwerty]

Due to a serious illness (now recovered from) we had to move into Social Housing, house required was to take 4 of us, If 2 of us moved out, then I don't think I'd fancy being told to go to another home irrespective of area.

Sorry, but need to go to ask a q re sky. Might be back to discuss this further.

[modeller]

Lofty // I can't understand what you say about people bringing their anti-social activities into council estates in the 50's. That's just not true in any way. //
I dont know what world you are/were living in as there are many sink estates today where the following is the normal way of life.
They didn't pay their bills . We and all other businesses had to insist on COD payments for all services.
The milkman refused to supply milk and insisted on each bottle being paid for daily , ditto papers ,grocers , coalmen etc. We initially installed 90 rental TVs on one estate and had to repossess 87 of them within 4 months for non payment.
We fitted some with payment meters and they were all broken into. The rentmen had non stop trouble . Even their own community centre was broken ino. All the shops were broken into and had to have security grills fitted. All this was not down to poverty there was plenty of work on the big trading estates. I am describing the situation in my area for the 50/60s when slum areas in certain parts of London were cleared and relocated. Since the right to buy came in there has been a huge culture change as I explained.

[sandyRoe]

How could owning their house suddenly change people from being feckless chavs to house-proud Tories?

[LoftyLottie]

Modeller, I was living in South London on an estate of council flats which were completed in 1952 and I can assure you that it wasn't as you describe in any way.

I wasn't aware of any culture like that back in 1952. The flats in our area were needed by desparate people, as my parents were, living in sub standard accommodation or shared accommodation after the war and they were pleased to have a home to call their own. There were no problems such as you describe. People living in slum areas were far from being anti social people. Living in a slum area doesn't make people into anti social people. I agree with Sandy.

[LoftyLottie]

I am wondering about the rental TV's modeller? I didn't realise there were rental TV's in the 50's - not that many anyway. We had a TV back then, one of the few families that did. It wasn't rented. The big boom in rental TVs was in the 60's surely.

What you are saying might be more true of sink estates nowadays, but the culture back in the 50's you describe is not as I remember it.

[modeller]

sandy // How could owning their house suddenly change people from being feckless chavs to house-proud Tories? //
Pride in ownership that's why ! What has politics got to do with it ?
Are you saying Labour supporters can't be house proud. ?
I think that is insulting . Most fectless chavs as you describe them will take pride in their possessions and there is no greater possession than owning your own home .

Lofty my company had several thousand TV rental customers which really took off in the middle 50s and well into the 70/80s. I know that even today
there are some people who prefer to rent. The main reason for renting was because the TVs were unreliable but as that improved so the attraction of renting dropped off.