Neighbourhood Watched BBC1

[marty21]

shared housing can be a nightmare to manage

 

[Kaka Tim]

I'm in a 2 bed council flat and working. I have a daughter.

For a short time I could jsut about have afforded a private two bed flat. Buying was out of the question.

Now I'm on a part time contract and there is no way I could do that.

So I say thank fuck for my council flat and my security of tenure - otehrwise my life (and my daughters) would be a serious struggle. I would not class that as 'bettering myself'

The problem is a chronic shortage of social housing, not tennants 'not moving on'. The solution is provide fuck loads more social housing and mangage and mantinan it better - its been run into the ground for the past 30 years.

BTW - I am not living of the taxpayer - I pay rent. Yes its cheaper than private rents - but thats becasue its not diesgined to make a profit. And the biggest beneficieries of housing benefit are private landlords who make a mint provding sub-standard housing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Was it classed as a hostel? Rents seem to shoot up if it is. I stayed in one mother and baby "hostel" that was basically just a shared house and the rent was £110 per week! And that was 12 years ago!

It might have been. I'll have to ask Greebo.

 

[ViolentPanda]

let's not forget that thatcher also ended fair rent legislation, which allowed people on low incomes to afford private rented accommodation, after this protection ended (in 1989) rents shot up, the buy to let market expanded, house prices shot up, making it difficult even for working families to afford private rents, oh and RTB, as has already been mentioned, reduced the stock of council housing, and housing associations have never been able to meet the demand.

In fact, as I'm fond of repeating, they've never even met 10% of the demand in a single year since Thatch handed over social housing development to them, so every year social housing has registered a net deficit in housing stock as well as a rise in demand which the private sector (for the reasons you mention) has been unable and/or unwilling to meet.
Now, I suppose we could examine the reasons beyond "buy to let" and there being no rent control, but then people would probably think I was being sarky about landlords who charge local authorities £200+ a week for a single room that is so-called "emergency accommodation". Much more profitable than only being able to charge £200 a week for a one-bedroom flat.

 

[marty21]

BTW - I am not living of the taxpayer - I pay rent. Yes its cheaper than private rents - but thats becasue its not diesgined to make a profit. And the biggest beneficieries of housing benefit are private landlords who make a mint provding sub-standard housing.

when i worked in Housing Benefit, I came across a lot of that, there was one landlord, who rented out shared rooms in large houses, at about £75 a week each, all covered by HB, in fact he insisted that they claim HB. Once the claim was running, he moved these claimants into 4 in a room, and rented out the freed rooms privately for another £150 a week,. he had about 8, 6 or 7 bedroom houses in a nice area of London, at our estimation was making about £7-8000 a week in HB, plus another few grand for the private renters, I left before they completed their investigation of him

although interestingly, years after I left, I found out an old colleague was done for benefit fraud, he'd been in league with private landlords, creating false tenancies,etc the fraud was estimated at about £3m, he got sent down for it

 

[marty21]

In fact, as I'm fond of repeating, they've never even met 10% of the demand in a single year since Thatch handed over social housing development to them, so every year social housing has registered a net deficit[/i] in housing stock as well as a rise in demand which the private sector (for the reasons you mention) has been unable and/or unwilling to meet.
Now, I suppose we could examine the reasons beyond "buy to let" and there being no rent control, but then people would probably think I was being sarky about landlords who charge local authorities £200+ a week for a single room that is so-called "emergency accommodation". Much more profitable than only being able to charge £200 a week for a one-bedroom flat.

oh yes, private sector leasing, that's a lovely earner for private landlords, guaranteed payment of rents, even when the property is empty

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm in a 2 bed council flat and working. I have a daughter.

For a short time I could jsut about have afforded a private two bed flat. Buying was out of the question.

Now I'm on a part time contract and there is no way I could do that.

So I say thank fuck for my council flat and my security of tenure - otehrwise my life (and my daughters) would be a serious struggle. I would not class that as 'bettering myself'

Some people labour under the delusion that if you live in social housing at all, then you've "failed" in life. Like you say, security of tenure means that you (and your daughter, for as long as councils continue to allow inheritance of tenancy) are assured of a roof over your head.

The problem is a chronic shortage of social housing, not tennants 'not moving on'. The solution is provide fuck loads more social housing and mangage and mantinan it better - its been run into the ground for the past 30 years.

BTW - I am not living of the taxpayer - I pay rent. Yes its cheaper than private rents - but thats becasue its not diesgined to make a profit. And the biggest beneficieries of housing benefit are private landlords who make a mint provding sub-standard housing.

Sub-standard housing at above-market average rents in many cases, if we're going to be accurate about these criticisms.

 

[ViolentPanda]

when i worked in Housing Benefit, I came across a lot of that, there was one landlord, who rented out shared rooms in large houses, at about £75 a week each, all covered by HB, in fact he insisted that they claim HB. Once the claim was running, he moved these claimants into 4 in a room, and rented out the freed rooms privately for another £150 a week,. he had about 8, 6 or 7 bedroom houses in a nice area of London, at our estimation was making about £7-8000 a week in HB, plus another few grand for the private renters, I left before they completed their investigation of him

My last private landlord (before I was "fortunate" enough to qualify for social housing due to disability) had a scam going. Not as audacious as what you mention above, but still rather nasty in its' way.
He wouldn't take HB claimants on the books as new tenants, but if you lost your job and had to claim, he'd charge HB an extra £25 or so a week on top of what you'd been paying him as some sort of nuisance bonus, a nuisance bonus he felt utterly justified in charging, and indeed got self-righteous about when I told him he was more of a "benefits cheat" than someone doing a day-worth of casual work while signing on. He actually believed that by allowing your AST to keep rolling over, even though you were doing something as vile as claiming HB, was some kind of public service, and that he deserved kudos.

although interestingly, years after I left, I found out an old colleague was done for benefit fraud, he'd been in league with private landlords, creating false tenancies,etc the fraud was estimated at about £3m, he got sent down for it

Seems to be an occupational hazard.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh yes, private sector leasing, that's a lovely earner for private landlords, guaranteed payment of rents, even when the property is empty

So much of it almost seems geared to throw public money into private pockets. It's depressing.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Now, I suppose we could examine the reasons beyond "buy to let" and there being no rent control, but then people would probably think I was being sarky about landlords who charge local authorities £200+ a week for a single room that is so-called "emergency accommodation". Much more profitable than only being able to charge £200 a week for a one-bedroom flat.

Oh god yeah. I did a brief stint temping for the council homelessness section and was gobsmacked by how much the council was charged for emergency accomodation. Often it was paying for £500 per week housing families who had been evictited from their social housing for getting into £500 rent arrears. Ridiculous system that benefits no-one except the landlords.

 

[_angel_]

when i worked in Housing Benefit, I came across a lot of that, there was one landlord, who rented out shared rooms in large houses, at about £75 a week each, all covered by HB, in fact he insisted that they claim HB. Once the claim was running, he moved these claimants into 4 in a room, and rented out the freed rooms privately for another £150 a week,. he had about 8, 6 or 7 bedroom houses in a nice area of London, at our estimation was making about £7-8000 a week in HB, plus another few grand for the private renters, I left before they completed their investigation of him

although interestingly, years after I left, I found out an old colleague was done for benefit fraud, he'd been in league with private landlords, creating false tenancies,etc the fraud was estimated at about £3m, he got sent down for it

And yet all those 'benefit fraud' adverts are aimed at some poor woman who hasn't told the DSS her boyfriend has moved in - the people who are really making the money on the back of it are the landlords.

 

[mentalchik]

I would have thought that acceptable given that it is public housing and is being padi for by the public. I think more people should be scrutinised and moved on. Single mums are a different matter. Do they get to keep the same size property once the kids have moved out? Or are they downsized?

Excuse me..................i pay rent thank you very much !

You keep saying people should be scrutinised and moved on but i notice you don't give your own ideas about how this would be decided !

A few anecdotes about people you have met isn't representative of people in social housing.......


and no i certainly don't think the Ha should be rummaging about in my finances.....i work full time and pay for everything myself...

sorry but you are coming over as a bit clueless on this issue tbh !

 

[marty21]

And yet all those 'benefit fraud' adverts are aimed at some poor woman who hasn't told the DSS her boyfriend has moved in - the people who are really making the money on the back of it are the landlords.

when I worked in Housing Benefit, there was a lot of landlord fraud, it was a long time ago (the 90s) no idea how much there is nowadays

 

[Upchuck]

Excuse me..................i pay rent thank you very much !

You keep saying people should be scrutinised and moved on but i notice you don't give your own ideas about how this would be decided !

A few anecdotes about people you have met isn't representative of people in social housing.......


and no i certainly don't think the Ha should be rummaging about in my finances.....i work full time and pay for everything myself...

sorry but you are coming over as a bit clueless on this issue tbh !

I think people, single people of working age and in health, should be assessed, means tested, as to their needs and if they don't need to remain in a subsidised proerty they should be given a leaving date, say in 4-5 years time, whereby they can get organised amd free up the property for someone else.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Oh god yeah. I did a brief stint temping for the council homelessness section and was gobsmacked by how much the council was charged for emergency accomodation. Often it was paying for £500 per week housing families who had been evictited from their social housing for getting into £500 rent arrears. Ridiculous system that benefits no-one except the landlords.

Surprise surprise.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think people, single people of working age and in health, should be assessed, means tested, as to their needs and if they don't need to remain in a subsidised proerty they should be given a leaving date, say in 4-5 years time, whereby they can get organised amd free up the property for someone else.

Arbitrary makes-no-sense bollocks.
Why "single people"?
Who will "assess" them and "means test" them?
Why "4-5 years"?
Oh, and has been explained to you once already, the property isn't "subsidised", only the construction was.

You a Queenslander by any chance? This and other crap you've come out with sounds like Joh Bjelke-Petersen is a member of your family.

 

[Upchuck]

Obviously you wont entertain anything I have to say which is a shame. Would you porefer people with children be scutinised? I hardly think that's appropriate. 4-5 years is a saving period, determined if possible by a means test. Who would do it? Not sure. Consultancy I imagine. I just don't think everyone living in ha or council accomodation should be entitled to ongoing tenancy. Some people are in a position to free up a property for others waiting, particuarly as building does not come anywhere close to the numbers lost.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Obviously you wont entertain anything I have to say which is a shame.

Make a contention that makes sense in the context of the thread and I'll be happy to "entertain" it.

Would you porefer people with children be scutinised? I hardly think that's appropriate.

I'd prefer no-one was scrutinised, but if you're going to scrutinise one group of people, ostensibly so that you can monitor whether they need social housing, then you can't really draw the line there, you have to monitor them all, not just because it's fair to do so, but because the housing needs of a family with children may be just as fluid as that of a singleton.

4-5 years is a saving period, determined if possible by a means test.

So, in effect, no social housing for anyone who doesn't pass the means test?
Way to go! Stigmatise anyone who lives in social housing!

Who would do it? Not sure. Consultancy I imagine.

So more public money will get poured into private pockets.

I just don't think everyone living in ha or council accomodation should be entitled to ongoing tenancy.

You can't have differential sets of rules for different parts of your client-base, not if you're offering a service in a country that calls itself "democratic" and supports wide-ranging anti-discrimination laws.

Some people are in a position to free up a property for others waiting, particuarly as building does not come anywhere close to the numbers lost.

How many, though, maybe 3-5% of targeted tenants per year, at a stretch? That wouldn't free up enough properties to make any difference. Not even 10% would.

The issue isn't people holding on to social housing. The issue is that the government has only just decided to let local authorities spend receipts from "Right to Buy" on maintenance of existing properties and (perhaps) developing new properties.

 

[mentalchik]

I think people, single people of working age and in health, should be assessed, means tested, as to their needs and if they don't need to remain in a subsidised proerty they should be given a leaving date, say in 4-5 years time, whereby they can get organised amd free up the property for someone else.

I just don't think this would 'release' enough property to make much difference........plus single people are only in 1 bedroomed flats (going by my own experience) so it would only be of use to other single people..........


The biggest problem where i am is for people with kids............


We aren't living some sort of life of luxury you know..........2 years in and i still don't have any carpets for instance, just chip board floors..........luckily i get tax credit,i wouldn't be able to afford to live here without it !

Still think you have a distorted idea of the realities of this issue !

 

[Housing Officer]

I work as a Housing Officer. You meet some really nice people, lots of people with mental health issues who are deemed to be capable of independent living, and some not so nice people. The thing that annoys me is single mothers who have full housing benefits for rent and Council Tax, yet when you visit they've got all the latest stuff, Plasma TV's, etc. You know there is a man on the scene. If the woman gets full benefit and he has a wage, they would be better off than most couples who work and are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage. They seems to think it's OK to steal benefit from the state.

As a housing officer I can't believe the rubbish we get thrown at us. Complaints that the Council have put a dog poo bin near their home - isn't that better than dog poo on the pavement outside where they live? Complaints about neighbours that are just petty, ie. they splashed my car when they were washing their bikes. We often wonder if these people rented privately or owned their properties who they would expect to ring up and moan to. It's so annoying when you are trying to help those that deserve it and you get ridiculous complaints and the "what are you going to do about it" statements. How do they think the rest of the world manages? And these are not tenants with mental health issues who you can understand get upset by changes/noise etc.

I used to really like my job but it wears you down after years of seeing the benefit system being ripped off and moaning neighbours.