Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Social Housing/ private renters/ squatters/ homeless

BemusedbyLife

Well-Known Member
Corbyn is a social democrat not a revolutionary communist. Whilst I pretty sure he would support mass Council housing in the interim rent controls are needed.

Also a program of mass Council housing isnt going to go down well with property deails developers and landlords. One of the reasons why Tories got rid of rent controls and gradually reduced Council house building is that it didn't suit capitalism.

It's also not going to make those who have a buy to let flat as a pension happy either. The assumption being that owning a flat would be gaurenteed investment with always upward growth in rent with the asset ever increasing in value. A mass building of housing by a future Labour government is liable to upset that.

Imo a lot of the opposition to rent controls is fear that ,god forbid, a future government might actually do something to lower cost of housing for many people.

The so called liberal middle class home owners with a buy to let flat ( or small portfolio of flats) as a pension miight not be so happy with that in practice.
All your points are valid but the answer to them all is Tough Shit.
An assumption that a buying a flat to rent out is a guaranteed investment is just that an assumption not a law of nature, if it's wrong its wrong, and no government is going to come up with a plan to satisfy everyone, My response is that reducing housing costs for the many is more important than maintaining incomes for the few (A Vulcan housing policy eh? It's just logical).
I'm sure there were people whingeing about the abolition of slavery due to the fact they had money invested in slave ship building.
If they want to maintain an income in retirement buy an annuity like most folks will be expected too.
Mass council house building forcing down the price of housing is a good thing not a bad as far as I am concerned, a lot of my people my age simply can't get on the housing ladder at all.
 

oryx

Sitting on the bock of the day
Looking at the previous period of rent controls in this country and the period following it, it seems they caused properties to be much more poorly maintained than they are now, as well as restricting supply.
I can't see that at all. Because rent control went hand in hand with greater security of tenure, tenants had greater rights in terms of repairs - i.e. they could go to the local authority's environmental health department who would take statutory action in the case of disrepair. (Speaks from experience).

Now because of shorthold tenancies with no fault eviction clauses being the norm, tenants are afraid to assert themselves over disrepair for fear of revenge evictions.
 

BemusedbyLife

Well-Known Member
D
Annuities are shit due to QE. That is why people are investing in property.
Indeed they are and a lot of people are investing in property because returns on depositing money in the bank is shit as well, So what? Sorting out the housing market is going to cost some pain for someone but a hard choice needs making, Is it's primary purpose to create housing or to create money?
That said I think rent controls might turn out to be a double edged sword, Since I guess that it's going to be something like the average rent of an area rising by inflation, I can imagine it will be great at protecting people from landlords who raise the rent so they can go visit Grandma in Australia or because some shyster estate agent (the 2nd and 3rd words in that description are redundant really) says they can make money.
But what about people whose incomes are such they can't afford rents to begin with or whose wages rise by less than inflation.
Same for a 3 year tenancy, Great for tenants whose kids are just starting school and who want stability, what about someone who loses his job and takes another 100 miles away after 6 months in?
Also the Landlords Association does have a point a combination of the above might very well discourage new landlords and encourage existing ones to sell up, Great for me getting ever nearer to 30 and stuck with my parents, Not so much for those people who are going to get kicked out into a market where there is already a shortage of homes.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
D

Indeed they are and a lot of people are investing in property because returns on depositing money in the bank is shit as well, So what? Sorting out the housing market is going to cost some pain for someone but a hard choice needs making, Is it's primary purpose to create housing or to create money?
That said I think rent controls might turn out to be a double edged sword, Since I guess that it's going to be something like the average rent of an area rising by inflation, I can imagine it will be great at protecting people from landlords who raise the rent so they can go visit Grandma in Australia or because some shyster estate agent (the 2nd and 3rd words in that description are redundant really) says they can make money.
But what about people whose incomes are such they can't afford rents to begin with or whose wages rise by less than inflation.
Same for a 3 year tenancy, Great for tenants whose kids are just starting school and who want stability, what about someone who loses his job and takes another 100 miles away after 6 months in?
Also the Landlords Association does have a point a combination of the above might very well discourage new landlords and encourage existing ones to sell up, Great for me getting ever nearer to 30 and stuck with my parents, Not so much for those people who are going to get kicked out into a market where there is already a shortage of homes.
Surely rents should be regulated - and rented housing should be treated as a utility, not a nest-egg?

If the people renting properties on assured tenancies were property companies rather than "Victoria" writing the renting property column in the Standard there would be less sympathy for them. The companies would simply have to obey the rules. As they do in Germany apparently.
 

BemusedbyLife

Well-Known Member
Surely rents should be regulated - and rented housing should be treated as a utility, not a nest-egg?

If the people renting properties on assured tenancies were property companies rather than "Victoria" writing the renting property column in the Standard there would be less sympathy for them. The companies would simply have to obey the rules. As they do in Germany apparently.
Agree totally the biggest problem with the private housing market in my opinion is that it is chockfull of what I call hobby landlords with a small number of properties, many with one who think of it as their home not their business asset. A large organisation be it a registered company, a housing association or the local authority (there's an idea perhaps we should try that) would at least obey the letter of the law and maybe even the spirit as well.
I'm morally in favour of the idea of rent regulation but I am concerned that without major reform of the market there is a good chance it might backfire. Some people will lose out under any system but any change needs to reduce their numbers not increase them and rent regulation on its own without any other reforms could go either way.
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
Surely rents should be regulated - and rented housing should be treated as a utility, not a nest-egg?

If the people renting properties on assured tenancies were property companies rather than "Victoria" writing the renting property column in the Standard there would be less sympathy for them. The companies would simply have to obey the rules. As they do in Germany apparently.
Germany is good example. There is a regulated private rental sector in Germany. Had a friendnd who went to Germany . He contrasted the private rental market there and in UK. He thought German regulated sector was much better. The German example also shows that a regulated market in private rental with set rents does not have to affect supply.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Excuse this gratuitous post. Last Monday (25th Sept) City AM carried it's regular Shared ownership week" supplement.

For the secod year in a row they carried a double page promo for Guinness Trust - and probably did not even re-write it to take account that this is now spupposed to be "Electric Quarter".

I would like to know how it is the case that "You don't even have to be a first time buyer" to get one of their shared ownership "affordable" homes.

Presumably these homes are provided with a government subsidy of some sort. Why is this payable to Guinness Trust is they are housing people who don't actually need affordable housing?
(NB I would have provided a City AM link instead of posting all this - but there isn't one. There is however a Guinness Trust link here: Loughborough Park, Lambeth - The Guinness Partnership)
Guinness Trust.jpg Guinness Trust_2.jpg Guinness Trust3.jpg
 
Last edited:

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Today's Standard - the Winstanley Estate at Clapham Junction is getting the Aylesbury/Cressingham treamtent:

"Under the proposals most of the blocks on the sprawling “Soviet-style” Winstanley and York Road Estate next to Clapham Junction will be demolished to make way for more than 2,200 new homes, including 1,148 for private sale."

"Facilities such as a gym, fitness studios, eight-court sports hall, eight-lane 25-metre swimming pool, library and children’s centre will be built where ageing concrete towers stand today."

"The occupants of all 530 social rent homes will be given replacement flats on the new estate and owner-occupiers will be given shares in new homes. "

Presumably as this is hard Tory-land the tennants/leaseholders should expect the worst - but could anything be worse than Heygate/Aylesbury?
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
I'm just pointing out that rigidly sticking to definitions is not helpful.
I've given you several days to clarify what you are going on about.

You post up sarcastic posts and unfunny one liners after other people's posts. When asked to clarify what u are going on about you won't.

Your an obnoxious time waster.
 

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
Excuse this gratuitous post. Last Monday (25th Sept) City AM carried it's regular Shared ownership week" supplement.

For the secod year in a row they carried a double page promo for Guinness Trust - and probably did not even re-write it to take account that this is now spupposed to be "Electric Quarter".

I would like to know how it is the case that "You don't even have to be a first time buyer" to get one of their shared ownership "affordable" homes.

Presumably these homes are provided with a government subsidy of some sort. Why is this payable to Guinness Trust is they are housing people who don't actually need affordable housing?
(NB I would have provided a City AM link instead of posting all this - but there isn't one. There is however a Guinness Trust link here: Loughborough Park, Lambeth - The Guinness Partnership)
View attachment 116946 View attachment 116947 View attachment 116948
Goes to show that so called affordable housing isn't really affordable.
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
Today's Standard - the Winstanley Estate at Clapham Junction is getting the Aylesbury/Cressingham treamtent:

"Under the proposals most of the blocks on the sprawling “Soviet-style” Winstanley and York Road Estate next to Clapham Junction will be demolished to make way for more than 2,200 new homes, including 1,148 for private sale."

"Facilities such as a gym, fitness studios, eight-court sports hall, eight-lane 25-metre swimming pool, library and children’s centre will be built where ageing concrete towers stand today."

"The occupants of all 530 social rent homes will be given replacement flats on the new estate and owner-occupiers will be given shares in new homes. "

Presumably as this is hard Tory-land the tennants/leaseholders should expect the worst - but could anything be worse than Heygate/Aylesbury?
I told mates on the Winstanley this would happen, when Wandsworth first proposed the York Gardens project over a decade ago. The Winstanley is built on prime land, and Wandsworth have kept up the negative narrative about the estate for 4 decades, originally hoping to eat the estate inch-by-inch with developments like Regalian's "The Falcons" at the estate frontage on Falcon Rd. The standard article itself is the usual slurs against mass social housing, measured against new and vibrant shoeboxes.
 

Paul Hill

Think Hard!
I'm still at a loss here.

Who are you criticising?

A FUSE IS BLOWN ON THE ELECTRIC QUARTER

A staight question with a yes or no answer. Are you agreeing with me or not?
To ski off piste for a moment, has anyone heard about the water cut-off on the so-called Electric Quarter?
It's bad. Saturday cut off and looks like it could be off for another 10 days!
Today it's a real "humanitarian crisis" with water by stand-pipe, portable toilets and showers plus offers of "some compensation".
It's so bad the Landlord is even saying we can stay in a hotel "close by".

Stay cheerful!
 

Paul Hill

Think Hard!
Estate management is the key in this affair. All work of whatever nature needs to be inspected and signed off before continuing. It is said that the failures of pipework seals are due to a sudden surge in pressure so whatever the problem is not enough attention was focussed on 'work in progress and final inspection'.
The sooner the Area Managers can boot these people out the fewer problems for the future.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Was just listening in to the Westminster committee on Universal Credit
Neil Couling CBE, Director, Universal Credit Programme, Department for Work and Pensions said that 64% of private tenants are on, or will be on universal credit - and that private landlords might not like how it's administered, but could not afford to walk away from 64% of the market.

I am fascinated that this is the situation. Demonstrates to me that the wind-down of social council housing has been a direct transfer of revenue to the petite bourgeoisie (many not so petite).
Parliamentlive.tv
 

editor

hiraethified
I've given you several days to clarify what you are going on about.

You post up sarcastic posts and unfunny one liners after other people's posts. When asked to clarify what u are going on about you won't.

Your an obnoxious time waster.
He's now banned from this thread.
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
Was just listening in to the Westminster committee on Universal Credit
Neil Couling CBE, Director, Universal Credit Programme, Department for Work and Pensions said that 64% of private tenants are on, or will be on universal credit - and that private landlords might not like how it's administered, but could not afford to walk away from 64% of the market.

I am fascinated that this is the situation. Demonstrates to me that the wind-down of social council housing has been a direct transfer of revenue to the petite bourgeoisie (many not so petite).
Parliamentlive.tv
Couling is (yet again) talking out of his arse. 64% of private tenants claim an element of Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance, but given how, for at least the last 4 years, private landlords have been shedding such tenants as fast as possible, Couling's announcement holds no more water than the predictions of a soothsayer. Private landlords have been walking away from renting to claimants for years. Anyone who had even a cursory knowledge of housing issues, knows this. Couling should expand his knowledge base beyond the DWP's PR dept, unless he's after an award as "cuntwit of the year".
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Couling is (yet again) talking out of his arse. 64% of private tenants claim an element of Housing Benefit/Local Housing Allowance, but given how, for at least the last 4 years, private landlords have been shedding such tenants as fast as possible, Couling's announcement holds no more water than the predictions of a soothsayer. Private landlords have been walking away from renting to claimants for years. Anyone who had even a cursory knowledge of housing issues, knows this. Couling should expand his knowledge base beyond the DWP's PR dept, unless he's after an award as "cuntwit of the year".
Maybe he should've given evidence to the House of Peers?
Peter O'Toole - The ruling Class (1972) Lords 2.png
 

oryx

Sitting on the bock of the day
Was just listening in to the Westminster committee on Universal Credit
Neil Couling CBE, Director, Universal Credit Programme, Department for Work and Pensions said that 64% of private tenants are on, or will be on universal credit - and that private landlords might not like how it's administered, but could not afford to walk away from 64% of the market.

I am fascinated that this is the situation. Demonstrates to me that the wind-down of social council housing has been a direct transfer of revenue to the petite bourgeoisie (many not so petite).
Parliamentlive.tv
AFAIK local authorities are increasingly discharging their statutory duty to homeless people when they are rehoused in the private sector, so it is increasing, and it is to some extent replacing reasonably secure, regulated council and HA homes at a 'social' rent level.

I think the picture of private landlords not wanting to rent to HB recipients is a mixed one. There were some stats not that long ago demonstrating that the majority of HB recipients are working. So the 'No DSS' thing would not just mean people whose only income is benefit, but also people who work, and landlords at the (financially) lower end of the market, which is a huge sector, can't afford to discriminate.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
AFAIK local authorities are increasingly discharging their statutory duty to homeless people when they are rehoused in the private sector, so it is increasing, and it is to some extent replacing reasonably secure, regulated council and HA homes at a 'social' rent level.

I think the picture of private landlords not wanting to rent to HB recipients is a mixed one. There were some stats not that long ago demonstrating that the majority of HB recipients are working. So the 'No DSS' thing would not just mean people whose only income is benefit, but also people who work, and landlords at the (financially) lower end of the market, which is a huge sector, can't afford to discriminate.
Curious to know what happens in the case of an establishment like "The London Hotel" which used to house about 15 mental health service users as a hostel, but has now been converted by the money-grabbing BVI registered owners into assured tenancies.

Does this mean that if a MH service user is placed in the London Hotel (as an assured tenant of a micro bedsit), Lambeth's responsibility for them is ended?
 

oryx

Sitting on the bock of the day
Curious to know what happens in the case of an establishment like "The London Hotel" which used to house about 15 mental health service users as a hostel, but has now been converted by the money-grabbing BVI registered owners into assured tenancies.

Does this mean that if a MH service user is placed in the London Hotel (as an assured tenant of a micro bedsit), Lambeth's responsibility for them is ended?
I would suspect Lambeth would have 'discharged their duty' to the people concerned if they placed them there, so yes, probably (not all that knowledgeable about homelessness legislation these days though).

Appalling state of affairs if I'm right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CH1

Gramsci

Well-Known Member
This is short article by Lorreto Lees. An academic who works in Urban geography.

Challenging the gentrification of council estates in London – Urban Transformations

Points out that since the start of this project on effects of social housing estate "regeneration" the politics have changed with Corbyn as leader.

When once "mixed communities" was the manta and working class Council estates were regarded as the past. Now with Corbyn local politicians who advocated this are being pushed out. Hackney given as example. Newham recently. Or politicians like Lammy MP are changing their tune.

Since being awarded funding for this ESRC project the political mood around the demolition of council estates and their mixed tenure redevelopment through public-private partnerships seems to be changing. Indeed at the 2017 Labour Party conference Jeremy Corbyn finally stood up and criticised the ‘forced gentrification and social cleansing’ of council estates, something that Labour run London boroughs like Haringey and Southwark are at the forefront of. Other Labourites, like David Lammy, who once said that Tottenham could do with a bit of gentrification, has now come out against the Haringey HDV. Indeed, Haringey’s boss Claire Kober, arch advocate for the HDV, has resigned her position in what some see as Labour Party interference in local politics and others a local row about regeneration.
Its now mainstream to oppose social cleansing of inner London.
 

Pickman's model

every man and every woman is a star
This is short article by Lorreto Lees. An academic who works in Urban geography.

Challenging the gentrification of council estates in London – Urban Transformations

Points out that since the start of this project on effects of social housing estate "regeneration" the politics have changed with Corbyn as leader.

When once "mixed communities" was the manta and working class Council estates were regarded as the past. Now with Corbyn local politicians who advocated this are being pushed out. Hackney given as example. Newham recently. Or politicians like Lammy MP are changing their tune.



Its now mainstream to oppose social cleansing of inner London.
Hackney?
 

ViolentPanda

Hardly getting over it.
The Mayor has made commitment that schemes for estate "regeneration" with funding from Mayor will have mandatory ballots. As part of agreement for funding.

Sadiq pledges not to fund any more estate regeneration schemes until new mandatory ballot rules come into effect

Not sure how will this effect Lambeth estates under threat.

ViolentPanda
It SHOULD mean a ballot for at least 3 Lambeth estates (Central Hill, Cressingham and Fenwick), but you can bet that Lib the Fib and her legal dept have commissioned a barrister to find a way round it.

We'll see.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Choo choo had a 90 minute Channel 5 special on social housing yesterday.
Michael Portillo: Our Housing Crisis - Who's To Blame? - Channel 5
In short it was a nostalgic walk down memory lane in the manner of "The Secret Histroy of our Streets" but with a summing up saying that the time for government or councils building homes was over - it was now down to the private sector.

Fairly interesting up till the end. I was unaware for example that Wythenshawe to the south of Manchester was the largest purpose-built social housing development in Britian (built in the 1920s to releive the inner city slums of central Manchester).

Portaloo's constant argument was that council housing before WW1 and indeed WW2 had to be applied for - and you have to have a job to get a house or flat. At some point Portillo said the policy changed to housing the most needy rather than people who had jobs but were working or lower middle class.

From there on in there was a decline in living standards and stock maintenance flourishing of drugs, gangs, depression and mental ill health.

So I suppose you could say Mr Portillo would welcome the onset of "affordable" housing in that it re-imposes discipline of the letting process. He did cite an example of someone making a killing out of right to buy - but did not see this as a problem in any way.

I think Michael Portillo is the sort of liberal with a whip that represents the school of Iain Duncan Smith.
 

CH1

"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Anybody familiar with Anthology - a housing company apparently HQ'd at Borough High Street? Recently acquired Duggard Way former Lambeth Workhouse site from SLAM - but apparently guaranteed the future of the Cinema Museum.
Exterior_of_Cinema_Museum_lecture,_Kennington,_Lambeth.jpg
If you Google Antholgy-social-housing all sorts of "affordable" schemes pop up - Wembley, Deptford Foundry etc.

Anthology seem to make much of helping the Mayor meet his truly affordable homes target. They also use a segmented approach to their accounts. Each development has its own company (Anthology 6, Anthology 7 etc) just like Antic.

Presumably comes in quite handy if you want to sell off one site to another developer, or shift the money around to "adjust" the profits.
 
Top