"Subsidised" council housing?

[marty21]

Facepalm.

You're not subsidising your mate. You are deciding not to exploit your position of power over them as much as you could.

Your reasoning assumes that 'market' rate is in some way 'fair'.

facepalm backatcha

i know the market rent isn't "fair"

I want a return to fair rents, abolished under the 1988 housing act, whereby private tenants would pay a rent set by the rent officer, they still exist for tenants who lived in a property before Jan 15 1989 so rent officers still exist for that purpose, although there are fewer and fewer tenants who benefit from this

a return to it would bring rents down, making private rents more affordable, and enabling more people to afford them, and reducing the pressure on current social housing

and yes, the council are deciding not to exploit their position of power over tenants as much as they could, by not charging market rents

the subsidy/non subsidy issue is a sideshow to the real issue here, whether the government trying to attack security of tenure, by linking rent to income,by forcing people to buy a stake in their social housing if they earn more than a certain income, and forcing them to pay a higher rent is they have a certain income level

when i was benefitting from lower social rents, I chose to buy a place as I could afford to, and the housing association at the time was encouraging people like me to do so by offering a tenants incentive of £16000 to buy a home on the open market


now that is a subsidy no doubt about that

The article states that this new tenancy (if it is introuduced) would only apply to new tenancies, it is (if introduced) giving the councils the right to charge market rents in some circumstances, force tenants to pay higher rents, and I am against that

I think we're in agreement on most of this, it's the subsidy/non subsidy thing which we don't appear to agree on

 

[marty21]

No, you'ld be a bureaucratic, stubborn git and you're still wrong about the word "subsidy".

tbh, i'm very anti-bureaucratic in my work life, you should see some of the people I've worked with over the years.

I'd agree that I'm stubborn, but then so are you

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're right, we are mostly in agreement.

And your £16,000 was indeed a subsidy. Moreover, it was the kind of subsidy that exacerbates house-price bubbles. Not saying you shouldn't have taken it - take what you can get in such an iniquitous system, bit it is wrong-headed for the state to subsidise private housing.

 

[marty21]

You're right, we are mostly in agreement.

And your £16,000 was indeed a subsidy. Moreover, it was the kind of subsidy that exacerbates house-price bubbles. Not saying you shouldn't have taken it - take what you can get in such an iniquitous system, bit it is wrong-headed for the state to subsidise private housing.

at the time, house prices were low, and it did free up the flat for someone in more housing need than i was, plus that £16000 might have been paid out in temporary housing/housing benefit over a year or so, so it was a saving in the long run

 

[littlebabyjesus]

at the time, house prices were low, and it did free up the flat for someone in more housing need than i was, plus that £16000 might have been paid out in temporary housing/housing benefit over a year or so, so it was a saving in the long run

Far better to put that money towards building more council flats.

 

[marty21]

Far better to put that money towards building more council flats.

agreed, but if I had continued living there, and the berson who would get the flat was in temporary housing on full hb, the temporary rent of around £200 a week at the time (iirc) would have eaten up that £16000 in about 18 months

the scheme was discontinued around about 1999 iirc, replaced by another scheme which lent you 25% of the value, which you had to repay when you resold

talking of subsidies and non subsidies

right to buy, the discounts, particularly in the 80s were enormous, (up to 60% of market value) yet no money was paid to the councils to compensate them, so people who bought under rtb were not subsidised?

 

[audiotech]

tbh, i'm very anti-bureaucratic in my work life, you should see some of the people I've worked with over the years.

I'd agree that I'm stubborn, but then so are you

No I'm not.

The bureaucratically induced phrase 'it's always been done like that' is one I often heard in housing departments over the years.

 

[marty21]

No I'm not.

The bureaucratically induced phrase 'it's always been done like that' is one I often heard in housing departments over the years.

it is a bureaucratic beast

 

[treelover]

'The right to a council home is also likely to be tied to a requirement to have or be actively looking for a job. '


No one has mentioned this bit, when i posted up about this on various sites, awhile ago, posters responded saying it it was 'kiteflying' by Flint.Now it looks like as I suspected it will be policy and Brown is to intensify the welfare counter reforms' . When is this govt going to stop the 'war on the poor' and when will there be a wave of anger against such 'counter reforms'

 

[Zachor]

'The right to a council home is also likely to be tied to a requirement to have or be actively looking for a job. '


No one has mentioned this bit, when i posted up about this on various sites, awhile ago, posters responded saying it it was 'kiteflying' by Flint.Now it looks like as I suspected it will be policy and Brown is to intensify the welfare counter reforms' . When is this govt going to stop the 'war on the poor' and when will there be a wave of anger against such 'counter reforms'

Well there is considerable anger in the working population that Council Housing has come to be seen as 'free houses for scroungers' which is NOT the case in reality. It is right that council property which is a communal resource should come with some obligations and many of the sink estates have been created by councils cramming them with the jobless, the hopeless and the downright criminal. I'm in favour of policies that reduce this problem and are both carrot and stick. Ultimately what is needed is to build more council houses and make them available to more than just the jobless.

This you may not be surprised to know is not a new policy. It was the policy of the London County Council in the 1930's with regards to the new estates such as Becontree. On those estates you were not allowed to earn more than £5 per week or you would be considered to be able to afford to rent or buy elsewhere and would be occupying a property that could go to someone more deserving. They also had rules regarding minimum earnings so that the estates didn't become slums populated by indigents.

 

[treelover]

In London and other big cities, this will be a disaster, and a massive boost for the far right as recently arrived immigrants, etc recive housing perhaps forcibly vacated by long term tenants , etc.

 

[Zachor]

In London and other big cities, this will be a disaster, and a massive boost for the far right as recently arrived immigrants, etc recive housing perhaps forcibly vacated by long term tenants , etc.

Very good point there. They are already building support due to the loss of the sons and daughters policies. This could give them the kick they need. There is a need to tackle the hard core of jobless but this way could have unforeseen negative consequences.

 

[Kaka Tim]

'The right to a council home is also likely to be tied to a requirement to have or be actively looking for a job. '


No one has mentioned this bit, when i posted up about this on various sites, awhile ago, posters responded saying it it was 'kiteflying' by Flint.Now it looks like as I suspected it will be policy and Brown is to intensify the welfare counter reforms' . When is this govt going to stop the 'war on the poor' and when will there be a wave of anger against such 'counter reforms'

Have to say I thought Flint was kiteflying when this came out before - and Im alarmed that they seem keen to move in this direction. Will they really evict peolpe who aren't 'actively seeking work' - as they have to move into the private sector and the governement end up paying more in housing benefit for what is likely to be worse accomodaiton.

The ending of a secure tenancy is worrying as well. I got a reasonably well paid job 6 months after getting my council flat. Under waht they are proposing I'd have had to move out into the private sector as a result. However my contract runs out in 4 months and I could very well end up back on benefits - so I extremely glad that I will still have somewhere secure to live.

Also the fact that you loose your tenancy if you earn more than a certian amount is a huge disincentive to people.

The end reslut of what they are proposing is that you get social housing for a short period which you then loose if a. you get job or b. you dont get a job after a short period of time.

Secure accomodation is pretty much essentiail to general well being. They are utter cunts.

 

[treelover]

If Margaret Beckett, 'Old labour' remember, accepts this, then ....

 

[treelover]

btw, loooking at the Times comments, the Govt is doing an incredible job of 'divide and rule'

 

[Zachor]

Have to say I thought Flint was kiteflying when this came out before - and Im alarmed that they seem keen to move in this direction. Will they really evict peolpe who aren't 'actively seeking work' - as they have to move into the private sector and the governement end up paying more in housing benefit for what is likely to be worse accomodaiton.

If people are obviously and provably taking the piss why should they get housing benefit if they are evicted from council housing to pay for private housing? Why not offer them some barracks type accomodation somewhere? You can't see people without shelter but neither should we fund those who take the piss.

Secure accomodation is pretty much essentiail to general well being. They are utter cunts.

Agree. It will be devastating for those trying to get back on their feet after unemployment or illness etc.

 

[_angel_]

Have to say I thought Flint was kiteflying when this came out before - and Im alarmed that they seem keen to move in this direction. Will they really evict peolpe who aren't 'actively seeking work' - as they have to move into the private sector and the governement end up paying more in housing benefit for what is likely to be worse accomodaiton.

The ending of a secure tenancy is worrying as well. I got a reasonably well paid job 6 months after getting my council flat. Under waht they are proposing I'd have had to move out into the private sector as a result. However my contract runs out in 4 months and I could very well end up back on benefits - so I extremely glad that I will still have somewhere secure to live.

Also the fact that you loose your tenancy if you earn more than a certian amount is a huge disincentive to people.

The end reslut of what they are proposing is that you get social housing for a short period which you then loose if a. you get job or b. you dont get a job after a short period of time.

Secure accomodation is pretty much essentiail to general well being. They are utter cunts.

Yup a huge disincentive to anyone who might be offered a promotion if they've got to think "maybe I shouldn't take it because I'll lose my house."

Why should council tenants be treated any different from private ones when it comes to 'looking for work'? If you're on JSA you have to look for work anyway. If they decide you're not they stop your benefit and housing benefit anyway= eviction. Why the need to double that eviction "for council house dwellers only"??

If you're living off savings/ have a windfall/ early retiree on a pension and paying the rent are you also going to be subject to 'having to look for a job'??

I'm guessing this is going to adversely affect anyone long term unemplyed including all those getting shafted who are sick or caring for anyone fulltime.

 

[Kaka Tim]

If people are obviously and provably taking the piss why should they get housing benefit if they are evicted from council housing to pay for private housing? Why not offer them some barracks type accomodation somewhere? You can't see people without shelter but neither should we fund those who take the piss.

.

Perhaps some nissan huts beside a landfill site? Or maybe a hole in the ground? Fuck it - why not just bring back the workhouse? - tosser.

Being found to be not 'actively seeking work' deos mean you are 'taking the piss' - it means you've failed to jump through the arbitary (and incresingy stringent) hoops set up by the DWP. It basically gives the state a bigger stick to beat the poorest and most vunerable people.

 

[_angel_]

btw, loooking at the Times comments, the Govt is doing an incredible job of 'divide and rule'

Isn't it just!

Some of them make sense but the woman frothing on about how single mums should be made to live in hostels (may as well have said workhouses tbh) ffs!

So she advocates a family of six who's husband has left them being turfed into a modern day workhouse. Nice to see there are some people so stupid out there that they think single mum = teenage delinquent vicki pollard character and that they all just get "given" stuff.

 

[_angel_]

Fucken hell some of the comments..
[QUOTE ]About time. No pregnant unmarried woman should be given free housing: let them live with their boyfriends or family. I know of very middle class parents who faked marital rift for their son to get a council flat, which he then bought and sold on at a profit. Our indulgence has corrupted society[/QUOTE].

How fucking depressing. He can live in the Victorian era if he wants.

Basically, put them out on the street if they've no family to help.

 

[treelover]

Why should council tenants be treated any different from private ones when it comes to 'looking for work'? If you're on JSA you have to look for work anyway. If they decide you're not they stop your benefit and housing benefit anyway= eviction. Why the need to double that eviction "for council house dwellers only"??

AGREED, we seem to be moving back to the time of the Poor Laws and Tied cottages, the silence from civil society, charities, etc is deafening though.

btw, there are loads of people on here in council housing who may be affected,

 

[Zachor]

Perhaps some nissan huts beside a landfill site? Or maybe a hole in the ground? Fuck it - why not just bring back the workhouse? - tosser.

Being found to be not 'actively seeking work' deos mean you are 'taking the piss' - it means you've failed to jump through the arbitary (and incresingy stringent) hoops set up by the DWP. It basically gives the state a bigger stick to beat the poorest and most vunerable people.

I'm not saying bring back the workhouse but there needs to be some form of low level accomodation for those who are proven to be taking the piss. Why shoudl some scummy private landlord be enriched because of this?

I agree with you that people shouldn't lose their council accomodation because they have fallen foul of arbitary rules on benefit. However, some people like it or not do take the piss. The pisstakers shouldn't be rewarded for pisstaking.

I'm working class and I'm the first to stick my hand in my pocket to help the deserving but I resent the undeserving and the lazy from getting what those who try to better themselves or the sick or those on low wages do not get.

I've seen a whole new estate ruined within a two year period because the council decided that it wouldn't be a problem to fill it with problem people mostly on benefit. Those houses could have been used for young families who were trying their hardest to get on and who were in the main on low wages but they were told to fuck off whilst those who never worked and who didn't ever intend to work if they could help it got housed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

In London and other big cities, this will be a disaster, and a massive boost for the far right as recently arrived immigrants, etc recive housing perhaps forcibly vacated by long term tenants , etc.

Except that your "recently arrived immigrants" will have absolutely no legal entitlement to social housing.

 

[Maidmarian]

But as I said, for the last twenty years at least local authorities have been increasing social rents year on year by significantly more than the rate of inflation.

Yes ---- it's a policy called "Rent Harmonisation". By 2012 (iirc) rents charged by Councils are supposed to be aprox the same as HAs & the private sector. Bad news for those on low incomes & not in receipt of Housing Benefit.

Council house rents also pay for maintenance of upkeep of public places too btw.

 

[audiotech]

I'm working class...

Ha! The paparazzi have calluses these days?

 

[scifisam]

agreed, but if I had continued living there, and the berson who would get the flat was in temporary housing on full hb, the temporary rent of around £200 a week at the time (iirc) would have eaten up that £16000 in about 18 months

the scheme was discontinued around about 1999 iirc, replaced by another scheme which lent you 25% of the value, which you had to repay when you resold

That scheme's still going in Tower Hamlets - it's advertised in the local paper every week, and is a grant, not a loan. My HA also operates the same scheme. If I moved out to buy a home, I'd get £10,000.

Well there is considerable anger in the working population that Council Housing has come to be seen as 'free houses for scroungers' which is NOT the case in reality. It is right that council property which is a communal resource should come with some obligations and many of the sink estates have been created by councils cramming them with the jobless, the hopeless and the downright criminal. I'm in favour of policies that reduce this problem and are both carrot and stick. Ultimately what is needed is to build more council houses and make them available to more than just the jobless.

But this policy would ensure that council estates were full of people either out of work or on very low pay and avoiding promotions. It would do the reverse of what you're aiming for. I agree with you that a more diverse population in council estates is a good thing, btw.

Why should council tenants be treated any different from private ones when it comes to 'looking for work'? If you're on JSA you have to look for work anyway. If they decide you're not they stop your benefit and housing benefit anyway= eviction. Why the need to double that eviction "for council house dwellers only"??

Yup. It's pointless. Hopefully it won't actually happen.

Yes ---- it's a policy called "Rent Harmonisation". By 2012 (iirc) rents charged by Councils are supposed to be aprox the same as HAs & the private sector. Bad news for those on low incomes & not in receipt of Housing Benefit.

Council house rents also pay for maintenance of upkeep of public places too btw.

My HA has put my rent up by 50% in the five years I've been here. 50%! It's still less than market rents, but that's partly because market rents round here are insane. If the council charged market rents, they'd just end up paying out tons more in housing benefit.

 

[audiotech]

So much for the New Lab mantra of "sustainable communities".

 

[Dan U]

.wrong on something

eta - quite a few councils are running schemes already to look at the occupancy of there housing stock - elderly people who no longer have families etc who do not (in theory) need the space the occupy and looking at moving them to smaller properties to free up houses/larger flats for families etc.

sub letting is also a problem in london from people i know in housing departments at councils but councils lack the where with all to do much about it.

they should just be building more proper council housing and looking for natural move on, not coming up with bonkers ideas like this to remove peoples security of tenure.

 

[marty21]

.wrong on something

eta - quite a few councils are running schemes already to look at the occupancy of there housing stock - elderly people who no longer have families etc who do not (in theory) need the space the occupy and looking at moving them to smaller properties to free up houses/larger flats for families etc.

sub letting is also a problem in london from people i know in housing departments at councils but councils lack the where with all to do much about it.

they should just be building more proper council housing and looking for natural move on, not coming up with bonkers ideas like this to remove peoples security of tenure.

most housing associations and local authorities have policies in place for under occupiers, financial incentives to move to smaller accommodation, where I worked before (large housing association) it was about £1500 per room given up, plus reasonable expenses - removal costs, reconnection costs, carpets/curtains etc, it wasn't taken up a lot tbh

subletting, probably larger than housing associations and local authorities let on, particularly in more "desirable areas" I managed housing in Maida Vale, where average private rents were about 4 times the average housing association rents, so there were cases where tenants rented their flats at the market rent, moved in with a partner, or rented in a less "desirable" area and pocketed the proceeds, or went the whole hog and claimed HB for the rent and rented out the flat for the market rent. It is notoriously difficult to prove this in court, you need the sub-letter to give evidence, and sometimes they are reluctant as they may be harassed by the tenant, or you need evidence of the tenant's interest in another property, which is difficult to obtain, you can get all this, and the tenant can go to court and say they have moved back, and the court won't give a possession order, and the whole process started again

 

[darkfibre]

Heh.

On the point regarding the use of the word 'subsidy' - it's a fine example of how language is used as a political tool.

Think about it: We invest in roads. We subsidise railways.

I'd argue that people paying 'market rents' are subsidising predatory lenders etc., while controlling rents can be seen as a way of investing in the community.