Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
bomberbrown

Social Housing Mix Experiment

Recommended Posts

None left for us, though. I do wonder just who exactly is making the queue for social or HA housing in this area continue to exceed 12,000 every year...

Edited by HPC001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before council dweller chips in:

The majority of affordable / social housing tenants are perfectly nice people. I won't say the great majority, more like 75% these days outside the big cities, higher inside them.

But those 25% seriously reduce the quality of life for those around them.

HAs are (relatively) common sense and would not put problem families into a small number of houses on a decent estate (there are ways...).

However at 66% you get the bad with the good. I wouldn't buy or rent there. Previous purchasers should sue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None left for us, though. I do wonder just who exactly is making the queue for social or HA housing in this area continue to exceed 12,000 every year...

I wonder who is too! haha. Not going down that road, but those with a tendency for large families no doubt.

There are other threads on Berkeley Homes, people clutching at straws to get out of their off plan contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.berkeleyhomescollective.com/for...enal-riverside/

If anyone thinks they can almost double the amount of Social Housing in what was designed as a private development, without repercussions, is sadly deluded!

They'll be documentaries on places like this in 5 or 10 years. Undoubtedly. :ph34r:

Well, that certainly puts an interesting spin on the issue in this thread: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...howtopic=122212

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder who is too! haha. Not going down that road, but those with a tendency for large families no doubt.

There are other threads on Berkeley Homes, people clutching at straws to get out of their off plan contracts.

Large families are put in the highest band, and there can't be *that* many disabled or similar folk around. The other problem is the "local connection" rule that forces you to be stuck in the same **** area. The council claim they'll help me with a deposit but even if they trump up, it still doesn't solve the DSS stereotyping.

What really annoys me is that your employment status seems to be irrelevant, you could be earning £20k and the council will still house you because you're a govt employee or have 4 children :angry:

I'm referring to Hounslow council specifically with the 12,000 stat, but I doubt it is that much different in most of the southeast.

Edit: I wouldn't be so annoyed if it wasn't for the fact that I've worked, paid into the system (been overtaxed previously too, still not had a refund) and still get treated like dirt because of arbitrary things like my age.

Edited by HPC001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before council dweller chips in:

The majority of affordable / social housing tenants are perfectly nice people. I won't say the great majority, more like 75% these days outside the big cities, higher inside them.

But those 25% seriously reduce the quality of life for those around them.

HAs are (relatively) common sense and would not put problem families into a small number of houses on a decent estate (there are ways...).

However at 66% you get the bad with the good. I wouldn't buy or rent there. Previous purchasers should sue.

Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

With the increasing unemployment, many less people can afford the usual market rents. Even with the decrease since early 2008, the private rents are still way above what I can get in housing benefit - well, unless I want to stay in this vermin-infested craphole...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

indeed. the prices will fall to the common social housing value. they should have done some research before buying. there is nothing new under the sun with respect to 'up and coming' areas that were always social housing areas before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the increasing unemployment, many less people can afford the usual market rents. Even with the decrease since early 2008, the private rents are still way above what I can get in housing benefit - well, unless I want to stay in this vermin-infested craphole...

... or live in a shared house rental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.berkeleyhomescollective.com/for...enal-riverside/

If anyone thinks they can almost double the amount of Social Housing in what was designed as a private development, without repercussions, is sadly deluded!

They'll be documentaries on places like this in 5 or 10 years. Undoubtedly. :ph34r:

The documentaries will be out in less than 5 years. The risk with all these over-priced, poorly-built "executive" apartments was that they would end up as council housing, either directly or indirectly with the council renting from private landlords.

These tenants will be a mixture, but within them you will inevitably end up with some problem family or other which could ruin the whole block with various anti-social behaviour (admittedly privately tenanted or even owned may also cause some problems).

You might expect this to some extent if you buy an ex-council property (not that it is ever fair), but if you have paid a premium for a privately owned property, it is a bit much to find out that you have effectively bought yourself an ex-council property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... or live in a shared house rental

That's the best I'd get anyway. At least it would be in better condition and without some arab nazi bullying me. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember during the 90's crash they said the same thing, butboth goverment & the builders said that you can't use Private housing for scum.....er i mean

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The documentaries will be out in less than 5 years. The risk with all these over-priced, poorly-built "executive" apartments was that they would end up as council housing, either directly or indirectly with the council renting from private landlords.

These tenants will be a mixture, but within them you will inevitably end up with some problem family or other which could ruin the whole block with various anti-social behaviour (admittedly privately tenanted or even owned may also cause some problems).

You might expect this to some extent if you buy an ex-council property (not that it is ever fair), but if you have paid a premium for a privately owned property, it is a bit much to find out that you have effectively bought yourself an ex-council property.

i dont see any problem with it, they could have made the same decision in 04 and made alot of money, unfortunately they made the same decision in 07 and will lose alot, thems the markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

What are they going to do though? woman at work was telling me about a guy she knows who bought into a new development at the peak (Platinum Point Edinburgh I think) he now says the stair wells are starting to become littered with beer cans etc, he is just scared, wondering who these people are that are doing it ( I know there is a SF plot in there somewhere) the guy and his like are obviously clowns, but they probably didn`t expect to be living next door to schemies when they paid 300k for the flat? I still don`t know what they can do about it though. The trend of borrowing to fund a lifestyle that has been presented to you by smart money VI`s is going to haunt many for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don`t know what they can do about it though. The trend of borrowing to fund a lifestyle that has been presented to you by smart money VI`s is going to haunt many for years to come.

they can't. they are screwed, for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they can't. they are screwed, for life.

I think you are right, alot of people in the 90s got stuck in negative equity for nearly 10 years being unable to move, i think there will be a fair few this time who will literally be unable to move for the rest of their working life, that'll do wonders for the UK popn demographic no doubt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAs are (relatively) common sense and would not put problem families into a small number of houses on a decent estate (there are ways...).

I have no experience of the wider HAs outside London but in the case of Southwark this is EXACTLY what they do. They attempt to move problematic families onto the private estates to split them up from their trouble causing mates. In 2006 I was moving out of the road anyway, but I had my television stolen twice in as many months after we had a run-in with a particularly nasty family of Chelsea fans.

A rise from 35% to 66% is HUGE and effectively makes that development a "stealth" Council Estate. I would see a solicitor to see if there was any recourse against Berkeley homes personally. There's no way this won't hammer their home values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no experience of the wider HAs outside London but in the case of Southwark this is EXACTLY what they do. They attempt to move problematic families onto the private estates to split them up from their trouble causing mates.

I lived in a small HA developemt in Leeds for 3 yrs and this is exactly what they do. Seems a fair idea - those like me doing 9-5 were a good influence on the more drop-out types, one or two, to be fair to them, clearly had real difficulties behind them (I'm a right winger too - but talking to them it was clear which were the more deserving and effort-oriented)

Having said that, I was happy to move out into private rented and get a more normal community around me!

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 06, i stood in some "Lux Appartments" & even the project manager said "Slums of tomorrow". He went on to say that when this bubble burst all the Ex Concil flats in the good high rise would once again be public housing. Those whom bought into a block of inner-city flats would be offered a "Way out" & then they can revert to what they were before................even joked about how long before the nice fitting would appear on "E-Bay".

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that will be the "High end", furture goverments will be so cash broke that they house people in cargo containers!

:)

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

That's an improvement compared to ... how things were.

In about 1991, I lived on the north-west edge of Sheffield. The area was poor: lots of tiny terraced houses, pensioners on the bus coming up the hill from Safeways in Hillsborough when I'd done the weekly shop, etc.

But the district extended out into the Peak District, and the council[1] were proudly building a select development of low-cost houses for local people, as was the conventional wisdom of the time, in the village of Bradfield.

In other words, lots of people far too poor to have any chance to live somewhere like that themselves, were being forced to subsidise someone more fortunate, purely because they happened to be born there. Rural Apartheid.

In your case, at least the lucky recipients of the subsidies are only getting the same as the payers.

[1] Well, the council were taking credit for doing good, though no doubt it at arms length, through a housing association or something.

[edit] Don't say north-east when I meant north-west. Doh :/

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back in 06, i stood in some "Lux Appartments" & even the project manager said "Slums of tomorrow". He went on to say that when this bubble burst all the Ex Concil flats in the good high rise would once again be public housing. Those whom bought into a block of inner-city flats would be offered a "Way out" & then they can revert to what they were before................even joked about how long before the nice fitting would appear on "E-Bay".

Mike

And with any luck, travesties like the sell off of Aragon Tower to Berkley Homes in 2006, a sheer act of 'Social Cleansing' and profiteering by Lewisham Council, will go full circle and once again become the social housing it was originally intended for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragon_Tower

For all the bashing the BBC gets on HPC (myself included), this truly was a fantastic 10 part series, The Tower. Absolutely gripping stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.berkeleyhomescollective.com/for...enal-riverside/

If anyone thinks they can almost double the amount of Social Housing in what was designed as a private development, without repercussions, is sadly deluded!

They'll be documentaries on places like this in 5 or 10 years. Undoubtedly. :ph34r:

Since 2006 this is unavoidable now since section 106 agreements were made law, all local athorities have to stick to their guidelines when considering planning applications for any development over 15 houses.

I not sure of the exact requirements for social housing but I think it is a minumum of 25% of the development, can be more, I doubt there is a maximum. So I would assume their must be hundreds of these estates in the UK now, not heard any real horror stories yet.

The key is the mix of the affordable housing, between rented and shared ownership. Shared ownership reqiure a job for the mortgage element so "working class". No different to the council housing I grew up in in the 70's.

The trouble is in the rented share, as this can technically be unlimited benifit class with the DHSS paying the rent so no need to work and becoming chav stealing scum.

I think there also has to be a mix of at least 50/50 of the social element between rented and shared ownership.

On this estate that is still being built, we bought in March and have seen no trouble for the social element yet. The estate is going to be 850 properties and it will be 40% social, with 10% shared ownership and 30% rented.

However, I guess if the private side doesn't keep up with sales I assume there is a risk it could end up 50%, or 60% social with say a 50%+ rented element, which means 1/2 the estate will effectively become a council estate.

But just imagine you bought into a nice new luxury 20 house gated development. Then you found out after spending £500k+ that 5 houses are "social", with 3 being rented, available to any scum trouble making family on benifits to be moved into!!! You would be gated "IN" with them. LOL.

Someone onn here must live on new an estate built in 06 /07 /08 with the 25% social housing element? Anything to report?

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being one of them, I concur with this comment completely. ;)

Just to make myself clear on the reason for this post, I'm not knocking Social Housing tenants, the point I'm trying to make is there is going to be a lot of pent up resentment from private buyers in these developments, when they see Social Housing tenants getting the equivalent house and flats for a lot less money/rent than the private buyers are mortgaged up for.

That's the tinder box.

I don't see a problem, in most cases from my experience working council tenants are no better or worse than mortgage holders, it is nice to have a mix in a community... people can be so up themselves and snobbish at the best of times...just because you have a 10% deposit to buy a chain around your neck does not mean you are superior to those that choose not to and prefer to spend their money in different ways. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.