Cameron Suggests Fixed-Term Ha Tenancies

[libspero]

They are and always have been for life! And it is true that they can be passed on to near family on death. I would agree that people's circumstances should be reviewed every so often - not every year, but certainly every 5 years. If they are financially sufficient then they should be asked to pay a higher rent and in some cases given 6 months notice to leave and rent or buy privately. You do have to ask why people who earn £30-40k plus should have this help when there is a long list of needy persons waiting on lists. There will be about 10% of council tenants like that who just stay put forever.

If that's true... Wow!

[Peter Hun]

Just the tenancy agreement but that means SFA. I know someone renting out their council flat (subletting) "illegally" whilst they shack up with their girlfriend.

Tenancy agreements are legally binding. Stop whining and report the person.

[Giordano Bruno]

Errr ... hang on. Council accommodation can be assigned to a tenant for LIFE?

I always assumed council homes were temporarily allocated to those in need, to help them out & give them a base for getting on?

For life?! Boy, am I naive. But then, I don't have much in common with "these types of people" **.

--

** Feel free ...

I believe that in practice once one gets into council accommodation that you do have council accommodation for as long as you wish, which given that the rent is cheaper than private rentals, will usually be for life. I know a colleague in council accommodation, a house, I believe, and he is earning at least double what I am, in my privately rented flat.

And I believe he has been doing so since he got married, and he is now about 60 with grand-children. It does seem a bit unfair to those who don't get council accommodation, but there it is. He is a manager, by the way, and drives a huge car, and his wife has her own car also.

[exiges]

Should be means tested, simple as.

Then if they earn a good wage their contribution goes towards building new council houses, rather than booting them out.

[REP013]

Tenancy agreements are legally binding. Stop whining and report the person.

I'm not whining I am stating a fact. This person believes the agreement means SFA.

Why would I report them?

[miko]

Is it me , but since this new govenment has come to power the only things that they seem to do is attack people at the bottom of the pile.

Benefit's cut's

Moving 1.5 million off the sick and on to umemployment ,

Changing pension rules ( not for better but for worse )

Now reducing security for those in HA property.

Our economy is in tatters , we have 8 million without a job, the national and personnel debt's are unpayable ,

Surley to get things moving and a strong economy more is needed than just looking at a small number of people who should downsize their house . The govenment spending time and energy on things like this , smacks of them being unable to sort the real issuses that face this nation.

[libspero]

Is it me , but since this new govenment has come to power the only things that they seem to do is attack people at the bottom of the pile.

Benefit's cut's

Moving 1.5 million off the sick and on to umemployment ,

Changing pension rules ( not for better but for worse )

Now reducing security for those in HA property.

Our economy is in tatters , we have 8 million without a job, the national and personnel debt's are unpayable ,

You don't see the latter affecting our ability to subsidise the former in any way then?

[Reck B]

I think its a start, be sure that "Furture" renters will mean the old ons forced to sign NEW contracts. Its a good way to put a gun to the head of a few head as well, such as those SCUM bags causing trouble on an estate can be booted off without ASBO delay. We need to build a "place" for them, so bad so scarly that they tow the line...homes made from Containers sort of thing.

Mike

Better still,just cull them. All Council tenants are parasitic scummy lazy, good for nothing losers. Society would be much better without such people. I suggest they are gassed in their (our) homes. The estates should be bulldozed with their still warm corpses inside them and the land split between productive members of society like your or I to build the homes we deserve.

[miko]

You don't see the latter affecting our ability to subsidise the former in any way then?

Obviously we all know that ,

However we spend billions on propping up the banks while their top brass stuff their pockets ,we loose billions in tax fraud by the rich, we loose billions in trade due to an incomptent economic structure , and they come up with things like this .

No different to a household just buying 3 lottery tickets this week instead of 4 as they have massive credit card debt''s , but fail to address the C.C. problem propley and take a holiday on plastic as they have always done. That would make no or very little difference to their overall position , and that is exactly what this new govenment are doing . They can not address the real issues so pick on easy targets at the bottom.

[libspero]

Better still,just cull them. All Council tenants are parasitic scummy lazy, good for nothing losers. Society would be much better without such people. I suggest they are gassed in their (our) homes. The estates should be bulldozed with their still warm corpses inside them and the land split between productive members of society like your or I to build the homes we deserve.

*Cough* Godwin *Cough*

Seriously though why would you call for that?

Why not just provide them for those genuinely in need? Why should anyone who no longer needs the support enjoy subsidised housing?

[ScrewsNutsandBolts]

Better still,just cull them. All Council tenants are parasitic scummy lazy, good for nothing losers. Society would be much better without such people. I suggest they are gassed in their (our) homes. The estates should be bulldozed with their still warm corpses inside them and the land split between productive members of society like your or I to build the homes we deserve.

+1

editted just to confirm that tongue is firmly in cheek !

Edited August 3, 2010 by ScrewsNutsandBolts

[libspero]

However we spend billions on propping up the banks while their top brass stuff their pockets ,we loose billions in tax fraud by the rich, we loose billions in trade due to an incompetent economic structure , and they come up with things like this .

Bit of a strawman. Because there is something worse, we shouldn't stop doing something bad.

I think you will find the government already takes a very dim view of Tax evasion, and bailing out the banks was considered a necessary evil by the government of the day.

No different to a household just buying 3 lottery tickets this week instead of 4 as they have massive credit card debt''s , but fail to address the C.C. problem properly and take a holiday on plastic as they have always done. That would make no or very little difference to their overall position , and that is exactly what this new government are doing . They can not address the real issues so pick on easy targets at the bottom.

Go on then.. which bit would you like to cut? Social protection is a pretty large section to ignore.

[juvenal]

Council house tenancies are passed on. Portly songstress Susan Boyle has just bought the one she recently rented as tenant from the local council for £35K, as some sort of nostalgic link to her upbringing. Her parents are now dead.

She has just had a £300K 'luxury' gaff built to order nearby.

Seems odd that desperately needed housing stock can be sold off like this to those who have no need of it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/08/01/subo-buys-home-she-grew-up-in-115875-22455819/

Edited August 3, 2010 by juvenal

[White Craw]

I think its a start, be sure that "Furture" renters will mean the old ons forced to sign NEW contracts.

Mike

Little chance of this if the Conservative form on regulated tenancies is repeated.

[miko]

Bit of a strawman. Because there is something worse, we shouldn't stop doing something bad.

I think you will find the government already takes a very dim view of Tax evasion, and bailing out the banks was considered a necessary evil by the government of the day.

Go on then.. which bit would you like to cut? Social protection is a pretty large section to ignore.

So how much of the 196 billion budget is changing tenancies on HA houses going to save ? Answer very very little

[libspero]

So how much of the 196 billion budget is changing tenancies on HA houses going to save ? Answer very very little

How about it frees up social housing for poor people who really need it.. or is that just being stupid?

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

The bottom line: private tenants have to put up with the insecurity of fixed-term contracts, so why shouldn't public sector tenants have to as well?

[sera]

Certainly it should be a reviewed tenancy. I do think that council housing is a good idea. I would also give priority to the nicer houses to people who work, albeit for a low wage. If all you do is claim benefits, then tough shit, we'll give you a roof over your head but you'll be at the back of the queue. Make an effort to go to work and earn some cash and you'd get better quality housing/a choice of properties etc.

Until the housing price correction happens, I have no problem with helping people with low incomes, no matter whether it's public or private sector. We need to provide some incentive to go to work.

[pete.hpc]

Wow, I am staggered.

It's like we're all being given a peak into a world we never knew existed.

Fair play for the Tories for exposing this, lifelong council tenancies. Literally unbelievable.

No wonder we're running out of money.

[libspero]

It's a bit like the pension issue this isn't it? And many others.

Why do we demand the public sector come down to the level of the private.

That does the private sector worker no good at all. Race to the bottom and all that.

I think you have to define what is the top before worrying about racing to the bottom.

If I understand correctly what you are calling for is social housing (for everybody who desires it) where rents are equal to those in the private sector.

Those who can't afford it are then subsidised by the tax payer.

I don't have any particular issue with this, apart from the fact that it will require the government to buy up half the housing stock. Effectively buying out existing HAs / BTLers and OO's at "name your price" levels.

The eventual demise of the private rental sector (after all, who would rent privately when the prices are matched, but the terms are better with social housing) will ultimately mean you are guessing rental values since you no longer have a free market to compare against.

How does this all play out in your mind?

[miko]

How about it frees up social housing for poor people who really need it.. or is that just being stupid?

Im not dissputing that , however you just totaly failed to understand what my point was, or was that like DC's obbsession with hitting the poorer people first, on purpose , either that or you come in the stupid camp.

Edited August 3, 2010 by miko

[miko]

As a society it is perfectly legitimate for us decide if we want to choose the state as our landlord - in which case everyone should be able to have one - at a price. And for those who have a real need, for it to be paid for based on certain criteria.

I don't think council housing was ever envisaged as a hereditary principle nor one that set one out on the road to home ownership on the cheap.

Basically they should be paying market rents (set at 50% of average rents) and those who cannot pay would be helped out.

I think that you will find over the last decade rent's have gone up a lot in social housing , my guess would be they are already over 50% average rents , so are you calling for their rents to be cut.

Edited August 3, 2010 by miko

[libspero]

I'm not disputing that , however you just totally failed to understand what my point was, or was that like DC's obsession with hitting the poorer people first on purpose , either that or come in the stupid camp.

Go on then.. how does this hit the poor?

You get a five year fixed term. If you are later found to be still in need, you keep the house for another 5 years.

If after five years you earn £40k and drive a BMW 3 series.. you are told politely that your tenancy will not be renewed as it is required for somebody more needy.

How is that bad for the most poor/needy in society?

[miko]

Go on then.. how does this hit the poor?

You get a five year fixed term. If you are later found to be still in need, you keep the house for another 5 years.

If after five years you earn £40k and drive a BMW 3 series.. you are told politely that your tenancy will not be renewed as it is required for somebody more needy.

How is that bad for the most poor/needy in society?

Not what my first post which you answerd was talking about.

[Bruce Banner]

Slightly off topic, but related to Council Housing.

In the late 60s I went into an electrical appliance shop near to a Council Estate.

The man being served in front of me asked for ten mains plugs, explaining that he had just moved in and all of his appliances had the old style plugs and wouldn't fit the sockets.

What happened next has remained fresh in my mind all these years later.

The shopkeeper said "that will be ten shillings", to which the customer replied "what, a shilling each, I'll just take two, the Council can give me the rest on Monday". That was my first encounter with the "gimee" element of society .