council dweller Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 wow, bold move by the coalition! So little info on the bbc news website right now, but I wouldn't put it past this government to make the changes to all those in council houses, not just future applicants! The Tory manifesto did say that they would protect the tenure and rents of those in council houses. I don't remember the exact words but I seem to remember that the word 'in' was used, this could be taken to mean existing tenants but not future tenants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 This whole thread seems to be more than a little unclear on that point. I think it really IS the social housing BUILDING issue, not housing benefits - in which a lot of money has been spent by labour anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8070073/Spending-Review-2010-Higher-rents-and-no-council-house-for-life.html In what is being described as the biggest shake-up in housing policy since the Second World War, a host of other policies designed to ensure more people receive housing on the basis of need will be unveiled. But the most controversial is the plan to end the current situation that means tenants effectively have a “council house for life” if they reach the top of the waiting list, even if their personal situation changes and they can afford to buy privately. In an attempt to end the era of heavily subsidised rents, the Coalition’s new system will lead to tenants paying as much as 80 or 90 per cent of the market rate. “This is still about there being affordable rent, but it needs to be more realistic. At the moment, if you get a council house you are really winning the jackpot,” said a source. “In terms of the rent you pay it is very, very heavily subsidised. You may pay only a third or a half of the market rate.” The move was driven by the need to cut the budget for social housing from £6 billion to possibly as little as £2 billion and is certain to ignite a damaging row between Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat partners. Mr Osborne will effectively end the system under which anyone who is awarded an indefinite “secure tenancy” is able to keep the house for life. Currently, if the tenant passes a 12-month trial, they are awarded the tenancy. ....Labour spent billions on social housing but the number of those waiting for council homes has almost doubled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 The Tory manifesto did say that they would protect the tenure and rents of those in council houses. I don't remember the exact words but I seem to remember that the word 'in' was used, this could be taken to mean existing tenants but not future tenants. interesting to see if they can push existing elderly couples in big council houses into smaller flats/houses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuuzeme Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 ok... in the near-term I can't see them having the pricing power, I expect rents to stay flat or fall for forseeable also, with such transparent market-pricing and capital accumulation, councils will need a unique selling point or two to not simply hive all this job off to private investment firms If social housing rents are to increase, where does that money come from? Presumably not from unemployed or low/average salaried workers already claiming housing benefit unless that housing benefit is increased. But the thing I thought was changing is that councils would now be able to funnel any rents into providing further social housing. However it seems that maybe I missed the point and it is in fact "affordable housing", which you've probably already noticed is probably rather different to social housing. Much more private finance suitable, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongerOfDoom Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 But i was not to worry as 2/3 of tennants had their rent paid by benefits so they would not lose out. So raising rents will cost more, not less, at least round here. Good job the LHA rate is not getting capped then .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 (edited) If social housing rents are to increase, where does that money come from? Presumably not from unemployed or low/average salaried workers already claiming housing benefit unless that housing benefit is increased. I would disagree and say that housing benefits have pushed up rentals pushing up private rental costs too I had a housing assoc flat a few years back - 2 bedrooms, was allowed to sublet my spare room. Part of a small block of identical flats in a decent area. The other 'private' tennants in the block all did the same. Those on housing benefits lived the whole 2 bed flat to themselves, paid for. I think that those on the new universal benefits will simply find themselves economising in the way I, as a private renter did. (edit: I moved back into private rented because it became cheaper than housing assoc in my area for a bigger house) Edited October 18, 2010 by Si1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 I think it really IS the social housing BUILDING issue, not housing benefits - in which a lot of money has been spent by labour anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8070073/Spending-Review-2010-Higher-rents-and-no-council-house-for-life.html The subsidy argument has been done to death on here several and when it comes down to it it seems to means 'below market rates' or 'implied subsidy.' Some have to pay to park outside their house others have subsidised free parking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuuzeme Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I would disagree and say that housing benefits have pushed up rentals pushing up private rental costs too I had a housing assoc flat a few years back - 2 bedrooms, was allowed to sublet my spare room. Part of a small block of identical flats in a decent area. The other 'private' tennants in the block all did the same. Those on housing benefits lived the whole 2 bed flat to themselves, paid for. I think that those on the new universal benefits will simply find themselves economising in the way I, as a private renter did. (edit: I moved back into private rented because it became cheaper than housing assoc in my area for a bigger house) You don't have to disagree! HB has put a rising floor under rents, as you say, pushing them for everyone. That's my point of view. Is the social housing rent so low that HB is not granted, and if so then were it to rise to a market rate where would people find the money to pay it, if not HB, or some other subsidy? rents are already so high as to require extensive subsidy in the form of HB, so how can they be increased without greater employment or a rise in salaries? I don't see where the money comes from to pay these increased rates, if not from taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuuzeme Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 I would disagree and say that housing benefits have pushed up rentals pushing up private rental costs too I had a housing assoc flat a few years back - 2 bedrooms, was allowed to sublet my spare room. Part of a small block of identical flats in a decent area. The other 'private' tennants in the block all did the same. Those on housing benefits lived the whole 2 bed flat to themselves, paid for. I think that those on the new universal benefits will simply find themselves economising in the way I, as a private renter did. (edit: I moved back into private rented because it became cheaper than housing assoc in my area for a bigger house) You don't have to disagree! HB has put a rising floor under rents, as you say, pushing them for everyone. That's my point of view. Is the social housing rent so low that HB is not granted, and if so then were it to rise to a market rate where would people find the money to pay it, if not HB, or some other subsidy? rents are already so high as to require extensive subsidy in the form of HB, so how can they be increased without greater employment or a rise in salaries? I don't see where the money comes from to pay these increased rates, if not from taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool_hand Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570923 Tenants will be charged nearer the going market rate, to release cash for the building programme. What is the point of social housing if the rents are going to be the same as the commercial market. A lot of social housing in my experience is sub-standard, you also usually have some form of anti-social behavior thrown in if you are living on an estate, most social housing in inner cities is with-in some form of block or estate. Sorry this just doesn't make sense to me. If it's the same price as the market I'll go and rent in the market, and f*ck social housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) I think it really IS the social housing BUILDING issue, not housing benefits - in which a lot of money has been spent by labour anyway: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8070073/Spending-Review-2010-Higher-rents-and-no-council-house-for-life.html Not quite sure why some of the people posting here think that building less social housing is going to brng down property prices, I would rather expect the opposite over the medium term. This looks like an attempt to prop up the private housing and BTL market Edited October 19, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool_hand Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Also, if social housing ends up being more expensive then who will pay for it? I bet more people in social housing are claiming housing benefit than those in the private market. Yes, that's right we the tax payer will have to foot the bill. As for saying social housing will no longer be for life. Just not going to happen, they won;t get it past European Bill of Human Rights. There is no way they can start kicking someone out of there home because that person happened to get a better job. Trust me, most people once they get an opportunity to get out of social housing will take it, they won't need the government breathing down their back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 COUNCIL HOUSING IS NOT SUBSIDISED! Ofcourse it is! How else could you describe someone living for free or paying something like £180 a month? It is subsidised by the tax payer. Even if the house is entirely state owned it was built by the tax payer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Ofcourse it is! How else could you describe someone living for free or paying something like £180 a month? It is subsidised by the tax payer. Even if the house is entirely state owned it was built by the tax payer. The income of the unemployed, incapacitated, elderly etc. is subsidised by benefits. Council housing is not subsidised. It generates income for the government. Housing people on benefits in private housing, costs more than doing so in council. We have a lack of council stock and thus housing the poor is more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The income of the unemployed, incapacitated, elderly etc. is subsidised by benefits. Council housing is not subsidised. It generates income for the government. Housing people on benefits in private housing, costs more than doing so in council. We have a lack of council stock and thus housing the poor is more expensive. It generates income does it? Someone paying £180 a month for a house generates an income for the government inspite of all the servicing/gardening/new kitchens etc etc? Social housing is a liability and as such is subsidised by the tax payer. We do not have a lack of housing stock, we have an oversupply of sh1te that believe they are entitled to a free house at public expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theonlywayisdown Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The Tory manifesto did say that they would protect the tenure and rents of those in council houses. I don't remember the exact words but I seem to remember that the word 'in' was used, this could be taken to mean existing tenants but not future tenants. Yes they did say that. But they also said they wouldn't touch child benefits, and they did. The libdems said they'd pledge not to back any increase in tuition fees, but we already have some going back on their word. Still trust the word of a politician? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 It generates income does it? Someone paying £180 a month for a house generates an income for the government inspite of all the servicing/gardening/new kitchens etc etc? Social housing is a liability and as such is subsidised by the tax payer. We do not have a lack of housing stock, we have an oversupply of sh1te that believe they are entitled to a free house at public expense. The decent homes programme was wasteful. And that was a one off thing. The houses are built, they generate income. The services such as gardening are paid for separately if provided. Or via council tax (verges get cut everywhere, private estates too!). Social tenants pay council tax too you know. Council houses were built by the British for the British, we wanted to put an end to slum living, which was commonplace after the war. We should build more, and give them to the British first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 Council houses were built by the British for the British, we wanted to put an end to slum living, which was commonplace after the war. We should build more, and give them to the British first. My aunt lived in a council flat in Fulham, all the time I knew her! Quite nice really! You really had to be "model tenant" to get a council place back then! They woudn't take just anybody! Something changed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The houses are built, they generate income. The houses were built/are built at huge expense to the tax payer. Some may generate a rental income but they are still a liability on the books. At £180 a month how long would it take for the cost of the build to be repaid to the coffers? What about the maintenance costs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) So HB has not helped keep rents high under liebour then? No it hasnt, its just another excuse that has been floated to the public, i cannot believe that you guys are falling for this toss, if council own properties are pushed up to the market rate then private property rents will rise aswell. The lack of social housing has pushed up rents, not housing benefit. Housing benefit bill is one symptom from the lack of social housing. This clearly shows that the market rate is unaffordable, so people are being subsidised in the private sector. what do you want cheaper taxes and subsidised social homes, or subsidised private homes? which of the two would benefit the economy? These chums in government dont know what its like to live life as the average joe, and you lot are being lead down the garden path. wake up smell the coffee think a bit. So people dont work because they would lose out, now if we had social housing then the rents would be much lower increasing the workforce producing more taxes and using less benefit. But we can't have that as the landlords would have to reduce their prices. Are they going to cut the expenses budget and living allowance for MPs? no is the answer. You will pay more in rents, social housing reduces private rents, the more social housing the cheaper your private rents and the cheaper your mortgage will be. there is a strong correlation between the number of social homes and the number of private home regarding the price of renting/ buying. They are destroying our welfare system, they are destroying our nhs, they are destroying education system, why do we need a state if they arnt willing to provide the basics? why pay them tax? when they arnt providing anything in return? Edited October 19, 2010 by crash2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 The houses were built/are built at huge expense to the tax payer. Some may generate a rental income but they are still a liability on the books. At £180 a month how long would it take for the cost of the build to be repaid to the coffers? What about the maintenance costs? They were built then 30 years later sold at a greater price than the cost, if you want rent to be high keep pushing those ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 No it hasnt, its just another excuse that has been floated to the public, i cannot believe that you guys are falling for this toss, if council own properties are pushed up to the market rate then private property rents will rise aswell. The lack of social housing has pushed up rents, not housing benefit. Housing benefit bill is one symptom from the lack of social housing. This clearly shows that the market rate is unaffordable, so people are being subsidised in the private sector. what do you want cheaper taxes and subsidised social homes, or subsidised private homes? which of the two would benefit the economy? These chums in government dont know what its like to live life as the average joe, and you lot are being lead down the garden path. wake up smell the coffee think a bit. So people dont work because they would lose out, now if we had social housing then the rents would be much lower increasing the workforce producing more taxes and using less benefit. But we can't have that as the landlords would have to reduce their prices. Are they going to cut the expenses budget and living allowance for MPs? no is the answer. You will pay more in rents, social housing reduces private rents, the more social housing the cheaper your private rents and the cheaper your mortgage will be. there is a strong correlation between the number of social homes and the number of private home regarding the price of renting/ buying. They are destroying our welfare system, they are destroying our nhs, they are destroying education system, why do we need a state if they arnt willing to provide the basics? why pay them tax? when they arnt providing anything in return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyInOxford Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) Ofcourse it is! How else could you describe someone living for free or paying something like £180 a month? It is subsidised by the tax payer. Even if the house is entirely state owned it was built by the tax payer. My friend pay 80 quid a week to live in a 60 year old 3 bed council house, that 4 grand a year, lets say he lives there for another 40 years it'll be at todays rates the equivalent of 400,000 in rent that this property has collected, wouldnt have thought its cost anymore then 60K to have built. Illogical how when all taxes go up, social housing, free uni places and grants vanish something the generation who are 50 plus benefited from seem to think it a wonderful idea to take them away. They ought to build millions of council houses, give them to the proles at cheap rent, then they can work for bugger all and companies looking to open manufacturing based jobs will have access to cheap housed labour. Edited October 19, 2010 by BuyInOxford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyInOxford Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 (edited) . Edited October 19, 2010 by BuyInOxford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilEdna Posted October 19, 2010 Share Posted October 19, 2010 This is good news for everyone (except landlords). I'm afraid this is good news for landlords actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.