Up To £25,000 Available To Move To A Smaller Home

[@contradevian]

yes but shouldn't you tell him, it's best that he knows isn't it? It will go up at around 7.5% per year until 2016 and from then by the inflation rate plus 0.5%? My guess is that they'll still go up at by 7.5% even after 2o16.

There has always been a hyprocritical element to the HPC site. Its generally agreed that property is in a bubble. Yet for some reason so called social rents have to rise to these bubble levels, which in many cases they have. To charge something like nearly £5,000 a year rent for something built in the 60's for hundreds and call it subsidised is laughable. Though doubtless this is all paying some nice salaries in the various ALMO's and housing associations, whilst the tenants get boiled like frogs, well those that are working that is. I'm wondering whether these "above inflation" rises could be challenged in a judicial review.

Oh well it might be worth paying the substantial premium to be socially housed. After all I can't be given two months notice by a landlord, I'm not tied to a fixed term AST, I can't be charged £60 to photocopy a contract. At least I get repairs done and can paint the walls what colour I like and can keep pets and have a lodger if I want to.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Socially Housed

[council dweller]

There has always been a hyprocritical element to the HPC site. Its generally agreed that property is in a bubble. Yet for some reason so called social rents have to rise to these bubble levels, which in many cases they have. To charge something like nearly £5,000 a year rent for something built in the 60's for hundreds and call it subsidised is laughable. Though doubtless this is all paying some nice salaries in the various ALMO's and housing associations, whilst the tenants get boiled like frogs, well those that are working that is. I'm wondering whether these "above inflation" rises could be challenged in a judicial review.

Oh well it might be worth paying the substantial premium to be socially housed. After all I can't be given two months notice by a landlord, I'm not tied to a fixed term AST, I can't be charged £60 to photocopy a contract. At least I get repairs done and can paint the walls what colour I like and can keep pets and have a lodger if I want to.

Yes.

I love being educated by people who know nothing about council housing and especially about changes that have happened over the past few years.

Sixty quid for a photo copy sounds fair, anything less is a subsidy......or so they would have us believe.

[the shaping machine]

WW2 " was a pretty close damn thing" according to Churchill. You make it sound like a shoe in!

No, shoe in it wasn't. But Hitler believed that we were so decadent that Britain would just give in to his demands. It's a mistake many Europhiles still make today.

Your posts on this thread are just repetative propaganda are they not?

Yes. But in my defence sometimes people refuse to listen the first time if the message doesn't match their preconceptions.

[the shaping machine]

I love being educated by people who know nothing about council housing and especially about changes that have happened over the past few years.

Actually I live on a council estate (though I'm an owner-occupier).

Sixty quid for a photo copy sounds fair, anything less is a subsidy......or so they would have us believe.

You don't have to use their services, so if sixty quid is the market rate it is by definition "fair".

The fact that you don't realise the council has similar costs proves there is a subsidy.

[bomberbrown]

1350824877[/url]' post='909166985']

Actually I live on a council estate (though I'm an owner-occupier).

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[the shaping machine]

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Why? What (wrong) conclusion have you jumped to?

[council dweller]

Actually I live on a council estate (though I'm an owner-occupier).

You don't have to use their services, so if sixty quid is the market rate it is by definition "fair".

The fact that you don't realise the council has similar costs proves there is a subsidy.

Cor you must be able to tell some stories!?

I've got one, the woman up the road from me had a horse in her back garden,(it's okay, we're allowed 'the usual pets'!) after the horse gave birth the woman tried to burn the afterbirth!.....what a stink! Come to think about though she was an OO too...

I think I know what bomber brown means though. Did you buy at the peak, lose 20% (on paper) an are now waiting for the govenment to sell council houses off so that the price goes back up because ex council houses will be stigma free?

If so I understand your bitterness....

[billfunk]

There has always been a hyprocritical element to the HPC site. Its generally agreed that property is in a bubble. Yet for some reason so called social rents have to rise to these bubble levels, which in many cases they have. To charge something like nearly £5,000 a year rent for something built in the 60's for hundreds and call it subsidised is laughable. Though doubtless this is all paying some nice salaries in the various ALMO's and housing associations, whilst the tenants get boiled like frogs, well those that are working that is. I'm wondering whether these "above inflation" rises could be challenged in a judicial review.

Oh well it might be worth paying the substantial premium to be socially housed. After all I can't be given two months notice by a landlord, I'm not tied to a fixed term AST, I can't be charged £60 to photocopy a contract. At least I get repairs done and can paint the walls what colour I like and can keep pets and have a lodger if I want to.

Are you suggesting that because there is a property bubble there can not be inequality between social and private rents?

Are these two things mutually exclusive? If so how and why?

[@contradevian]

Are you suggesting that because there is a property bubble there can not be inequality between social and private rents?

Are these two things mutually exclusive? If so how and why?

Have you not read any of this thread? There is equality between private and social rents in some areas and for some types of property and social rents are rising faster than private rents.

[billfunk]

Have you not read any of this thread? There is equality between private and social rents in some areas and for some types of property and social rents are rising faster than private rents.

I still don't follow how this makes people who acknowledge that there has been a property bubble hypocrites for wanting equality in the rental market?

Your position seems to be that because someone wants an end to high property prices they must necessarily also accept inequality between social and private tenancies, or else they are hypocrites?

[billfunk]

Have you not read any of this thread? There is equality between private and social rents in some areas and for some types of property and social rents are rising faster than private rents.

It seems to me that your position is basically that there should be an inequality between social and private rents because at least then the social tenants will be paying a "fair" rate. But by continuing that course of action we would be shielding that group of people from the full force of the overpriced market. In which case many of them would be unaware that the market was in fact very overpriced. As they are unaware and/or shielded from high rents they do not have the political will to change them. Hence the bubble remains inflated and rents remain high.

The alternative would be where no one is shielded from high rents and all are equal. This way everyone is fully aware of the high rents and there can be political consensus to change the system for everyone.

To my mind the former scenario is most hypocritical because it perpetuates the system of high rents by shielding those most vulnerable and effectively covering up the fundamental problem.

[MongerOfDoom]

Have you not read any of this thread? There is equality between private and social rents in some areas and for some types of property and social rents are rising faster than private rents.

I cannot tell. Is that an argument for equalising social and market rents everywhere, or for borrowing some more money to restore the subsidy that never existed?

[MongerOfDoom]

There has always been a hyprocritical element to the HPC site. Its generally agreed that property is in a bubble. Yet for some reason so called social rents have to rise to these bubble levels, which in many cases they have.

Maybe the bubble would deflate if it affected everyone? Labour's solution was something like: Dear taxpayers, some of you will need to voluntarily choose to live in worse accommodation than people on benefits. If you don't, you'll just drive the rents even higher. We will then increase the benefits to make sure our voters don't suffer. We will also increase your taxes to pay for it, and maybe also the deficit so your children don't get away with it either. Your choice, though you may want to think of the children.

Now that unlimited housing benefit is no more, some social tenants have to consume much less housing. So that directly helps with everyone else's housing costs. But people in council housing don't because their rent is a notional figure, at least in the SE. Given that the country is running a Greek-style deficit, it seems fair not to borrow money so that people who can afford market rents don't need to pay them. Again, this will help bring everyone else's housing costs down. It will also ensure that benefit recipients in council housing are subject to the same HB caps as everyone else (since the cap won't apply to an amount that is already subsidised).

Yes, the current changes will result in a lot of people being worse off. But I am yet to see a convincing argument that would explain why that is unfair.

To charge something like nearly £5,000 a year rent for something built in the 60's for hundreds and call it subsidised is laughable.

The subsidy is the difference between the market rate and whatever gets charged. It's unlikely to be negative ...

Edited October 21, 2012 by MongerOfDoom

[@contradevian]

I cannot tell. Is that an argument for equalising social and market rents everywhere, or for borrowing some more money to restore the subsidy that never existed?

Its a bit pointless having a grown up discussion because you are opposed to social housing purely because its "the state" so I assume you refuse to use buses, trains, drive on the motorway and avoid watching the BBC which are also "subsidised!"

For the record I don't like the term "affordable housing" as it implies the rest is unaffordable. However due to the way the dice are rolled in this country a significant percentage of the UK population (around 20%) will always require "affordable" or "social" housing.

The answer to me would be to tackle the market restraints and re-roll the dice, to make all housing affordable, however the answer of recent governments is to make "affordable housing" unaffordable like all the rest and drive up the cost of the "Unaffordable housing."

I think your hostility is based around the fact some people have an "escape route" into affordable housing and for some reason you feel you are excluded in some way from this.

I'd also advise that most of the social housing stock is now getting quite old. The best bits cherry picked by RTB, what is left is in the form of mass produced, system built high and low rise or "sink estates" so would/should always work out on the cheap side of renting than the normal housing stock.

[MongerOfDoom]

Its a bit pointless having a grown up discussion because you are opposed to social housing purely because its "the state" so I assume you refuse to use buses, trains, drive on the motorway and avoid watching the BBC which are also "subsidised!"

I am not some sort of a mad free market fundamentalist. BTW, motorways likely produce a massive tax profit and don't need a subsidy.

I think your hostility is based around the fact some people have an "escape route" into affordable housing and for some reason you feel you are excluded in some way from this.

I am excluded because I have a decent job and savings. But my circumstances are not awfully relevant here.

The posts I replied to concerned mostly whether Council Dweller and others get a terrible deal all of a sudden, and whether the recent and planned changes are good, or some sort of a crime against human rights. It's simply that I am not in favour of the state giving a large lifetime subsidy to an arbitrarily chosen part of the population.

[billfunk]

Its a bit pointless having a grown up discussion because you are opposed to social housing purely because its "the state" so I assume you refuse to use buses, trains, drive on the motorway and avoid watching the BBC which are also "subsidised!"

For the record I don't like the term "affordable housing" as it implies the rest is unaffordable. However due to the way the dice are rolled in this country a significant percentage of the UK population (around 20%) will always require "affordable" or "social" housing.

The answer to me would be to tackle the market restraints and re-roll the dice, to make all housing affordable, however the answer of recent governments is to make "affordable housing" unaffordable like all the rest and drive up the cost of the "Unaffordable housing."

I think your hostility is based around the fact some people have an "escape route" into affordable housing and for some reason you feel you are excluded in some way from this.

I'd also advise that most of the social housing stock is now getting quite old. The best bits cherry picked by RTB, what is left is in the form of mass produced, system built high and low rise or "sink estates" so would/should always work out on the cheap side of renting than the normal housing stock.

Nice to see the old "hit and run" tactic skillfully employed here. Post 88?

[council dweller]

The posts I replied to concerned mostly whether Council Dweller and others get a terrible deal all of a sudden, and whether the recent and planned changes are good, or some sort of a crime against human rights. It's simply that I am not in favour of the state giving a large lifetime subsidy to an arbitrarily chosen part of the population..

No, council dwellers and HA do not get a terrible deal 'all of a sudden', rents have been going up at much higher levels than wages for years. Where does 'all of a sudden' come in?

If private tenants went up by 7.5% per annum but wages hardly at all I wouldn't say that it's a crime against human rights. I'd say that people are and will suffer hardship.

My rent has doubled over the past 7 years....how many times do I have to say that?

I suggest that you also contact your local council and find out how much subsidy is paid to tenants and let us know what reply you get. They will have to supply the information under the freedom of information act. Please let us know your LA name.

In a way I should wait until my rent reaches equality with private rents (in 3 years time) before going for RTB but I'm concerned about when the next election might be.

[billfunk]

My rent has doubled over the past 7 years....how many times do I have to say that?

But CD, with respect, how do you know that your rent of 7 years ago was appropriate? How can you be sure it wasn't significantly below "market" rate?

And in a similar vein how can Whasis name verify that his salary of 3 years ago, which hasn't risen at all, was not disproportionately high to begin with (3 years ago)? A question I did raise but was never answered.

[council dweller]

I am excluded because I have a decent job and savings. But my circumstances are not awfully relevant here.

I didn't know that council housing was means tested, where did you find that out? Maybe you were misinformed?

[council dweller]

But CD, with respect, how do you know that your rent of 7 years ago was appropriate? How can you be sure it wasn't significantly below "market" rate?

And in a similar vein how can Whasis name verify that his salary of 3 years ago, which hasn't risen at all, was not disproportionately high to begin with (3 years ago)? A question I did raise but was never answered.

From the 1950's rents were set a 25% of a working mans wages (by central government) and they were still at 25% 7 or 8 years ago! They have since doubled.

Don't you mean 'rigged market' rate? Or do you deny that the market in housing is rigged?

[billfunk]

From the 1950's rents were set a 25% of a working mans wages (by central government) and they were still at 25% 7 or 8 years ago! They have since doubled.

Don't you mean 'rigged market' rate? Or do you deny that the market in housing is rigged?

I wrote not one hour ago about my wish for a constitution to enshrine economic indexes (like rent as a proportion of salary) so I can associate with that angle.

The market is rigged insofar as there is a manufactured scarcity.

But, notwithstanding this, what I said in #88 stands.

[MRMX9]

My rent is around 80% of what I'd be paying if I rented privately and will equal private rents in about 3 years time.

(rent goes up at 7.5% per year)

That may well be the case in your area - but its certainly not in Camden where private rents average 3-4 times council rents..

And of course you

will have the right to buy your place at a discount

and

can never be chucked out on the street with two months notice

Anyone with a council tenancy in central London - well its like winning the lottery (and you probably have more chance of winning the lottery than getting a Camden tenancy!).

Edited October 22, 2012 by MRMX9

[@contradevian]

I didn't know that council housing was means tested, where did you find that out? Maybe you were misinformed?

Council housing isn't means tested at all. I have a "self employed" job and savings. The only thing that would really exclude you is not having a visa to live in this country and owing money to a previous social housing provider. Being unemployed isn't the advantage you think it is.

I've been reading the annual report of my ALMO and although it doesn't go in to a lot of details, they are attempting to operate entirely within the rent revenue account. The biggest items though (32%) are repairs which mainly seem contract to the local council building services team. I think social tenants could be encouraged to do their own small repairs, but its an older housing stock, and they have been bringing the stock up to an acceptable homes standard. The ALMO appears to have to pay rent and council tax on its empty properties, though on average these get re let within 28 days.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Socially Housed

[@contradevian]

To my mind the former scenario is most hypocritical because it perpetuates the system of high rents by shielding those most vulnerable and effectively covering up the fundamental problem.

Slightly confused, one of the highest growth areas of housing benefit is people in work and private rented. It is housing benefit that is masking the effects of high rents not the distinction between private and social renting.

[MongerOfDoom]

I didn't know that council housing was means tested, where did you find that out? Maybe you were misinformed?

It would be explicitly means tested by the time I got to the front of the queue, at least in some places. In any case, isn't the way it's often done that there is a waiting list that has people on it for decades while priority cases (e.g. impecunious single mothers, as picked on by John Major's election campaign) get housed before anyone on the list for responsible people gets a chance?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9263812/Couples-on-more-than-40000-will-not-be-entitled-to-council-home.html

I am sure I will be told yet again that up north there is hardly any waiting time since the rents are now approaching the market. But in SE it's very different, and it might take some 15 years of 7% increases to get to that point. I would expect the current occupants to give up roughly at the point where the new LHA limits are reached though, and the new tenancies will then presumably start much nearer the market rate. This mentions 80% of market, though it might not reflect what will actually happen: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/19/social-housing-income-cap-shapps

particularly as the effect of the new LHA caps was also blunted by extra money given to the councils.

My take on the fact that council tenants happily stay put after their rent has doubled is that they have had it too good for too long, rather than that they are being picked on.