Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
kjw

Council Tenants Lose Lifetime Right To Live In Property

Recommended Posts

People will no longer have the right to live in their council home for life in future after ministers moved to impose a five-year limit on new tenancies.

In a move condemned by Labour as likely to break up communities, the government has quietly tabled an amendment to the housing and planning bill that sets a maximum of five-year terms for new secure tenancies.

The policy brings an end to the principle of council tenancies for life in which people were sometimes allowed to pass on the right to live in the property to their next of kin. Although it does not apply retrospectively to current contracts, those who inherit tenancy of council housing will be subject to the new regime.

In an explanatory note to the bill, Brandon Lewis, the housing minister, said: “A secure tenant can currently live in a property for life. This amendment phases out lifetime tenancies.”

David Cameron first signalled he would like to make such a move as long ago as 2010, when he suggested it could help increase social mobility. [more at link]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property#comment-64852092

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In comments:

23

So in the Tory mind, there's too little council housing left so lifetime secure tenancies have to go.

But if the tenant removes a council or housing association home from this limited, rationed stock by exercising Right to Buy, the government will encourage them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rather than making all housing more secure and cheaper, they are going to make the SRS as insecure and expensive as the PRS. Presumably so that the plebs won't put up a fight when forced to work in zero hours contracts and make sure they are incentivised to take out a whopping great mortgage from the bank so they can have a bit of security in their old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rather than making all housing more secure and cheaper, they are going to make the SRS as insecure and expensive as the PRS. Presumably so that the plebs won't put up a fight when forced to work in zero hours contracts and make sure they are incentivised to take out a whopping great mortgage from the bank so they can have a bit of security in their old age.

How would they secure a mortgage on a ZHC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The permanent tenancy made right to buy make economic sense.

Once someone got a council house, the tenancy could last two generations - you're talking up to a century. All on a sub-market rent whilst the council retained all repair and maintenance obligations.

The transfer of value out of the council takes place when the tenancy is signed - not when the right to buy purchase discount is applied.

Removal of permanency will reduce the benefits of right to buy - and I think that will inevitably end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a difficult one this one. The big elephant in the room is the PRS and whilst that situation exists, it's very important to have a social rented sector with better regulation and greater security of tenure.

I cannot deny though that there is a problem in the social rented sector when it comes to lifetime tenancies and the rents afforded to people who have them. I speak as someone with a secure tenancy and who benefits from these low rents. The problem is people get stuck on council estates, which is fine for some people who have family nearby (in fact council estates these days can be nice places to live) but it does indicate a lack of social mobility. The reason for this has everything to do with the poor quality of housing and high rents in the private rented sector not the security of tenure in the social rented sector. Thus I'm very doubtful a policy like this is going to have much if any impact at all. I imagine it's just a ploy to get higher earning tenants out of council housing, in which case it'll probably reduce social mobility by encouraging people not to aspire to earn more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep the peasants on the back foot

If they want to pay full market rates, they should be able to stay as long as they like.

But if they're paying a reduced rate, then it makes perfect sense for them to leave if their financial situation improves.

Seeing BMWs parked outside council flats always makes my blood boil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this move. Noone should have a permanent RIGHT to accommidation unless you own it.

Some will be negatively affected by this. Tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, say you want to better yourself by applying to university. If you live in council housing, you're then limited to nearby universities. If you're from the South East then take the plunge and go and study in Glasgow or something, you lose your council house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this move. Noone should have a permanent RIGHT to accommidation unless you own it.

Some will be negatively affected by this. Tough.

Which raises the question as to what ownership really is. Do honestly think you have a permanent right to live in your accommodation just because your name is on the deeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this move. Noone should have a permanent RIGHT to accommidation unless you own it.

Some will be negatively affected by this. Tough.

What gives you the permanent right to NHS health care? You don't 'own' it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would they secure a mortgage on a ZHC?

The ptb will find a way to do it. Nice big fat millstone around the neck of some poor wage slave, so that s/he can be a "homeowner".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gives you the permanent right to NHS health care? You don't 'own' it.

There is no permanent right to NHS health care. As we will find out in the coming years, universal, free healthcare, funded by the state is as unaffordable as free or heavily subsidised housing provided by the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no permanent right to NHS health care. As we will find out in the coming years, universal, free healthcare, funded by the state is as unaffordable as free or heavily subsidised housing provided by the state.

However, £100bn a year tax reliefs & Billions on pointless Middle East military adventures isn't unaffordable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The governbankment cannot afford to have people living cheaply. The larger the mortgage the better, so they have to work more hours and so pay more tax, to service the debt. Each person living cheaply and working less than full time, with hopes of a retirement, is a potential cash cow who the governbankment want to work until they drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no permanent right to NHS health care. As we will find out in the coming years, universal, free healthcare, funded by the state is as unaffordable as free or heavily subsidised housing provided by the state.

Whether it is 'unaffordable' is a choice. Especially since the NHS is at the cheaper end of the scale compared to most post industrial economies.

Many things which people enjoyed decades ago, lifetime council houses, student grants and tuition, lazy Sundays, single family wage earners, a proper lunch hour and tea breaks, normal 9 - 5 working etc etc were apparently 'affordable' even though the Country was many times less wealthy than it is today.

Of course the bankers bonuses, second homes and regular skiing trips are always 'affordable' in the eyes of the apologists for the wealthy. I hate living in the Country you seem to want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this only apply to new tenancies though?

That'd mean all the pensioners currently hogging family homes stay put.

yes, but their offspring no longer get to inherit a secure tenancy - same as all other new tenants: 5 years then check whether you're earning a decent wage. If you're vaguely above minimum then eff off to the private sector...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether it is 'unaffordable' is a choice. Especially since the NHS is at the cheaper end of the scale compared to most post industrial economies.

Many things which people enjoyed decades ago, lifetime council houses, student grants and tuition, lazy Sundays, single family wage earners, a proper lunch hour and tea breaks, normal 9 - 5 working etc etc were apparently 'affordable' even though the Country was many times less wealthy than it is today.

Of course the bankers bonuses, second homes and regular skiing trips are always 'affordable' in the eyes of the apologists for the wealthy. I hate living in the Country you seem to want.

Yes, but our nation was 'rich' because of historical legacies from plundering and empire and being first to the industrialisation party.

We are unlikely to get UN backing for another empire and industrialisation, having arrived first in Britain, has since left. The North Sea oil bonanza allowed us to keep up appearances, much in the same way as MEW has allowed some people to maintain a lifestyle they couldn't really afford.

The reality of globalisation means that our labour isn't worth so much any more and as a country we are going to have accept that we will be relatively , if not absolutely poorer. No politician is ever going to stand up and articulate this fact even though the smarter ones are fully aware of the way things are moving.

You make assumptions about the sort of country I want; it's actually one which offers real meritocratic progression for all who are prepared to work for it and that, ultimately, means removing all the state props for it's favoured elites and requiring them to operate in a free, consumer driven open market. That means doctors and tube drivers as well as bankers, housebuilders, supermarkets and foreign aid troughers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this only apply to new tenancies though?

That'd mean all the pensioners currently hogging family homes stay put.

When this was first mentioned in 2010, they said pensioners would be exempt from the new set tenancies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this only apply to new tenancies though?

That'd mean all the pensioners currently hogging family homes stay put.

Yes but they are going to try and cull some of the current longterm social housing tenants by introducing "pay to stay", not that it will affect many pensioners unless they have a pension of over £30k (£40k in London) per year in 2017.

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this only apply to new tenancies though?

That'd mean all the pensioners currently hogging family homes stay put.

True but this is the reasonable (and least politically explosive) way of doing it. Retrospectively mucking around with agreements is nasty - even if those agreements shouldn't have been made in the first place.

The "spare room subsidy" / "bedroom tax" would have gone far smoother and had far more support if it had been applied to future tenancies. As it didn't save a huge pile of cash, I did wonder why they'd made it so difficult for themselves.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   89 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.