Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
By-Tor

Time To Raise The Rents

Recommended Posts

Poole Housing Partnership which maintains 4,600 council homes has announced it will be increasing rents by an average of 4.8%.

Isn't that 2.5 times the 'supposed' rate of inflation?

Thus tightening the financial noose further around the necks of the least able to afford it.

So it looks like TTRTR has been advising Poole Council on its housing strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poole Housing Partnership which maintains 4,600 council homes has announced it will be increasing rents by an average of 4.8%.

Isn't that 2.5 times the 'supposed' rate of inflation?

Thus tightening the financial noose further around the necks of the least able to afford it.

So it looks like TTRTR has been advising Poole Council on its housing strategy.

Should rename themselves the Poo Housing Partnership.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poole Housing Partnership which maintains 4,600 council homes has announced it will be increasing rents by an average of 4.8%.

Isn't that 2.5 times the 'supposed' rate of inflation?

Thus tightening the financial noose further around the necks of the least able to afford it.

So it looks like TTRTR has been advising Poole Council on its housing strategy.

Most of the money will come from the council, who will simply and quietly add it to your council tax bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poole Housing Partnership which maintains 4,600 council homes has announced it will be increasing rents by an average of 4.8%.

Isn't that 2.5 times the 'supposed' rate of inflation?

Thus tightening the financial noose further around the necks of the least able to afford it.

So it looks like TTRTR has been advising Poole Council on its housing strategy.

They know the tenants can't afford to buy so they can get away with charging at the true rate of inflation for rent. All part of Gordon's "Miracle Economy" where the least well-off pay the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often thought that the true rate of inflation could be seen as the council tax inflation rate, as the coucil tax is a reflection of the costs involved in running the council, lighting, electricity, water, energy, salaries etc.

Thus inflation has probably averaged about 8% per annum for the last 8 years.

Wouldn't it be really funny if someone in the treasury admitted to something like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I guess?

Easy really, its the way that they are approving the knocking down of just about every detached house in the area to be replaced with shoebox flats at hyped up prices for the BTL's to make their 4% yield - capital depreciation on.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the money will come from the council, who will simply and quietly add it to your council tax bill.

What has this got to do with council tax. The are increasing the rent on council housing by 4.8%. About time too in my opinion. Its still going to be a social rent which will no doubt still be affordable with far better security and rental conditions than the private sector offers. Try getting an assured tenancy in the private sector (not short-hold - a home for life). Most council housing rents are about 80-90 a week (for a HOUSE). Try finding that in the private sector. Or anything like it.

A great deal of council housing is in a pitiful state, but I actually don't believe that the refurbishment should be paid for by council tax. It should be paid for by a rent that reflects the cost of delivering the housing without a neccessary profit.

Council housing is historically rented at about 10% below the cost of Housing Association housing which is generally in a far better state. What about all of the poor people (and their are loads) that have to live in private sector rental? Should their council tax go to refurbish council houses? TTRTR ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has this got to do with council tax

Ever heard of housing benefit?.

Where do you think the money for this comes from.............Oh yes I forgot, Councils go to central government for the funds dont they!!!.

Face facts, any rise in rents for Social Housing, or Council Housing is paid for by local taxpayers.

Edited by laurejon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has this got to do with council tax. The are increasing the rent on council housing by 4.8%. About time too in my opinion. Its still going to be a social rent which will no doubt still be affordable with far better security and rental conditions than the private sector offers. Try getting an assured tenancy in the private sector (not short-hold - a home for life). Most council housing rents are about 80-90 a week (for a HOUSE). Try finding that in the private sector. Or anything like it.

So you're basically saying they're sponging ba$tards that don't know they're born? :D Still, no need to TTRTeRrise these people.

However, this does illustrate the polarisation of accommodation in this country, if you're young, working and sprogless you do not realistically stand a chance of obtaining a placement on the housing list. It's amazing what happens when a country stops building housing for its people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're basically saying they're sponging ba$tards that don't know they're born? :D Still, no need to TTRTeRrise these people.

I didn't say that :o I feel misunderstood now :(:P

However, this does illustrate the polarisation of accommodation in this country, if you're young, working and sprogless you do not realistically stand a chance of obtaining a placement on the housing list. It's amazing what happens when a country stops building housing for its people.

Your right, but for the most part, since they had a choice to buy them, the ones that weren't sold, you wouldn't want to live in them. TRUSTME. The problem is that by having badly maintained estates, you lower peoples expectations, increase antisocial behaviour (because who cares about another broken window?), and generally trap them in social poverty and expectations of poverty. That extra 4.8% could do the world of good... particularly if they asked tenants how it should be spent, or even just walked around the bloody estates and nodded sagely and came up with a plan (eg. a little bit of ground maintenance here, a few plants there, really must do something about that car park surrounding the entire building). One of the things that always shocks me about estates is how little work would actually be required to make them nice on the outside. Its almost like there is a deep psychological resistance to ongoing niceness amongst the planners. They think they like places to be crappy and inhuman.

EDIT:

And I also think its really good for peoples, if the things they get they pay for themselves - it gets away from this entitlement idea and towards self sufficiency. So if a small increase in a social rent that stays at social rent levels makes the estate self sufficient then that can only work for the good.

Edited by Elizabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How did you guess?

two jumps in a week, i bet you think your pretty clever dont you boy ?

flying along in your rentals watching as the ground beneath you drops.

drying up in conversation, you'll be the one who cannot talk.

all your investments fall to pieces, you just sit there wishing you could still make love.

there the ones that'll spit at you, you'll be the one whos screaming out...

Edited by right_freds_dead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that :o I feel misunderstood now :(:P

Your right, but for the most part, since they had a choice to buy them, the ones that weren't sold, you wouldn't want to live in them. TRUSTME. The problem is that by having badly maintained estates, you lower peoples expectations, increase antisocial behaviour (because who cares about another broken window?), and generally trap them in social poverty and expectations of poverty. That extra 4.8% could do the world of good... particularly if they asked tenants how it should be spent, or even just walked around the bloody estates and nodded sagely and came up with a plan (eg. a little bit of ground maintenance here, a few plants there, really must do something about that car park surrounding the entire building).

But in the real world Elizabeth we all know any extra funds will simply be diverted into a new Jag for the mayor, councillors expenses, or other very important jobs.

You are being somewhat disingenuous, you know the score, this is in essense a socialised system, as with all such systems the final cost to the consumer bares no relation to the real underlying costs to the local authority, the real funding is raised from council tax (from those who pay) and largely from central government funds. Even if an extra regeneration surcharge was solely levied on the council tax many tenants wouldn't be paying anyway, as the benefits system picks up the tab.

There has been countless initiatives and tasks forces set up with the intention of trying to regenerate such areas, they've received funding totaling in the billions from central government funds. Not long after Labour came into office they allocated £3b for the 'New Deal for Regeneration' and almost another £1b for 'New Deal for Communities'. No doubt this has immeasurably improved some the public housing stock on an individual level, however new roofing, heating or windows does not fix a raucous neighbourhood and is only a sticking plaster on discredited and decaying brutalist architecture.

Of what I've seen of the wider 'community' initiatives, they often result in some of the locals taking great pleasure in uprooting their newly landscaped vistas, or 'tagging' anything else of note. Good lighting often just confirms from a distance that you are indeed about to get mugged, the CCTV cameras only reaffirm to potential tenants or weary outsiders that the area is indeed a dangerous place, the same masts display signs that helpfully inform you of the alcohol restriction zone, then a duo of Community Support Officers sporting stab proof vests leaves you in no doubt.

£4 on your typical rent, which again is most probably paid by the benefits office, obviously doesn't come remotely near to covering the real world cost of such measures in the worst areas. That's before you consider the externalised costs such as the amount of police/ambulance/fire service time, not to mention local authority, court or probation service time. A whole web of agencies support countless highly paid jobs fulfilled by lots of well intentioned middleclass people that unfortunately thrive off such a system. This is their bread and butter, a social worker living the land of plenty and harmony is an ex-social worker, as such the number and depth of social problems is directly proportional to the number of social workers. Otherwise it would be like a dentist curing the world of tooth decay.

When no more can be done the estate is then condemned, which then saps the remaining good out of an area on its inexorable decline. A population with good living conditions and space is usually much happier, at the present moment we are all essentially 'farmed' when it comes to housing in the UK, the worst areas are actively farmed with diligent husbandry (social engineering).

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in the real world Elizabeth we all know any extra funds will simply be diverted into a new Jag for the mayor, councillors expenses, or other very important jobs.

Not in the council I work in... but I think on the level of any tax going to central government you are definitely right.

You are being somewhat disingenuous, you know the score, this is in essense a socialised system, as with all such systems the final cost to the consumer bares no relation to the real underlying costs to the local authority, the real funding is raised from council tax (from those who pay) and largely from central government funds. Even if an extra regeneration surcharge was solely levied on the council tax many tenants wouldn't be paying anyway, as the benefits system picks up the tab.

I repeat this is not about council tax, this is about rent. And the idea of a 'regeneration surcharge' is not what I am talking. And I take the point that some would be paid through housing benefit. We don't have the figures on that (I don't) it would be interesting to know how much we are talking about, since my experience of working on a rubbish estate (it truly was scummy, but luckily no murders) was that the vast majority were working and the ones that caused all the problems were the 5% that weren't. But that is only based on direct observation using very rough parameters, so I would be very interested to know the figures really are (I am sure they don't collect them due to irrational fear - they believe the general understanding that 20% are living on benefits, are scared and want to play it down, so never bother to find out that it is actually wrong).

My point is, housing associations manage their current housing stock with rent reciepts and tend to generate surpluses. The only money they get from central is capital funding (that they keep as a zero interest loan offset against the assets on their accounts). If HAs can do it, councils should be in a position to do the same. Historically they have been forced to keep the same rents as they did previously. So they never bring in enough. Actually 4.8% would be the difference between a 4% deficit to requirements accumulated over many years (and expressed as buildings falling down) and what they needed. That is why I think it is a good thing.

So I don't believe I am being disengenious.

There has been countless initiatives and tasks forces set up with the intention of trying to regenerate such areas, they've received funding totaling in the billions from central government funds. Not long after Labour came into office they allocated £3b for the 'New Deal for Regeneration' and almost another £1b for 'New Deal for Communities'. No doubt this has immeasurably improved some the public housing stock on an individual level, however new roofing, heating or windows does not fix a raucous neighbourhood and is only a sticking plaster on discredited and decaying brutalist architecture.

Of what I've seen of the wider 'community' initiatives, they often result in some of the locals taking great pleasure in uprooting their newly landscaped vistas, or 'tagging' anything else of note. Good lighting often just confirms from a distance that you are indeed about to get mugged, the CCTV cameras only reaffirm to potential tenants or weary outsiders that the area is indeed a dangerous place, the same masts display signs that helpfully inform you of the alcohol restriction zone, then a duo of Community Support Officers sporting stab proof vests leaves you in no doubt.

£4 on your typical rent, which again is most probably paid by the benefits office, obviously doesn't come remotely near to covering the real world cost of such measures in the worst areas. That's before you consider the externalised costs such as the amount of police/ambulance/fire service time, not to mention local authority, court or probation service time. A whole web of agencies support countless highly paid jobs fulfilled by lots of well intentioned middleclass people that unfortunately thrive off such a system. This is their bread and butter, a social worker living the land of plenty and harmony is an ex-social worker, as such the number and depth of social problems is directly proportional to the number of social workers. Otherwise it would be like a dentist curing the world of tooth decay.

When no more can be done the estate is then condemned, which then saps the remaining good out of an area on its inexorable decline. A population with good living conditions and space is usually much happier, at the present moment we are all essentially 'farmed' when it comes to housing in the UK, the worst areas are actively farmed with diligent husbandry (social engineering).

Rather than social engineering (and I agree with your comments about too many social workers) I think there need to be physical structural changes in these things. 4 quid a week on an estate of 500 units, is 2K a month. Instead of more social workers, what about a dedicated grounds maintenance crew of 2 (which would be more than paid for by 2K per week. In fact you could probably get around 4-5). Rich people choose 24 hour portered buildings.

Countless studies have shown that when people are kept in rubbish conditions it becomes cyclical. And then they send in social workers to try and make these people come to terms with living in a rubbish tip they have no control over. I also think a lot of other benefits need to be tightened. The problem is, the central government generate a policy and then invent a programme that doesn't actually touch the situation because nobody asked anyone low enough to the ground to know WTF a programme should look like. And as you say brutalist architects.

I was walking past an estate that is going to be knocked down soon recently and I was looking at it thinking "thats just like all the pretty brochures of the new build estates (both private and public). The only thing missing is the people walking and biking an sitting on park benches... oh and a bit of greenery around peoples places. All the pretty widgets the architects and designers build into the picture, to sell the concept that never get implemented or maintained when the place is built. I think architecture in this country is a joke. The reason they can't regenerate is because it is beyond them to think that a couple of gardeners on a regular basis who also told the kids who were hanging around to "GET BACK TO SCHOOL" and went and had a chat with their parents (or even took their photos and posted them as "desperately seeking parents of unknown truants"!!!) would be what it would need rather than a task force of highly paid professionals, carrying out a major consultation to establish that tennants are scared disatisfied, and then a major team design effort around 'regeneration', rather cleaning the stairwells, giving them a bit of a paint, and putting in classical music so the junkies don't gather! The whole way government in this country works is to complexify what is fundamentally very very simple. Call me a bitch, but tough love and a bit of humilation or aural discomfort might just work where all the namby pambying in the world has fallen down.

Your 'dentist trying to cure the world of tooth decay' is a good analogy. But I think its also a good thing to do. The dentist who invents the system will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. I have always said that the best way to keep a job is to consistently work towards your own redundancy. But obviously I am fighting 50 years of conrolling the population through this kind of ever more twisted bureaucracy and ever more complicated maze. I can honestly say I never really understood the Terry Gilliam film "Brazil" until I had worked in government in England.... but I do still try to keep my faith, since, sometimes something cracks! (maybe only a little bit but it always feels good)

Edited by Elizabeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.