General Chat

Following on from the idea of council rents being aligned to those of the private sector (in othe words going up!), I heard on the radio this morning that the government has come up with another 'wheeze' regarding new council tenants - they move out of their accommodation after two and a half years!


Any views on this idea?

From the BBC news web site

.....Social housing landlords will be able to check their tenants' finances after two years in the property, under planned reforms.
Following the review, tenants could be evicted if their financial situation is deemed to have improved enough..........

.................Existing tenants will not be affected by the changes...........
......At present, council tenants keep their property for life unless they breach their tenancy agreement, for example, by engaging in anti-social behaviour. They can also pass their homes on to their children............

The only problem I have with it is what would they consider an improved financial position? Don't know about other people, but I know some social housing tenants who have been able to afford several short foreign holidays a year, whilst mortgage payers have been lucky if they could afford one UK one. That is not to say that all SH tenants are the same, but it does make you wonder if those particular people are blocking housing vacancies for those less fortunate.

I have just discovered how hard it is in some areas to rent. A family member's marriage has broken up, and because they are self employed, the letting agent requires one year's rent up front. They have managed to get the agreement knocked down to a six month short term let, but still have to pay one month's rent, plus the bond up front, and of course rent for the six months.

I was asked to be guarantor, but because my income (State Pension) does not exceed 15 K, then I cannot be.

Agree with you DET - what criteria are they going to use for an 'improved financial situation'.
There's also the problem with finding alternative employment in the same area - if they have to leave the area, they may well lose their job or be financially a lot worse off because of travel costs.
What about their children and schools?
In Ireland years ago, when my sister lived there, social housing rent was a fixed percentage of the total income of the house.
This meant that when you were earning 'X' amount, it was cheaper to buy a house, so you'd move out!

I know of a case where a 15 years old girl was living with her mother, unfortunately the mother died and the council were going to re house the 16 y/o in a flat.
the girls' older sister,( also in a council accommodation) offered to take on the mothers' tenancy, and giving up her own house..at first it was denied,but
after much to- ing and fro-ing it has finally been agreed that the older sister can take over the mothers' tenancy, and be carer for the younger one..........

Its a big problem all round, take for instance a family have lived in a large Council house for years, their family have grown up and left home, they,re living in a big house when a smaller one would suffice,and there are people living in small houses or flats who could do with the larger one.Why should they stay there and deprive some one of the larger property. after all they don,t own it, just rent it from the council.**M**.

I know what you mean Rita, I used to know some one who was an MD of a company, admittedly he worked his way to that position.,but it took a threat from the Chairman to make him move out and buy his own house.**M**

Merlin,

Many older people who still live in council property, and have been in that property for many years, and are now Pensioners, cannot afford to move to a smaller home, money for new carpets etc, and what if they need to be near their family still, and moving to a smaller house could be too far away.

If the lady in question probably likes living in a rural location. Why should she move? Put yourself in her shoes. How would you feel if you were forced to move out of your family home & placed in a 1 bed flat in location where you wouldnt want to live? This is a free country for heaven sake & people shouldn't be forced to move out of their own homes.

The problem is that there is not enough housing for people in this country. I believe an approx 500,000 shortfall. The government should be investing in building quality social housing. Not the cramming of 50 houses/flats on a small plot of land. It would also create jobs & help kick start the economy.

Penfold.

Many private rental properties here in North Devon are strictly 6 month lets during the winter months only. During the summer the properties are let for weekly or fortnightly holidaymakers. The people that live in these properties during the winter months when there are no holidaymakers around frequently put up tents in the local fields or woodlands during the sumer. It is not uncommon to find a "tent village" hidden away out of sight.

So people with mortgages can 'choose' where they live??? Many people have to commute because they can't afford to live where they work - OH commuted daily to Bracknell from Bath for 3 years. In the past I have moved to places I would not necessarily put at the top of my list, because I had to move where I could work.

You're right Sheila, people cant always afford to live where they work. But going back to people being told they have to move because their house is too big, i would gladly downsize from mine, i could work 70 miles away but will the council/housing associations help??? No, because there is a shortage of houses in that area.
Going that far away from home, at least i would be near people i know, so the choice isnt always there.

And no im not prepared to move to an area or village where i dont know anyone.

A neighbour (I live in a council house) wanted to move to a 1 bedroom flat.
She'd been in her 3 bedroomed house for 30 years (bought up her children and a grandson)
Years ago, her son had put brass fittings in her bedroom - (light switch, electric socket and ceiling rose), the council refused to move her unless, she either removed and replaced the brass fittings with 'council acceptable ' fittings (75p for a light switch) or paid for the council to do it!
How bloody petty!
She refused out of principle, but they moved her PDQ - with no cost incurred (in fact they paid her) when she was diagnosed with stomach cancer!!!
When you're up against petty minded 'Jobsworths' like that - what hope do you have??

For years, people who lived in homes they owned had the benefit of mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS) - in other words, the state subsidised their housing, and they also had the added benefit of its capital appreciation.

You paid your money - you took your choice.

And so what if they could afford "several foreign holidays a year"? You had the same option.

The really sad thing is that, for young people starting out, especially in the south east of England, they have almost no chance of even finding the deposit needed to buy a property. So they're left in the hands of private landlords, renting a year at a time, and no possibility of putting down roots.

Bring back the days of a decent social alternative, I say

Sue x

Absolutely, Joan

My daughter and her husband live in London. They are paying the princely sum of £1500 a month for a small flat. They both have decent jobs, but the starting price for a property where they live is over 200,000 - even a 10% deposit is beyond their abilities - and beyond the reach of my savings to help them.

At least they still have jobs - what on earth happens to them if either of them are made redundant, I don't know.

Under the current Ministry-of-stupid-rules, they'll have to leave their home and move ....... where?

Sue x

Exactly Sue,
They will be unable to stay where they are, under the 'if I cant afford to live there, and I work' rule, (therefore no benefit) but if they move, the other one will lose their job!!
All MP's should be forced to live in the real world (preferably on Jobseekers Allowance) for a year before becoming MP's - I want to see how they cope when their cooker breaks down and they have £67 a week to live on, including utility bills.
A lot less than MP's probably pay for one meal in a restaurant.

....but of course, they're all 'scroungers' (and beng added to day by day) and 'enjoy' this amount of poverty!!!

Totally agree with second paragraph in your last post Maggie.