What happens to people who can't afford their social housing?

It's all social. What are the main reasons for not paying rent? If you don't pay your mortgage then its curtains, and out on the street you go. Means testing is a way forward. If a couple have two kids and worked from day one, then find themselves unemployed, then that is an honest problem that needs real help. If you have a couple who have two kids, and have never worked a day in their lives, then this couple should take responsibility for their dilemma. That's not unfair, that's rewarding people who do care about society and punishing those who think the state owes them a living because they chose to have children without having the means to support them. Where it is single mums, more should be done to track down the father's to support the lady, until her children are old enough to support themselves. There is no shame in living in social housing, but there is real shame if the Tennant's don't do all they can to run that social house in a responsible manner.

Not paying your rent, for whatever reason, including not being able to afford it, is counted as making yourself intentionally homeless and therefore not eligible for any help.

 

They are still entitled to housing benefit, so they can rent privately; no money is saved by not helping them.

But the council evicted them in the first place, for non payment, so I wonder how it can make sense to spend the cost of eviction which must be a lot, legal costs, staffing, void periods etc, and then put the family up in probably just as expensive if not more so emergency accommodation. I think it's wrong on all fronts. A family who can't afford social housing clearly needs help not evicting. I don't get it. It doesn't sit well. It's cruel.

Why cant they afford their rent? If they are working then they should get additional benefits to make sure their income is sufficient to be able to afford the rent.

If they are on benefits, then they should get a housing allowance which will cover their rent.

If they do not use the money they are given for the rent to pay it then they are in default. If there is some genuine reason for this, then they should contact the Housing authority or association to explain the facts they have run into difficulties.

Its the responsibility of the tenants to be able to budget so they pay their rent as a priority. If they cant manage a budget then they should have requested to have the rent paid directly to the landlord.

As you said its the Council, then presumably they evict the people becayse they are unhappy with them as tenants i.e non payers and its unfair on other tenants who pay. They might be under a duty to rehouse, but they are likely to be less desirable properties.

Eviction doesnt happen unless its dragged on and there are plenty of opportunities to come to an agreement. Its a last resort.

Why cant they afford their rent? If they are working then they should get additional benefits to make sure their income is sufficient to be able to afford the rent.

 

If they are on benefits, then they should get a housing allowance which will cover their rent.

 

If they do not use the money they are given for the rent to pay it then they are in default. If there is some genuine reason for this, then they should contact the Housing authority or association to explain the facts they have run into difficulties.

 

Its the responsibility of the tenants to be able to budget so they pay their rent as a priority. If they cant manage a budget then they should have requested to have the rent paid directly to the landlord.

 

As you said its the Council, then presumably they evict the people becayse they are unhappy with them as tenants i.e non payers and its unfair on other tenants who pay. They might be under a duty to rehouse, but they are likely to be less desirable properties.

Eviction doesnt happen unless its dragged on and there are plenty of opportunities to come to an agreement. Its a last resort.

I sometimes think that people don't take responsibility for themselves, and expect others to do it for them. I know we haven't seen eye to eye in the past, but you are spot on with this. It takes a lot to get to evictions in rented properties, unlike owner occupants, but in cases like these a lot is down to bad personal finance management.

So what happens especially to families when for WHATEVER reason they can't afford the rents, top ups, and are evicted? Where do they go?

This is why there shouldn't be any long-term social housing. If the option does not exist, it can not be abused. The current system sees people receive funding of the state for housing that is then misappropriated for whatever reason (often because they simply aren't good with money/budgeting.)

Social housing should be aimed at the short term, helping people who have an urgent need for a roof.

If the option does not exist, it can not be abused.

What sort of argument is that? How much abuse is there in the system?

If taxes didnt exist, then thered be no tax evasion.

If laws didnt exist then nobody would break them etc.

Clearly there is a need for social housing. Not everyone can afford a mortgage. The problem is not social housing, but the fact the tenants have not paid their rent, managed their finances or reached a compromise with the Council.

They are still entitled to housing benefit, so they can rent privately; no money is saved by not helping them.

Would they be able to rent privately which is usually more expensive if they can't afford social housing? Would a private landlord take them on do you think? And what about the deposit, bond etc?

Housing benefit often doesn't cover the full cost of the rent these days.

What sort of argument is that? How much abuse is there in the system?

 

If taxes didnt exist, then thered be no tax evasion.

If laws didnt exist then nobody would break them etc.

 

Clearly there is a need for social housing. Not everyone can afford a mortgage. The problem is not social housing, but the fact the tenants have not paid their rent, managed their finances or reached a compromise with the Council.

Firstly, you pulled the argument out of its context. Secondly, your counter-argument makes no sense. You rile against the fact that I bring up abuse in the system yet then explain that the problem isn't in the social housing but with the tenants not paying their dues.

That means there is a problem with social housing, it is being abused by some. Also, why should it be up to the government to house people? What sort of backward argument is there for that? All the government needs to do is get proper funding and freedom to develop to the housing associations and decouple them from the local government as much as possible. The way housing associations are run in this country is laughable and does not fill the need that exists.

Housing benefit often doesn't cover the full cost of the rent these days.

these days?

In past days you got nothing and had to pay your own way. These days are a lot better than those days. People like you just don't see it though, it's just more more more.

Biggest problem is people think sky subscription's, cigs, booze, fancy TV's and electronics etc, are more important than paying rent, feeding and clothing their kids etc. Then blame everybody else when it all goes t*** up.

Really... can you back this up with any verifiable facts?

Actually the biggest problem is people do not have enough money to cover rent, food, bills and debt. It's that simple.

The debt is often owed directly to the council for things like emergency loans, borrowed for things like say a replacement second hand cooker, and is taken from benefits at source.

What do you think the cuts of the last few years have actually been doing to these people?