Hairyloon Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 So what is wanted are some non-profit (or maybe even charitable) housing associations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted April 21, 2010 Author Share Posted April 21, 2010 That's a highly questionable assumption. Councils do not have a good track record at keeping costs down, on ... well, just about anything in which they are ever involved. I know your saying, but I'd rather stock be in control of council or HA than a person in it purely for financial gain. Personally I'd like to see a cap to the pay of people in HA's and council organizations managing housing. Sheffield Homes for example has a £1 liability. One member of staff is paid above £175000 pa! It beggars belief. You could cut his wage down to a reasonable amount and house a family for life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 My point is, the system is unfair. Housing benefit can be channelled into profit for private individuals when it is supposedly there to house people in need of housing. It also sets a minimum level of rent for the rest of the population and keeps house prices artificially high. With the amount of repossessions about to occur, surely its better to use HB to buy properties for a government HA and then let them to those in need of housing. Rather than allowing people to have multiple houses bought for them courtesy of HB. the problem, of course is that a substantial proportion of social housing was disposed of and councils were prevented from building replacements. the only alternative to council (and its equivalent) housing is the private sector or a cardboard box, and unless and until there is a massive government/council funded building program that won't change. apart from finding the money for this program, you also have to find the land to build them on. i'm not sure if there is a proscription against housing associations buying repossessed houses, except of course that they need to find the money to buy the houses. you can't use the hb budget for his, because then there would be no money for hb for claimants. this is the unforseen consequence of the "property owning democracy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAMALOCHA! Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Maybe I'm totally ignorant about this, but I can see what chem1st is saying... I buy 10 properties on a buy to let basis. I then rent out all 10 properties to people on housing benefit. I'm getting all of my 10 mortgages paid for (and making profit) by the taxpayers. so whats wrong with that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted July 1, 2010 Author Share Posted July 1, 2010 As someone who has worked in this area for years, I have absolutely no idea what you're blithering on about. Maybe this article will enlighten you! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290906/Fraudster-family-worth-1-5m-jailed-claiming-170k-benefits.html A family built up a property portfolio worth £1.5million by claiming housing benefit, fraudulently. However, if they had rented the property to legitimate claimants, they could have built up their property portfolio legally! I'd be doing the same if I didn't think the system was a disgrace that needs to be changed, rather than moaning about it on here like I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 And it is in the Daily Mail, so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 A response from happyhippy perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northrend Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Maybe I'm totally ignorant about this, but I can see what chem1st is saying... I buy 10 properties on a buy to let basis. I then rent out all 10 properties to people on housing benefit. I'm getting all of my 10 mortgages paid for (and making profit) by the taxpayers. Then blame your government. From a personal level I can tell you that DSS tenants can be the best type as rent is often guaranteed. People aren't likely to lose their jobs and risk their rent are they? (not saying private tenants are likely to either but it's just to highlight my point) I don't see what difference it makes however if the tenant is private or DSS. NO investor buys a house intending on paying a single penny on it and yes walking away at the end with a profit. It's how we get the job done. The first rule of business is "other people's time, other people's money" and that's exactly what we do.. I won't feel any guilt when in 5-10 years time me and my family cash it all in and retire.. I can assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 11, 2010 Author Share Posted October 11, 2010 The axeman cometh.......... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100008067/osborne-to-target-further-savings-from-housing-benefit/ Rather it is to do with the way social housing landlords have been able to max out on housing benefit rents. The taxpayer has funded the enrichment of a whole new generation of Rachmanesque landlords with a huge vested interest in the benefit dependent. In any case, some way of slaying this benefit leviathan must be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 11, 2010 Share Posted October 11, 2010 So what is wanted are some non-profit (or maybe even charitable) housing associations. Which is what all Housing Associations are already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.