Council tenants to be checked out financially

[INTERVIEWER]

If a social housing tenant is in employment, they had better pray that they don't get a promotion. Because under this ConDem government, success is rewarded with being kicked out of your home.

 

Social Housing tenants insecurity fears about the roof over their head have now been massively increased...

[SHsheff]

I don't know about council tenants but I do know a little about housing association tenants.

 

Is it fair that someone who needs social housing pays £73/week to rent the identical house as their neighbour who's having to fund a mortgage of say £130,000, say £430/month.

 

Not too bad at first - you could say that it's 'affordable housing' for those in need. However, if the circumstances of the tenant improve, is it really fair that they should live in the same home as their neighbour for less money? When they could now afford to buy or rent their own home, on commercial rates?

 

The days of state-provided housing for life should have far gone, and should be replaced by housing for those in need, for the period in which they ARE in need.

 

Tenants who could afford to exist in the free market are taking accommodation from whose who are now in need. Subsidised housing should be means tested, and people moving into it should be aware that it's only for a relatively short time to allow them to get back on their feet (aged and disabled people excluded).

[INTERVIEWER]

What's fair about the government penalising people who find a job, or take a promotion, by evicting them from their home? Snooping and spying on people, to determine if they are doing anything to better oneself, and removing the security of social housing tenancies mean that some very dark days lie ahead...

[donkey]

 

This is the fundamental root of your problem, you think that money grows on trees and that someone is somehow entitled to a council house. Neither is true.

 

Money does effectively 'grow on trees' for the people who have enough to make a living speculating, especially on property. They buy a house when the market is on the up, and when it's value increases the mortgage is covered by the corresponding rent increase, and they are able to buy another one, thus ending up owning houses which other people have effectively paid for. It is these 'market' pressures which push up the value of housing to the ridiculous levels it is now at, utterly unrelated to the value of the labour and materials which went into the building.

 

For those people who make fortunes through pushing up house prices, the money really has 'grown on trees.' But somebody has to pay for it. Like the people who are forced to rent indefinitely and pay off other people's mortgages, because the comodification of housing has pushed prices out of their reach, and those unfortunate people who go to buy a family home just before these artificial pressures end up in an inevitable crash (at which time aforementioned speculators can make even more money by snapping uip repossesed properties). This is the root of the problem. If housing were protected from speculation, many more people would have the choice to buy, and rents would remain stable and reasonable, thus the need for public housing would be massively diminshed.

 

We wouldn't accept our water supply being put on an open and unregulated market so the price of it's supply could be relentlessly pushed up at the whim of speculators, and neither should we accept it with that other vital neccessity - housing. Unfortunately, everyone has been encouraged to become a mini property speculator in the last three decades, and now there is way too much vested interest to hope this problem will ever be taken seriously. Roll on the next property market boom and crash!

[shortcrust]

Private rental property isn't for life, and I don't see why council and social housing should be any different. I had to leave a flat I'd been renting for a few years because the landlord was selling up. It wasn't the end of the world!!

[SHsheff]

Money does effectively 'grow on trees' for the people who have enough to make a living speculating, especially on property. They buy a house when the market is on the up, and when it's value increases the mortgage is covered by the corresponding rent increase, and they are able to buy another one, thus ending up owning houses which other people have effectively paid for. It is these 'market' pressures which push up the value of housing to the ridiculous levels it is now at, utterly unrelated to the value of the labour and materials which went into the building. For those people who make fortunes through pushing up house prices, the money really has 'grown on trees.' But somebody has to pay for it. Like the people who are forced to rent indefinitely and pay off other people's mortgages, because the comodification of housing has pushed prices out of their reach, and those unfortunate people who go to buy a family home just before these artificial pressures end up in an inevitable crash (at which time aforementioned speculators can make even more money by snapping uip repossesed properties). This is the root of the problem. If housing were protected from speculation, many more people would have the choice to buy, and rents would remain stable and reasonable, thus the need for public housing would be massively diminshed. We wouldn't accept our water supply being put on an open and unregulated market so the price of it's supply could be relentlessly pushed up at the whim of speculators, and neither should we accept it with that other vital neccessity - housing. Unfortunately, everyone has been encouraged to become a mini property speculator in the last three decades, and now there is way too much vested interest to hope this problem will ever be taken seriously. Roll on the next property market boom and crash!

 

Any chance of you drawing breath and putting paragraphs to make it easier to read?

[INTERVIEWER]

End of council houses for life 'will hurt needy'

 

By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor.

 

 

Ministers faced accusations last night of penalising the needy as they sounded the death knell for the days of an automatic council house for life. New council and housing association tenants will be offered fixed-tenancy agreements for as little as two years, starting in 2011. They could be evicted after that period if their income increases.

 

Grant Shapps, the Housing minister, said he expected future contracts of a "significant length" – between five and 20 years – to be the norm under the new system, but that the minimum agreement could be two years. The eight million existing social tenants will not be affected by the moves. New tenants will have the right to pass on their home to a spouse or partner upon their death, but not to other relatives.

 

Under detailed plans published yesterday, councils and housing associations would be able to charge rent of up to 80 per cent of the market rate for their homes to enable them to raise more cash to build or acquire more properties.

 

Mr Shapps said the "out-of-date" current approach to housing tenancies had seen waiting lists rocket and was unfair to families who genuinely needed social homes. "They trap existing tenants in poverty, often in homes that aren't suitable for them."

 

But the homeless charity Shelter said that the new rules would do little to tackle Britain's housing crisis, in which people were losing their homes every two minutes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/end-of-council-houses-for-life-will-hurt-needy-2141129.html

[SHsheff]

End of council houses for life 'will hurt needy'

 

Council houses for life wouldn't have been so bad had it not been for the right to buy policy.THAT was what caused the current problem.

 

Social rent would be fine if there were no right to buy. Can't/won't buy? ok, rent for ever but don't benefit from rising house prices. Take the plunge to buy? enter the market.

 

Simple.

[Vague_Boy]

Persoanlly I happen to think everyone should be entitled to a decent home, don't you?

 

Shame many are priced out by the housing boom of 1997-2008. Who shall we blame for letting that get out of control, I know, let's ask Gordon "I will not let house prices get out of control" Brown.

 

(BTW, the increase in property prices over the last 15 years accounts for much of the so-called increase of the UK's net worth mention in your signature. And the actual figure is £6.7 trillion (link) NOT the rather vague (and willfully erroneous) 7-9 trillion you quote.

[Cyclone]

Money does effectively 'grow on trees' for the people who have enough to make a living speculating, especially on property. They buy a house when the market is on the up, and when it's value increases the mortgage is covered by the corresponding rent increase, and they are able to buy another one, thus ending up owning houses which other people have effectively paid for. It is these 'market' pressures which push up the value of housing to the ridiculous levels it is now at, utterly unrelated to the value of the labour and materials which went into the building.

These things are called investment, and there are no guaranteed returns. You invest your money, you take a risk and if it comes through you get more money back. It hasn't grown on tree's, it's been at work and taking a risk.

For those people who make fortunes through pushing up house prices, the money really has 'grown on trees.' But somebody has to pay for it. Like the people who are forced to rent indefinitely and pay off other people's mortgages, because the comodification of housing has pushed prices out of their reach, and those unfortunate people who go to buy a family home just before these artificial pressures end up in an inevitable crash (at which time aforementioned speculators can make even more money by snapping uip repossesed properties). This is the root of the problem. If housing were protected from speculation, many more people would have the choice to buy, and rents would remain stable and reasonable, thus the need for public housing would be massively diminshed.

The housing bubble was a bad thing of course, and largely created by cheap credit and ignored by the government.

 

We wouldn't accept our water supply being put on an open and unregulated market so the price of it's supply could be relentlessly pushed up at the whim of speculators,

But it was okay with gas and electricity...

and neither should we accept it with that other vital neccessity - housing.

Social housing has a fairly short and rather unspectacular history, most of the western world manages fine with an open market for housing. If regulation is needed then that can be done, social housing is not the only option.

Unfortunately, everyone has been encouraged to become a mini property speculator in the last three decades, and now there is way too much vested interest to hope this problem will ever be taken seriously. Roll on the next property market boom and crash!

It's still falling right now isn't it. Predictions for up to 10% drops next year? Whilst inflation continues to run at what, 4%? A couple more years and the long term averages will be back in line.