Cyclone Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Yes it is as anybody, given a few exceptions, has the right to apply for one. Applying for social housing is a right (at the moment), having such a house is not or everybody who applied would get one. No it shouldn't and I'm glad to say that it isn't done that way. More should be built and the rents should be capped as its a self defeating strategy in upping the rents. Rents should be at the market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Applying for social housing is a right (at the moment), having such a house is not or everybody who applied would get one. Rents should be at the market value. The advantage then would be that each council would have more money to spend on other things, maybe even build some more council houses and rent them out at market rate, if they built enough it may even fetch market rate down or at least stabilize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 The advantage then would be that each council would have more money to spend on other things, maybe even build some more council houses and rent them out at market rate, if they built enough it may even fetch market rate down or at least stabilize it. That might (IMO) cause more problems. If properties were rented at the market rate and the proceeds from property rental were used solely to maintain existing properties and to build new ones, then eventually the market rate would indeed fall. It wold fall to the point where the cost of housing would be just that. Cost - not cost plus profit. Social housing would be self-financing. If people wanted to own their own houses they should still be entitled to do so, but those ho didn't want to lay out the capital sum to buy a house would still be able to obtain housing. There would be no private landlords (nor would there be any need for private landlords.) Why should councils be allowed to divert money from housing to pay for 'other things'? - That would open the door to all sorts of abuses ... or rather keep the door open, as it is now. One question though: Who would decide which houses were rented by local government officials and local government staff? "Rent row housing boss sacked from post Norwich’s housing chief has been sacked from her £62,000 a year post for bringing the council into ‘severe disrepute’... The council said: ‘In September 2008, as the head of service responsible for the management of the decommissioning of the sheltered housing units, she moved into Greyhound Opening" [a sheltered housing project from which she had moved the existing tenants] and took a joint tenancy with her partner, who was also her work colleague... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 You don't consider your parents to be part of your family? No and I have already stated the legal reasons why. A family consists of adults and children and when the get to be over the age of 18 they are then adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Applying for social housing is a right (at the moment) Glad you agree and it probably will be for some time to come. Rents should be at the market value. No they shouldn't as they are termed as affordable rents and were never designed to mirror the private rent-able section. I think you will find that the majority of benefit claimants are in social housing which means by increasing the rents you automatically increase the benefits budget. Although the latter is now being capped its better economically to keep the rents low in the first place. Its the high private rents that should be capped as they used to be in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 No and I have already stated the legal reasons why. I wonder if you've told your parents that they're no longer family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Glad you agree and it probably will be for some time to come. I'm not sure you understood my point. Applying doesn't guarantee that you will get it. So the right to apply can exist forever, but hopefully the right to actually be granted social housing will be restricted to those that actually need it. No they shouldn't as they are termed as affordable rents and were never designed to mirror the private rent-able section. I think you will find that the majority of benefit claimants are in social housing which means by increasing the rents you automatically increase the benefits budget. True, although since that money is paid back to the council it's purely a paper exercise. Although the latter is now being capped its better economically to keep the rents low in the first place. Its the high private rents that should be capped as they used to be in the past. The market should dictate the price of private rental, as it does now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I'm not sure you understood my point. Applying doesn't guarantee that you will get it. But I do understand your point, the fact is though it is still a right that everyone can exercise and just because there is no guarantee that you would get one doesn't detract from the fact that it is right. One that is also regulated by law. True, although since that money is paid back to the council it's purely a paper exercise. Its not just a paper exercise as any increase in rents has the effect of inflating the governments benefits budget which means the taxpayer pays more. Councils up until recently did not get the full amount credited to them as the government took the whole lot and then dished out what they wanted to. What was given back was just a percentage of the rents paid and one of the reasons repairs and upgrades were rarely carried out and also why no new stock was built. The market should dictate the price of private rental, as it does now. That I do agree with but what should happen is that people in private accommodation should not be paid benefits that then go to the private landlords. If its private then it should be just that and no subsidies/benefits given, that way private rents would possibly come down to a reasonable level instead of being over inflated. At the moment the private sector relies on people being able to claim benefits for private rental and that has the effect of increasing rents because they are then guaranteed a minimum amount. Basically the taxpayer is subsidising private stock and it would be better for all if that money was spent on new affordable social housing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 But I do understand your point, the fact is though it is still a right that everyone can exercise and just because there is no guarantee that you would get one doesn't detract from the fact that it is right. One that is also regulated by law. Nobody has ever disputed that though. Social housing is not a right. That was the statement I made and it's still correct whether applying for social housing is a right or not. Its not just a paper exercise as any increase in rents has the effect of inflating the governments benefits budget which means the taxpayer pays more. It's completely a paper exercise as the money goes to the council and could be either returned directly to central government or saved by reducing direct funding. If state housing is being provided and the rent paid for by the state then the money is only being shuffled around on paper within the state. Councils up until recently did not get the full amount credited to them as the government took the whole lot and then dished out what they wanted to. What was given back was just a percentage of the rents paid and one of the reasons repairs and upgrades were rarely carried out and also why no new stock was built. That I do agree with but what should happen is that people in private accommodation should not be paid benefits that then go to the private landlords. If its private then it should be just that and no subsidies/benefits given, that way private rents would possibly come down to a reasonable level instead of being over inflated. At the moment the private sector relies on people being able to claim benefits for private rental and that has the effect of increasing rents because they are then guaranteed a minimum amount. Basically the taxpayer is subsidising private stock and it would be better for all if that money was spent on new affordable social housing. A policy like this would cause a boom in the people wanting social housing (as they could no longer pay for their private rent) and a crash in the bottom end of the private rental market, which at least might get some housing stock back on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 managed to grab an ex-council house a few years back for £44,000....its now trebled in value...because the estate is nice and the school is first class....just waiting for dave and cleggy to offload some more.... in greece they evicted a whole community so they could sell off their housing stock....come on dave/cleggy get your fingers out...the country needs the money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.