Employed to be given council house "priority"

[Oswaldtwistle]

The bit about needing 2 b in work 4 2 yrs is hypocritical

Yes it's a real problem with this. For example if you work for 18 months, lose your job and are unemployed for 3 months, then find another job do you lose entitlement for 2 years?

given tories want people 2 move into short term work

Hmmm. A lot of 'Social Conservatives' actually see the problem with short term work. There was a piece in the Telegraph a couple of years ago which went along the lines of "the left bemoan the demise of jobs for life and the right bemoan the demise of marriage for life and strong families but in reality the two things went together'. I can't find it now but it really struck a chord with me.

 

[trevhagl]

Yes it's a real problem with this. For example if you work for 18 months, lose your job and are unemployed for 3 months, then find another job do you lose entitlement for 2 years?



Hmmm. A lot of 'Social Conservatives' actually see the problem with short term work. There was a piece in the Telegraph a couple of years ago which went along the lines of "the left bemoan the demise of jobs for life and the right bemoan the demise of marriage for life and strong families but in reality the two things went together'. I can't find it now but it really struck a chord with me.

you mean there are NICE Tories?

 

[Grandma Death]

Until the law changes, local authorities will have a duty to house those in priority need.

Yeah and priority need is defined as in homeless legislation-AFAIK councils couldn't arbitrarily change the goalposts as to what defines need so I cant see them getting away with this...correct me if Im wrong.

 

[nightbreed]

I see where the Tories are going with this. Council houses for the employed. They can then be encouraged to buy the property at huge discounts under 'right to buy'.

Meanwhile put those on social into private rented sector in order for any benefits to go towards paying the landlords mortgage off!!

Brilliant.

 

[William of Walworth]

Grandstanding.

"Re-prioritising" housing priority away from need would give Westminster (or any other council) an explosion of street homelessness that'd make the late '80s and early '90s look like a cakewalk by comparison.

I agree with the second part of this, but to what extent is this just grandstanding/kiteflying do you think VP? Surely there's more to it than that ....

 

[rover07]

Council Housing should be allocated by a lottery. The lucky winners getting a decent home at an affordable rent.

At £1 a ticket. Local councils would make a fortune!

 

[spring-peeper]

If someone who isn't currently employed and then finds a job, does his rent go up?

If an employed person in public housing looses his job, does council drop their rent?

 

[rover07]

If someone who isn't currently employed and then finds a job, does his rent go up?

If an employed person in public housing looses his job, does council drop their rent?

No they dont. Im sure Tory councils would love to make tenants pay 40% of their wages in rent though.

 

[spring-peeper]

No.

thanks

 

[Thora]

If someone who isn't currently employed and then finds a job, does his rent go up?

If an employed person in public housing looses his job, does council drop their rent?

The rent stays the same. If you are unemployed you can claim housing benefit to cover some or all of your rent, but you can claim that regardless of whether you rent from a private or social landlord.

 

[spring-peeper]

The rent stays the same. If you are unemployed you can claim housing benefit to cover some or all of your rent, but you can claim that regardless of whether you rent from a private or social landlord.

Nice system.

 

[susie12]

The situation in my block of four housing association (just transferred from the Council) is as follows;

One flat is empty as the elderly demented tenant has been taken into hospital after two years of daily theft and constant nuisance to the other tenants.

One flat is empty 90% of the time as the tenant comes in to pick up his post and benefit cheques and stays maybe one night a week to presumably fulfil "residency" requirements, - so basically the flat is a postal drop for him

The other flat is empty 90% of the time as the tenant who is long term unemployed has found a girlfriend with whom he now lives, visiting the flat to stay over when City are playing. Perhaps he might feel differently if he was paying his own rent and Council tax.

The old lady's flat will presumably be relet when she dies , but the other two are being paid for by people who basically do not need them.

My point is that social housing should be allocated to people who need housing, whether employed or no.

 

[tarannau]

For all you know, resident no.2 could be acting as a carer for a relative and resident no.3 could crash and burn with his partner within the week. Notwithstanding the exact situations, it's a bit ripe to suggest that you know their 'need' for housing in the longer term based on quick judgments, nor that removing the stability of their housing situation would pay societal dividends.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah and priority need is defined as in homeless legislation-AFAIK councils couldn't arbitrarily change the goalposts as to what defines need so I cant see them getting away with this...correct me if Im wrong.

Local authorities tend to exercise "wriggle room" in the current legislation, which is why different LAs may have slightly different housing prioritisation, but they can't vary away from their current mode without legislative change, which is why I reckon this is grandstanding. Westminster are back to their Thatcher-era role of flying kites for Tory Central office policy initiatives.

They are cunts and the children of cunts. may their orifices be infested with fungal infections that produce foul-smelling green pus.

 

[marty21]

Westminster do have form for dodgy dealings within housing - for years they have exported the homeless - using temporary accommodation outside the borough - then you had the gerrymandering Lady Porter years - moving applicants who weren't working into labour wards (including Absestos-ridden blocks) and selling off flats in the Tory wards. I think they are grandstanding and hoping that the current Tory plans for housing do come off - they think of themselves as a pioneering Council, thinking the unthinkable sort of thing.

I show flats atm under CBL, haven't got any figures to hand, but a fair percentage ime of the applicants are working - less than half though tbf - on the Estate I manage, I'd say at least 40% are on HB or partial HB.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I see where the Tories are going with this. Council houses for the employed. They can then be encouraged to buy the property at huge discounts under 'right to buy'.

This would, If I'm recalling the current legislation correctly, require new legislation to remove the maximum discount cap (IIRC either 20 or 30% of market price) that was put in place by new Labour, because even 30% off of market price would still make a mortgage unaffordable for many people in local authority social housing.
There's also an issue in that 30 years of the residualisation of social housing, with no local authority new build for about 25 years means that "Right to Buy" has already plucked all the cherries available, in terms of local authority housing: Most of the "good stuff" has already gone, so saleability becomes a very real issue.

Meanwhile put those on social into private rented sector in order for any benefits to go towards paying the landlords mortgage off!!

Brilliant.

Housing legislation in the last 3 decades has been doing this anyway. The HB/LHA changes have merely put the move on more of a statutory footing.

Sick, isn't it?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree with the second part of this, but to what extent is this just grandstanding/kiteflying do you think VP? Surely there's more to it than that ....

The main thrust is kite-flying,IMO, because there's no remit in current legislation to allow such a re-prioritisation to be made.

However, if enough other (Tory and Lib-Dem-controlled) local authorities take up the cause, then they'll generate enough interest in such a policy (even though the views of the councillors trumpeting such a legislative change almost certainly reflect the views of their constituents) that the ConDem government will be able to put forward a bill.

Cuntish.

 

[marty21]

current RTB discounts are very low at the moment - flat rate, maybe £20k off market prices - hardly worth doing in London at all atm

 

[ViolentPanda]

No they dont. Im sure Tory councils would love to make tenants pay 40% of their wages in rent though.

I've been scratching my head for the last week trying to remember the name of a housing "rule of thumb" I heard about in the early 1980s which rated total housing cost (rent/mortgage and rates) excluding maintenance as roughly 30% of NET income.
I've also been scratching my head recently trying to find any friend or acquaintance who isn't spending at least 40% of their net income on housing costs, some of them are spending 55%+ for basic housing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The rent stays the same. If you are unemployed you can claim housing benefit to cover some or all of your rent, but you can claim that regardless of whether you rent from a private or social landlord.

Plus you can also claim partial Housing Benefit if you're employed but your income is under a threshold.

 

[weepiper]

If I didn't get HB and tax credits I'd be paying more in rent alone than I earn.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nice system.

No, it isn't. It's not "something for nothing", it's paid for from taxation, and because even the ignoramuses in government realise (though they won't publicly acknowledge the issue, because it flies in the face of their rhetoric about "welfare scroungers") that most claimants are short-term, being tided over between jobs, where they'll effectively refund the system through general taxation of their income.

 

[marty21]

If I didn't get HB and tax credits I'd be paying more in rent alone than I earn.

if the government brought in rent controls, like the fair rent system (still active for pre 1989 tenants in England, not sure about Scotland) HB bill would be reduced, and private landlords would 'share the pain'

 

[spring-peeper]

No, it isn't. It's not "something for nothing", it's paid for from taxation, and because even the ignoramuses in government realise (though they won't publicly acknowledge the issue, because it flies in the face of their rhetoric about "welfare scroungers") that most claimants are short-term, being tided over between jobs, where they'll effectively refund the system through general taxation of their income.

I actually meant it when I posted "nice system". I didn't consider it "something for nothing". I was just curious. Thanks for the inf, though.

 

[weepiper]

if the government brought in rent controls, like the fair rent system (still active for pre 1989 tenants in England, not sure about Scotland) HB bill would be reduced, and private landlords would 'share the pain'

my situation is not 'the norm' I suppose, I can't work more than two days a week because my childcare bill would be too high (if I worked full time my rent would be about 55% of what I'd be earning but the childcare bill would more than wipe out the rest, which would make eating difficult). This flat is actually by far the cheapest I've seen in the area too, it's about £200 a month under the maximum LHA amount.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If I didn't get HB and tax credits I'd be paying more in rent alone than I earn.

Doesn't surprise me. If you live in a "popular" city (you're in Edinburgh and have to rent privately, IIRC?) and happen to not be a "high-flyer", you're basically fucked in terms of housing cost, not least because you're at the mercy of the private rental market, which has sod-all controls on it except so-called "market forces".
What an absolutely disgusting state of affairs, that so many people are in your situation, and yet the government doesn't make moves to help you, but rather to make life more bloody difficult.
Still, they're consistent in their cuntishness. I'll give them that.

 

[Greebo]

But rent controls are Big Government - everything that Dave and his chums claim not to stand for.

Big society is (among other things) small time (buy to let?) landlords charging whatever they can get away with.

 

[marty21]

Council Housing should be allocated by a lottery. The lucky winners getting a decent home at an affordable rent.

At £1 a ticket. Local councils would make a fortune!

wouldn't make that much tbh, most London Boroughs have thousands on their waiting lists and re-house maybe a few hundred per year in Council housing - the rest go into Housing Association housing , at a quid a time, not a big money spinner tbf -

mind you if there was a massive council house building programme - creating jobs and that

 

[ViolentPanda]

if the government brought in rent controls, like the fair rent system (still active for pre 1989 tenants in England, not sure about Scotland) HB bill would be reduced, and private landlords would 'share the pain'

Won't happen, though. Fair rent legislation would mean "red-taping" all those buy-to-let entrepreneurs, punishing the already-wealthy rather than us disgusting plebs.

 

[marty21]

Won't happen, though. Fair rent legislation would mean "red-taping" all those buy-to-let entrepreneurs, punishing the already-wealthy rather than us disgusting plebs.

I know - labour at 13 years and they didn't do it