Donate SIGN UP

Social housing

Avatar Image
tonywiltshire | 12:37 Wed 12th Oct 2011 | News
73 Answers
Social housing should be reserved for people on low incomes; it is unfair for people with a high income to occupy social housing when people on a low income are forced to rent privately. I know incomes can reduce as well as increase but would it not be fairer when the joint income reaches, say twice the average income, to be given notice to leave so that a low-income family can occupy social housing. If circumstances reduce income the original family can re-apply for social housing.

I know this will produce some anomalies but would it not be fairer than being given social housing for life regardless of income?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 73rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
Absolutley.
13:28 Wed 12th Oct 2011
Absolutley.
No. Most tenants when finances improve either apply for the right to buy (thus taking the property permanently) or buy in the private sector. The area that needs urgent attention is one or two tenants living in a four bedroom property, there is a scheme whereby people can swap.
It's always seemed a difficult one ethically when you have one elderly person living alone in a family home.... should you move them away from the familiar environment where they may have local informal support networks to free up a property for a family or do you let them stay bearing in mind that the effect of moving them may be to incur care costs, or cause significant distress
Not sure of the answer... but to create rules where this could happen without assessing personal circumstances seems fraught with problems
Bob Crow doesn't agree with you . He is reported to earn £145k a year plus expenses and only pays £150 rent for his large detached council house. Which would cost £300 rent if rented privately.
oooh I've already had this argument on here once. Absolutley agree although Rowan has a very good point.
So modeller is your objection on of principle or just the politics of envy that someone has negotiated a better deal than you?
Bob Crowe earns enought to either rent or buy in the private sector, thereby freeing up a property for the kind of people the OP is talking about.

but Bob Crowe being the Champagne socialist that he is knows a good deal when he sees one and is happy to adopt the do as i say not as i do method
It should also be reserved for those responsible people in work, not for full time benefit claimants.
If benefit claimers couldn't have a council property where would they live? In shanty towns?
Question Author
Not so brenden most social housing is now owned by housing associations who do not sell their properties.
At least people with incomes who occupy social housing are paying rent, council tax etc.
my issue with social housing is the right to buy scheme and the large discounts. I dont think it should be allowed, especially as these houses are not being replaced.
Never have agreed with the right to buy council property tonywiltshire, and of course councils have not built much over the last 20 years.
not so Brenden, a lot of the people in council properties will be unemployed and not paying council tax etc
So if i live in a council property all my life, be on a lowish wage, then get a decent job which pays a fair, decent salary, i have to move, to where exactly, as London rents are already beyond most peoples pocket. Leaving behind friends, family ties, not sure that works for me.
Not sure i understand that because you live in council property you as like or not will be unemployed, that doesn't apply either, everyone i know, have known who lives or lived in council homes, paid their way, had or still have jobs.
Nor me em, liked the bit about if circumstances reduce income the original family can re-apply for social housing - how many years will that take
Add in that right to buy has any number of exceptions, anyone who has been a bankrupt for a starter, and many homes are not saleable due to being needed for elderly residents.
Just who is going to monitor that the tenant(s) income has reached twice the average??
Why is everybody assuming that anyone being forced to move, such as an elderly person occupying a 3/4 bedroom house will be moved out of their area away from friends and family. That does not have to be the case at all nor should it be. They should be rehoused as near to their immediate area as possible. And I'm afraid lots of us have to move when we are old, whether living in social housing or private. I expect there are a few on here who like me have had to downsize to release funds in their old age or because we can't afford to maintain a larger property.

1 to 20 of 73rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Social housing

Answer Question >>