Camerons plans to reform social housing.

[Keef]

You are making an assumption based on what?

The fact I'm a keyworker, and know a fair bit about the schemes, and the fact I am good friends with an architect who works on keyworker buildings, including the one in Greenwich that I'm talking about.

I don't just type things because I think them.

[GinaG3]

My heart leapt out of my mouth there thinking I was going to get judged. Thank you for understanding, and you Keef!!

You know far too much information DJKQ, come and fight my corner for me. I often think of becoming a squatter although this would be frowned upon too (could never with my child though anyway), that is living the dream. I would take up in some millionaire property developer/landlords swish pad, that'll teach them.

Even the condition of our flat was disgusting. When we viewed the walls were all dripping with tobacco staining, there was dog poo all over the carpet, the kitchen units were hanging off the wall, holes in the doors and yellow UPVC frames. I hated it, but was so desperate. The landlord said somebody else on the council incentive scheme was interested too and it would be the first person to come up with the 'extra' deposit. I sorted this out first as I had the money stashed away for white goods (these were provided in the flat so I didn't need to buy and instead gave this money as the extra deposit - I might add it took me 1 year to save this little amount of money, but it was a lot to me). She told us the flat would be available after her decorator has painted which could be up to 5 weeks, or else she offered to buy materials and we could do it ourselves and be in within a week. We stupidly opted for this option, we were mega desperate. She spent all of about ?100 tops on paint and brushes and we did it ourselves (saving her hundreds, of course). She replaced carpets also. I had to battle the kitchen, which was covered in the previous tenant 3 years of chip fat and grease, dog hair in the fridge and freezer also. Her previous tenant never paid a deposit and the landlord never requested one (stupid!) and had completely trashed the place. This was her reasoning for extra deposit to sort out the mess from the previous tenant and to insure we wouldn't do the same. I wouldn't anyway as I like to keep a respectful and tidy home, but of course she only had my word for that. We were left with no heating for 3 weeks after the boiler got shut off by the gas board, it could of killed us as it was leaking carbon monoxide. I had warned her several times as it wasn't firing up properly. I HATE LANDLORDS (not all)!

Our rent stands at ?1,096pcm, LHA pay maximum ?231 at the time we found our tenancy meaning the rent actually being paid to her is only ?934pcm (correct me if I'm wrong) she has so far not mentioned the missing ?100+ in rent a month. Can I be made to pay this at the end of the tenancy? I hope not, that would leave me in upwards of ?1200 worth of arrears.

I have seen in excess of 200 bids on some places on Southwark bidding systems. It just doesn't matter to people whether they are living in the middle of the ghetto as they are so desperate they will take anything. The real world is hard though, if your living in the depth of high poverty we have within Southwark, in social housing especially its going to be hard for you to get out. Poverty is spreading across the country and eating up people's lives while the government let us rot. Thanks Dave! Some would consider my life to just be starting, I consider it nearly down the pan. I'm in a state of financial depression that I cannot ever see lifting, just getting worse..

[DJKillaQueen]

Keef, are you saying that flats built for key workers are not being sold to key workers?

Gina, dangerous boilers and gas fittings are a very serious matter under the law. ALL landlords are required to have a gas safety inpection and boiler service done annually and you can ask to see a copy of the gas safety certificate at any time. Failure to comply is a criminal offence.

You do have rights also. You are entitled to challenge what the rent you pay should be and can go to a rent committee tribunal if you think the rent you are being charged is above what you should be charged on a property in that condition (compared to others of similar).

The rent you are paying is average for the borough. I'm going to pm you and discuss your tenancy rather than dicussing details in the public forum (just to protect your privacy). The good news is that the LHA are paying what they deem to be a fair rent - so you are unlikely to have to make up the shortfall. If asked for the money, refuse and take the matter to a fair rent committee (the landlord can not evict you during the rent tribunal process either and they have to accept the outcome) and if the landlord wins it would be the LHA who would have to pay the difference. If the LHA wins then the Landlord is owed nothing.

Housing Associations and Councils regularly challenge rents where they are forced to place people in the private sector (which is why some landlords won't take referals) so it's not uncommon for Landlords to be forced to accept lower rents and anyone who is a tenant can challenge their rent in the private sector if they think it's too high compared to like for like properties in the area.

[GinaG3]

Great help! I am wondering what your area of work is, you know an awful lot of on a variety of subjects. The knowledge fountain, huh? Much appreciated though. A slight weight off my mind.

Would welcome anymore advice, you can certainly PM me as I agree with privacy :)

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's not as straightforward as one would like DJKQ

"Jonathan Glancey is right to welcome the allocation of 25% of the flats in the Strata tower at Elephant and Castle as "affordable" homes (Spin city, G2, 19 July), but all is not going smoothly with the realisation of this policy. A friend of mine is trying to buy/rent one of these units and finding that mortgage lenders are not yet convinced about the value of the flats. A private house-building firm would normally have lined up some mortgage banks keen to lend, but the housing association in this case leaves it up to purchasers. So, effectively, the "affordable" flats will only become affordable once lenders are persuaded that the housing association has not in fact priced them at above lenders' estimates of their market value."

[expat]

>And we also need to regulate private sector rents (as indeed happens very successfully in other europoean countries).

which coountris wold that be? With links please...

[????]

Germany has a long established and huge private sector renting sector with massive tenant security. I think almost for life if you pay your rent (and so many people from all sections of society choose to rent long term rather than buy) much of this property is infact owned by the banks and insurance companies who just hold onto it long term as a solid rental income...no housing booms in germany to inflate their assets value. This is infact why many germans have significant savings as they've not put it all down as a deposit on house but often, on paper, have less wealth in terms of a few hundred grand 'asset' as in a house than us - of course until you retire and decide to move to the Isle of Sky that asset is largely illiquid and not reallty wealth at all. The private rental sector here hardly does anything but encourage those who can afford it and want to put down roots to buy.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's very interesting Sean. I do know that there was disdain that Southwark Council were not themselves building any council owned homes as part of the development. It's not usually the case that Housing Associations price at higher than market value (usually the opposite in fact) so this might reflect the current nerves that banks have at the moment about lending to effectively lower income buyers. We'll watch and see what happens.

France also regulates private sector rents Expat and forces landlords to offer long term leases so that tenants are secure. The result is that, like Germany, as many people rent as buy and are more than happy to do so as they are not seeing more than half their salaries go to their landlords. Neither Germany nor France are suffering negative equity for it.

We have the most inflated housing market in Europe.

[expat]

well in France they have tenancy rent control so any rent increase is tied to the CPI however once the property is empty the rent can be increased by any amount.

Germany have rent control but only in some appartment complexes - it is true that fewer Germans buy houses that is partly because houses in Germany are very expensive.

[expat]

>The council is not paying capital or interest to banks because the property they own is mostly now paid for

So if - and I am not sure it is factual - Southwark Concil owns or nearly oen all the property where did they get the monies to but/build these propeties?

[expat]

>

>I would go further and say that if eligibility to remain in a council home is to be linked to salary - then the same >should be true for the private sector. So if you rent a house with a salary of say 37K (with a rent you can afford) in the >private sector...and then suddenly get a Job that pays ?60k...you also should be forced to move to somewhere with a higher >rent......

Most people I think move when their salary goes up anyway. Also chasing the job is quite normal if the job moves to somewhere that is not commutable. BBC move to Manchester springs to mind. Personally I have lived in over 15 places over the years - some better than others....c'est la vie

[Brendan]

There a big difference between moving out of choice for reasons which normally involve an improvement in your circumstance and being forced to move out of your family out of your home into a worse situation.

But you know, c'est la vie. That?s the way it goes. It?s not you and your family getting kicked out of your home is it, [expletive removed].

[Brendan]

Sorry but do you have any idea how insulting it is making comments like that comparing moving by choice to chase money and a family being evicted from their home and the damage that will cause to their lives.

People like you sometimes show your true colours with comments like that.

[sophiesofa]

Um Brendan I think your last sentence is horrible - please edit it. I've reported the message but it being a saturday night admin might have better things to do. Thanks

Edited to say the post before, we cross posted.

[Brendan]

No. A throw away comment like, c'est la vie, when talking about people's live being ripped apart is horrible. If anyone has any issue with it I will be more than happy to tell them what I think of them to their face.

[sophiesofa]

I find you calling him a c word offensive. Of course you're entitled to disagree with expat but name calling is just not on. We're in the drawing room not the pub and I don't think it's right. I agree c'est la vie was not called for but you (in my opinion) could have risen above it and not been so rude.

[Brendan]

If the chair takes exception to my language, as I?m sure they will, that?s fair enough and I will not complain. There are however situations when there is no point arguing with people and I?m not nor have I ever been someone not to call it as I see it. I?d say the same thing to someone who was trying to argue that rape is ok as long as it doesn?t happen to them.

[expat]

so Brendan did you already get banned from the surrey forums due to bad langue etc?

The moving around was in responce to the salary going from 37K to 60K.

[Marmora Man]

There seems to be much bluster, some rhetoric, some pure spite but little light in this thread. I had thought to propose renaming it ?The DJKQ Blog? as probably 65% of its content is authored by DJKQ.

However, I?d like put a simple point of view forward for discussion. First four assumptions:

1. Social housing is meant to be for those most in need

2. Today there is, for a variety of reasons, insufficient social housing to meet the demand of everyone who is finding it difficult to find and afford a home (rented or purchased)

3. Most welfare benefits, and social housing is a form of welfare benefit, are allocated on the basis of income (or lack thereof)

4. For the truly dependent there should always be some form of social housing but for many, social housing should be something that is transitory and getting on and moving out of social housing should be an aspiration. Many have made such a transition through their life from low cost flats to a comfortable private home as their career / life became more successful. Remaining in social housing while also earning significantly more than the average wage seems, to me, selfish.

Therefore, I suggest, given the current state of provision of social housing there must be some form of selection AND, ideally, some growth in the social housing sector. At present, until there is less pressure on social housing, there is a logic to allocating, and removing, social housing on the basis of income.

At the same time steps must be taken to improve the supply of housing and / or restrict demand.

To improve supply ?

a. Planning restrictions that restrict the provision of appropriate social and private housing in the areas in which it is required should be changed to encourage building. There are, approximately 20 million households in UK. Setting a target (hateful word these days) of a 1% growth in ALL housing would create 200,000 new units of accommodation a year ? over 5 years a million new homes would reduce pressure dramatically (and possibly prices of private houses).

b. Provide incentives for private & corporate landlords (along with appropriate regulation of standards, safety et al ? I am not proposing a return to Rachmanism) to let out properties.

c. Set in train, yet another drive to free up the many many empty properties across UK, but particularly in large towns, for the rental market.

To reduce demand (for social housing):

a. Look to reduce net immigration ? UK is a small island, the growth rate of the current resident population is at or about replacement level. Keeping net immigration growth low will reduce pressure on housing and other public services of all kinds.

[expat]

>about people's live being ripped apart

I am properly thick but if you already rent in the private sector and is offered 23K more a year - a stonking big increase from 37K how is that going to rip peoples life apart? If it is that bad say no to the promotion.

>trying to argue that rape is ok as long as it doesn?t happen to them.

Looks like a stawman - I will pass.

[The Chair]

Brendan - thank you for editing your comments although I have only just seen the fallout. Whilst this is the Drawing Room and therefore a place for adult debate, adult language should only be used constructively. Please refrain from using this in the future. Thank you.

[Marmora Man]

Further to my post of Sunday I would add that if a progressive tax regime requires those earn more to pay more tax then surely the same principle should apply to possession of social housing. It'd progressive to give up social housing when you reach a certain level of income and regressive to hang onto social housing when you can afford unsubsidised accommodation.

[Jeremy]

Sometimes I wish people would think before they got all hot under the collar.

How you can justify giving someone a house for life - regardless of how their circumstances change - is beyond me. It is the very opposite of "fair". Council housing should be means tested, it is a public resource which should be reserved for people who need it. You can argue that we should have more council housing, or that people who work shouldn't *need* council housing... and you'd have an interesting point... but that's not what we're discussing here.

It is not comparable to private housing, because private houses are not public assets funded by taxes.

And please, if you want to try to position yourselves on the righteous side of the argument, don't undermine it by resorting to insults.

[DJKillaQueen]

Southwark Concil owns or nearly oen all the property where did they get the monies to but/build these propeties?

Various sources over the past 100 years. Some was government money (at times when massive social housing programmes were needed such as in the 30's, and post war and for obvious reasons), some was european development money (for redeveloping the bigger 60's estates), some has been private investment from the private sector (the route in more recent times for new builds). And the revenue from rents/sales has more than repaid any expense by the tax payer over those years as well as covering the costs of basic maintenance.

The money stays in the system as opposed to tax payers money being used to pay the mortgages of private landlords through top up Housing Benefit to the millions of people in full time work that don't earn enough to pay the private sector rent. That is tax payers money that is lost forever (billions of it) - and it's funny how none of you calling for change to social housing have anything to say about that!

mamora man,

Social housing is not always a welfare benefit linked to income. Someone many be vulnerable for a whole range of other reasons, health, mental health and social housing serves to give them 'security' of tenure. It is necessary for some people to have security of tenure. To suggest that means testing should be the only factor to consider shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of the range of conditions under which social housing is allocated.

The point you make about social housing being a transition is something I touched on earlier when I pointed out that's what it used to be - when ordinary working people had some chance of getting a mortgage and buying a house. It is now something that is pretty much an impossible dream for the vast majority of council tenants. The salary required to make that leap from social to private rented accomodation (like for like) is so wide in London that most council tenents will never make it.

In some other areas of the country, the gap is much smaller (because private sentor rents are on average locally lower)...and so there aren't the same lengthy waiting lists and so on. There is a direct correlation between the the gap between social and private rents and the length of the waiting list at a local authority.

Secondly any proposal on salary just won't work because the moment someone has a salary that might be deemed 'too high' they'll just exercise their right to buy....or worse still they won't take jobs with salaries that might see them forced out of their home. It is just not a workable policy. Nor would it actually free up that many homes.

I do agree with your proposals on improving supply but your impression that immigration is somehow a significant factor in demand for social housing is nonsense I'm afraid. A non EU foreign national can not register on the housing list if they do not have home office right to remain (it's a myth that illegal immigrants get council housing - they can not register without that home office document). EU residents come under the same rules that we all do as EU residents. We could close our borders tomorrow - it won't change a thing.

The real problem is that some rents are just too high in the private housing market, and many wages are too low to pay them and there is no solution without including measures to allow that gap to close as well (long term of course).

[Ladymuck]

Interestingly, Cameron's plans to reform social housing by reducing the security of tenure of tenants might actually have another effect - that of massively reducing the right to buy a property under Thatcher's Right to Buy Scheme. This is because, currently, tenants must have lived in their rented property for at least five years in order to acquire the right to purchase "their" property under the Scheme. If Cameron's proposals go ahead, tenancies will be less secure in that they will be shorter. This means that it will be more difficult for a tenant to acquire the right to buy - i.e. to hit the minimum 5-year period. I don't believe that Cameron's scheme intended this outcome, but it may well be an unintended result of it.