1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

£40,000 income limit for council houses

Discussion in 'off topic' started by ian r, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    KC

    The article states 16,000, not 160,000 and costs of between £5 and £10bn. These numbers are estimates and have no source. They may very well be entirely made up. I can't see how sub-letting costs anything like that. I just don't find Shapps at all credible.

    Debs
     
  2. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    just how many times do i have to point out your error....
    ???

    council house are not welfare.


    do you really not get this....???


    the governments own figures say there is a massive housing shortage....you solely are saying there isn't a shortage but have only one idea so far to kick people out of council houses....it's not these people that are causing the problem....for crying out loud have you read any of the articles on housing at all?

    you are wilfully ignoring the plight of the poor and ignoring wholesale rape and pillage of our country by big business and rich tax dodgers....

    trying to drag down people who are just about earning average salary from a home they are contractually entitled to after building up themselves from a poor situation and you want to fling them out....it's a numbskulls way of creating an even bigger problem to be dealt with in the mean time....

    you have no evidence supporting the penalising of the poor it would be easier and quicker and take less administration to get the tax we are due from scroungers and thieves at the top end.....

    we have already had the problems identified by people like shelter and the various housing groups and charities - it's only you denying their findings....

    it is estimated that upto tens of thousands of people want to get a first time home now but your not including them in the housing market....how quaint your ideas are!!!

    something else that explains the market for these people a bit....

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...e-buyers-Shortcuts-mortgage-buying-house.html

    try actually reading that link.

    if we don't have shortages in all housing areas why are there over ten times the amount of people applying for council houses than the amount of houses available?

    i'm still curious why you mention council tax abusers what does that mean?

    more reading for you about priority in council houses....

    http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/council_housing/who_gets_priority
     
  3. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    by the way the figures for empty homes is 720,000 many of which are uninhabitable due to dereliction or lack of condition.

    plus some of these houses are vast and owned by very wealthy people who sue if any council goes so much near them.

    the estimate for all sectors of these empty houses points to around 200,000 that could be renovated or actually managed and rented short term, this includes many council properties to.
     
  4. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    I found http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...2bn-a-year-by-illegally-subletting-homes.html which gives the 160 000 figure with an indication of where it came from and how it was arrived at.

    80 000 people in temporary accommodation at an annual cost of £18 000 each + the reduced need to build new social housing by ensuring the existing stock is better used comes to about £2Bn.

    Paul
     
  5. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    a credit rating and credit card companies research of registered addresses....and it's a prediction.

    if people are already subletting then the house is obviously being used to it's maximum anyway so how are spaces saved....

    totally irrelevant to the real housing problems....the audit comission itself said a maximum of £500 million in fraud....and that fraud is also counted in the frauds for welfare claims according to the audiot comittee, so we are still merely scratching the surface money wise against getting tax avoiders to pay up....in the £120 billion pound avoidance going on....we wouldn't have housing problems with that money floating about.
     
  6. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Debs - the article does say 160,000.

    And the I took the £5bn - £10bn quoted in the article as not just savings from those tenants who are sub letting their homes but if the govt cracked down on all/any abuses of the council house system.
     
  7. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    you repeatedly demonstrate a closed mind...it's obviously a prediction from a sampling, you need to work a lot harder to discredit the figure...but I know you won't bother...the house is being used by somebody paying a market rent, it is sublet at a profit...which keeps the deserving out of otherwise available housing...surprising you support this immoral greed...your repeated £120bn is an unsourced, unsupported fantasy figure.
     
  8. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Who is this aimed at Paul? I assume Darryl??
     
  9. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    1/ Didn't say council houses are welfare.......for the millionth time

    2/ People are applying for council houses because its cheaper than renting privately. So we do have a shortage of council houses compared to those who want one. But you assume that all on the waiting lists actually qualify for a council home and as I have said before numerous times, by moving reasonably wealthy people out of council homes to private will free up council homes for those in more need.

    3/ Didn't mention 'council tax abusers' so not sure what you are referring to
     
  10. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    Yes, sorry for letting you get between. I'm trying to talk to him in his own style in the hope he'll actually pay attention.

    Paul
     
  11. Greg

    Greg 2t5b

    anecdote is anecdote is...

    279,000 houses not fit for occupation, or owners unwilling to sell or rent. If they are unavailable or uninhabitable then they are somewhat outside the scope. What's your plan to bring them within scope?
     
  12. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    you cannot get a council house just because you don't want to pay a 'market rate'.... you persist on saying this you are completely wrong about it....

    you do not grasp what council houses are for or how they are provided or how people pay for them....

    you are missing the point and not responding to the bigger picture.....

    using one particular london area who has been criticised for gentrification and homes for votes as a model is completely wide of the mark.
     
  13. Greg

    Greg 2t5b

    Yes, absolutely.
     
  14. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    The council can do what house developers have been doing.......get the homes refurbished and brought back to rental condition. They could employ their own tradesmen or employ companies to do the work. I'm sure there are many builders, plasterers, decorators who could do with the work. No big contractors though. I would suggest small, local firms managed locally by the councils themselves.

    Those homes in Stoke from a previous post are a prime example. Why are the council proposing to sell them for a £1 and then finance the buyers with up to a £30k loan to refurb them when the council could refurbish them for their own stocks?
     
  15. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    I never said that you can get a council house because you don't want to pay a 'market rate'. But it doesn't stop people applying for one hence some waiting lists are so high. People are banded depending on need with the highest need/banding getting first offers on available properties. Some go on the list for years in the hope.

    So why do people apply for council houses? Other than disabled, homeless etc as they are a given anyway.
     
  16. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    KC

    I promise I just copied this from that article from last year which you posted up-thread.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...enants-who-sublet-homes-to-be-prosecuted.html) The other Telegraph article is from a year later. One of these figures is wrong.

    "New laws would target around 160,00 people who are estimated to sublet homes – opening them up to prosecution and possible jail sentences."

    The comma is in the wrong place.

    What do you mean by 'any/all abuses'?

    Debs
     
  17. Greg

    Greg 2t5b

    This sounds great, except local admins are being decimated. Small tradesmen - who project manages? Council refurbs of private homes? Putting the practical questions aside, council refurbing would be in competition with the private sector and throws up many problems as a result. There is also the question of owners not wanting to cooperate; and the whole issue of modern specifications and health and safety (and the cost of suitably renovating old / decrepit properties. Just not happening.
     
  18. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    I believe you and it still shows 160,000! Why would you believe the comma is in the wrong place?

    Edit : I see what you are saying now. There are only 2 zeros instead of 3 at the end. So it's either an error as they have missed a zero that would make it 160,000 or the comma is in the wrong place and it's 16,000. Poxy newspapers.......can't even get grammar right....Mail on Line is even worse!!
     
  19. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    KC

    Irrespective of the actual number of social housing homes sublet (since we have no idea what the number really is) isn't it the case that if you remove the sub-letters from those homes, they will have to be re-housed?

    Debs
     
  20. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\


    16 followed by 000 is sixteen thousand, not one hundred and sixty thousand

    The article doesn't show 160000, it shows 16000. Look at the link - it's your original link from the Grant Shapps puff piece last year when he was trying to look like a tough guy.

    The link from this October provided by someone else shows 160000. At least one of these numbers is wrong, and it might be both!

    Debs
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice