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. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Yes - it'll be a swap. Those moving out of private rented to the council ones will free up private properties.

    As I've used in my example previously where I live - there is an approximate £230 difference per month between what the council 'allow' for a family on housing benefit for a 3 bedroom house and what they charge for one of their own 3 bed houses. So if I made a general calculation based on these figures, you could be talking about 160,000 homes x £230 x 12 months = £441m saved by the councils per year.
     
  2. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Debs - I got that. I had already edited my post when I realised what you were saying.
     
  3. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    Ok, I see that.
     
  4. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    I don't understand what you are trying to show with these numbers.
     
  5. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    OK - there are (allegedly) 160,000 homes being sublet (I am using rental figures from my area as a guide so bear with me).

    Council rents out a council home for £420 a month but same council pay £650 housing benefit to someone renting privately. That's a £230 difference. So if the council were able to move 160,000 families from higher private rent to lower council rent, they are effectively saving £441m a year.
     
  6. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    I see what you mean, now. But you shouldn't conflate housing benefit with rent, private or social. You've assumed all of the sub-letters are in receipt of HB, and that's a big leap!
     
  7. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    were are you getting your figures?

    so far your theoretical fiddling around has created zero new spaces and made a load of people worse off and maybe having to travel further or even look for a new job.

    so it does nothing to solve the problems.....it just creates even more inequality and pushes people back down the ladder.

    i really think you need to read up on the how to get a council house piece and the difference between people on housing benefit or other supports and people living in a council house.
     
  8. Greg

    Greg 2t5b

    so more council houses. Finally.
     
  9. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    I haven't assumed the sub-letters are in receipt of HB. I've assumed they are working and paying their way. So the original tenants are, if using my rental figures, are paying the council £420 a month for the house and then subletting it at market rate of £650+ and they are profiting from the deal.

    I propose taking the house from them, as they obviously don't need it, and giving it to a family who do and are on the council house waiting list.....highest priority first. And I am assuming that if this family is high on the waiting list, the chances are they are already in receipt of HB. That's where I get the saving from as the new family moving into the council house would now be only paying (via HB) the equivalent of £420 and not £650 as before when they were renting privately. For the councils and taxpayer, it's a win cos it's saving money, for the new tenants its a win as they are now stable in a home and the loser is the original council tenant who was profiting. The sublet tenant has the inconvenience of moving but will probably end up in a private rental paying the market rate as before.
     
  10. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    I've not suggested anything different. I want the needy and poor in social housing where possible. I want the councils to pay less out to private landlords and make more use of the assets/resources they have. This is the best use of tax payers money.
     
  11. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    so you are penalising someone for doing slightly better than the lowest standard of housing available and pushing them back down the ladder without creating any news spaces....genius you should go and get a non job with grant schapps or michael green whatever his name is this week...you do realise some of these people are entitled to buy these council houses and i still have not seen any evidence of any big quantity of people doing this....sub letting assumes they may still live in the house but rent out a room to a lodger or something....how many new housing spaces has this bright idea freed up?
     
  12. dynodebs

    dynodebs /°\

    KC

    Position on the waiting list has nothing to do with HB. It's on the basis of most needy first, already, and is independent of income or current rent. Anyone already in rented accommodation that meets their needs will be at the bottom of the list. So I don't think there will be any savings at all.

    However, if you were to say that only people in receipt of HB can have social housing (remember that this includes council, housing association and charity housing) then there would be no saving at all.

    Councils would not be able to collect rent and they would be paying themselves, from one pot (HB pot) to another (rent pot) The only way to keep social housing paying for itself is to have a mixture of tenants, some of whom pay the full rent. This leads to a more healthy social mix of inhabitants in my view, too.


    The biggest problem I see with social housing is the way that the conservatives have managed to demonise all those living in council houses (they rarely attack housing association or charity tenants) and I view this as idealogical. In my view they think that all rent should be paid to private landlords and that councils should not be providing housing at all.

    That would be fine, if they just came out and said it - then at least you'd know what they stood for and could decide on the basis of clearly expressed views. But they won't because it would be electoral suicide

    Debs
     
  13. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    debs, that is precisely what they are trying to implement by gentrifying h&f and a few other london boroughs....they want more landlords and less responsibility.
     
  14. Paul R

    Paul R pfm Member

    Sub-letting of social housing,

    1. Moves social properties into the private sector.
    2. Allows private profit from public property.

    I don't see why it should be tolerated, regardless of how many billion it may or may not cost. I think you're in a self-contradictory ideological bind...

    Paul
     
  15. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Debs - how can you say there won't be a saving? If the council are paying HB at the rate of £650 to a private landlord and then they move this family to a council house paying (to themselves admittedly) £420, then they are saving £230.

    The rent department still get their £420 for the council house they manage but HB are now only paying out £420 to the tenant and before they were paying £650 so it is a saving.

    Also, I don't agree with the idea of the mix you suggested I'm afraid. Maybe 30+ years ago when we had more council houses available but things are different now. In this day and age, as we are short of social housing, I would like to see the councils get the maximum benefit from their social housing stock. So the more people in them in receipt of HB, the better use of assets they are getting and the more savings they create. That's why I believe it can't be offered as a permanent home anymore because once the tenants are on their feet, after a grace period of say a few years to be sure it's not a blip, then the social house should be freed up for another needy family. Or, as I have suggested, the rent goes to market rate to actually make a profit for the council to increase funds for more housing/subsidise HB to those in private rents.
     
  16. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    council house tenants pay the rent on council houses out of their own money.

    you still don't get the difference between council houses and payment assistance or housing benefit.....i'd stay well out of this conversation as you very, very clearly don't understand what is going on.
     
  17. Seeker_UK

    Seeker_UK Waiting for the streetcar..

    Darryl, I understand that but does the state / local authority assist those in council / housing association who need it? If it does, how?
     
  18. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

    there are many forms of assistance to get a council house one must meet criteria appropriate to go up the list.

    for example a friend of mine lost his very young wife to cancer a year after they had their little boy.

    he lost his wife, his job and had to look after the child.
    he had no family that could assist so he had to sell his house and went on the council list, he got a place very quickly.

    he managed to get a job again and now his kid goes to school and he has a better living but he still lives in a rented council house.

    he likes it and it's convenient for him at the moment but he does want to get his own house again but it's better for him to save at the moment.

    the fact that mr k wants to see him moved out for no other reason than to punish him for being in a council house is ludicrous.

    my views on how to solve the housing crisis have already been stated....i note no one opposed or commented on my ideas.....
     
  19. KC Cantiaci

    KC Cantiaci pfm Member

    Darryl - a council house tenant is responsible for the rent like any renter is be it private or otherwise. But if they are on housing benefit, then the state pays it. So I would rather one state department like housing benefit pay a different state department like council housing £420 a month rather than pay a private landlord £650 a month.

    I understand the difference between people with a council house and people that are on HB and you do not necessarily get one with the other. But what I am suggesting is that IF we had people on HB in state supplied homes (council houses) then it saves the tax payer money. How do you not get this?
     
  20. darrylfunk

    darrylfunk Banned

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