DJKillaQueen

In reply to Friern Private rents are high because the landlord (unlike the council) is in debt to the bank for the price of the house....not rocket science or are you too dumb to understand that? Trouble is that the vast majority of council tenants can NOT afford private rents...and indeed a third of those in full time work need HBenefit to pay part of their private rents....THAT is what p's me off..TAX PAYERS money being used to prop up private rents. What do you say about that friern? That's why there are 1.8 million people nationwide on waiting lists for social housing. It's nothing to do with prejudice.....(usual typical right winger line) ....if you actually bother to read my posts properly you'll see that I do agree that shuffeling within the system would help with over-crowding and I point out that the law already gives councils the power to force some tenants to downsize. In fact the only prejudice is yours against anyone that criticises Cameron. Simon Hughes tonight has also condemned Camerons ideas.....he like me has a full understanding of council housing issues and finance whereas Cameron and yourself clearly don't.

With your bazookas it would never had stood a chance!

I want Nandos too......!

There was an assessment after his mother died saying he could stay but that is what I have the problem with. Yes, it is his home but he does not need it and he admits that. That assessment probably considered his right to suceed the tenancy only. A council can't tackle the downsizing issue for the first six months after the death. But there are no grounds on which he would have been allowed to stay in a three bedroom house as a single occupant had the council moved to repossess the property and rehome him in a one bedroom flat. They only have a six month window to do that and sometimes because they don't have a property to offer (or too high a workload), they miss the window. That could be looked at by the government and extended maybe to a year (with a limit on how many properties the tenant can refuse before forfeitting their right to be homed). I think your plasterer was a bit of a fantasist tbh. He'd need to be constantly working for ten years to be able to save enough to buy anything outright. Again how did he come to have a three bed flat to himself - another succeeded tenancy maybe? Private sector rents are high because house prices are high. That is not the fault of council tenants, councils or the poor. Anger would be better directed at the mortgage lenders that have artificially inflated the private housing market for three decades and the sucessive governments who have been warned periodically and chosen to do nothing to address it.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So it is subsidised rent. It's not market value. It's not subsidised - it is not for profit....unlike the private sector that is all for profit and investment. Why is that so hard to understand? The council is not paying capital or interest to banks because the property they own is mostly now paid for so they don't need to charge the same rents as the private sector to break even. > But there's plenty of people in council property > who probably, objectively, don't need to be there > as they earn above average wages. I think the truth is that in most cases, when a person does get to an imcome level where they can afford to buy a house or move they do. Even some council tenants aspire to own a house with a garden as opposed to boxey flats. Also be careful of thinking need is based purely on salary. There are special needs, be they physical or mental and many other reasons why social housing and the security it offers is better for a person. > As you've previously said about overcrowding, This is a problem. As I said before, in cases of succession the council can force the tenant to downsize....but Southwark seems not to do this as I know many suceeded tenants in three bedroom flats to themselves. I agree that is wrong. Also there is the issue as you say where maybe a children have left home and just a parent or parents remain. Councils try to offer incentives in those cases to people to downsize but I think something could be done to make councils use the legislation that already exists. I'm sure that some movement within the system would ease the overcrowding issue. Having said that....it usually takes legal action to force someone to move if they are not willing and it is not a quick process. There are other abuses. I know of one flat where the tenant was moving abroad and so he arranged for his mate to buy the flat which he now rents out. In other words that flat was bought from the council by someone who was never a council tenant. I think the right to buy needs an overhual. There needs to be strict restrictions in place - prohibitting subletting for say 10 years after purchase and so on...so that those that do buy their homes buy them as homes. Too many leaseholders used the purchase of their council homes to then buy-to-let a preferred property to live in, whilst renting out the leasehold council home. All of that is wrong. In fact I'd go further and say stop the sale of council homes altogether and stop the sale of part buy/ part rent - along with some regualtion of mortgage lending and let the housing market naturally adjust to slower markets forces. We'll be a lot healthier (housing wise) in 20 years time for it. > These are delicate questions that most people > would prefer to shy away from. I completely agree but hopefully it will lead to a major public debate on housing in this country - a debate that's need to be had.

Just to illustrate that.... Take SE15 for example. The average rental price in the private sector (accross all residential size properties) per month is (August 2010) is ?1181 (figures linked to RRPI can be seen at rentright.co.uk). For a one bedroomed flat it is ?986. The average one bedroomed council flat is around ?360 per month. So you can see the problem. Apparently 60% of council tenants nationally are unemployed, elderly, disabled. Of the rest, the majority are low-waged, some of whom may need HB to help with rent. In the private sector, there are millions of low waged people also - who need significant top ups of HB. The solution to a shortage of affordable rents is not to reward private landlords with even more HB (or even the hard earned wages of others...you can see how big the gap is). We need to slow the housing market down..so that salaries at the lower end can catch up (I've mentioned before how one third of all workers need some kind of additional benefit to make ends meet). We need to raise the minimum wage and we need more affordable social housing in the interim. All of these things should be geared to making for a happier and more productive society where everyone feels rewarded for work and inclusive. What Cameron believes in is those at the top getting richer and hoping that with a few tweaks the poor can help themselves. It's folly.

No because the comaparable rent in the private sector is not affordable....that's the problem. If you look at the rise of private sectors rents compared to the control rise (as it is by governemnt legislation and law) of social rents there is an ever widening gap.

oooh name calling says more about you than us - and I don't live anywhere near the Adventure Bar by the way. Can't stand rude people....

It was sat on the road...because like for most people there was nowhere else to put it. It's actually the council (and sometimes the Police), not the DVLA who enforce a policy removing untaxed vehicles and they usually give a two week berth anyway. They also have a policy of not allowing untaxed vehicles on their own private property (like council estate car parks) which is nothing to do with the DVLA (as it's not the public highway) but run as a private traffic enforcement scheme. Personally I think there are far more important things to worry about than a neighbour who keeps his sorn declared (and undriven) car parked outside.

Everyone is entitled to have their view. I'll happilly bring a bunch of louts round to outside your house to vomit, scream, fight and throw up three nights a week at 2am if you like. You might then be more respectful of the views of those who really ARE affected. 'Grow up' indeed....

However, it's not just the subsidised rent that has to be considered but all the other associated costs Coucil housing is NOT subsidised. Tenants pay rent like everyone else and that's how councils raise the revenue. They do not have huge mortgages still outstanding though but do face challenges in other areas. Housing Benefit helps those who can't pay but far more HB is spent topping up private sector rents - which means tax payers ARE subsidising some private rented sector landlord's mortgages and that I find incredibly immoral. When something goes wrong like a boiler, or window etc...ALL landlords are required by law to repair them under the 1985 housing Act in line with what deems a property as fit to live in. To use that as some 'advantage' to a council tenant is ludicrous as that is an expense all landlords have to cover along with annual servicing. You seem to think there are different standards for private and social rented housing...there are not...the law applies equally to them both. As for the elderly - and we all grow old and infirm....special needs are usually supplied by a seperate department - often linked to the NHS and have nothing to do with the housing department. They are the same care services offered to all people who can not afford it privately (even if they own their home). I know of many children of those who own their own homes who are equally unwillingly to 'help' out on that front, so the cost to the NHS is just as high from elderly homeowners as it is from elderly council tenants.

A very small majority simply do not need large flats at cheap rents. I think your boyfriend is unusual. The vast majority of council tenants have nothing like that income or those savings. His council already has the power to have moved him after his mother died (which they must do no earlier than six months after death and no later than a year after) under ground 16 of the Housing Act 1997. So there is no need for legislation in your boyfriends case to free up large properties as it already exists. Some councils though do not act on it. What he earns should neither be here nor there (he could easily lose his job). Private Landlords cannot evict a tenant because the property is too big for them, nor can they evict someone because they earn a certain salary. Plus it would be a bad idea to reduce council areas to ghettos for the unemployed and low waged. We've been there before. I'm guessing the 100k may in part be inheritted money which he may well choose to use to buy the house. I'd argue that stopping the sale of coucil homes would do more good than evicting the small numbers most likely to affected by these proposals (most of who would appeal and cost tax payers who knows what in legal fees). The only benefit a council tenant has is the lower rent. Trust me, the condition and size of many council properties wouldn't get much higher rented in the private sector anyway. It's a myth to think that council tenants enjoy some kind of luxurious housing for the price. There may something to look at as to why some councils don't use existing legislation to free up property on sucession by forcing the downsizing of tenants but there really is no need to for change in the law. That being said, changing the law is exactly what Cameron would have to get through parliament and the House of Lords if he wants to do any of this (and it would apply to new tenants only so most of the housing stock will continue to remain as secure and succeeded tenancies). We need more affordable homes....along with use of existing legislation. A change in the law in what defines overcrowding (which hasn't been reformed in more than 100 years) would also be welcome. Landlord's, be they social or private, get away with overcrowding because the law says that children under a certain age can sleep in the bathroom or Kitchen - so there's no legal obligaton to rehouse a faily of five living in a one or two bedroom flat. Those are the things Cameron should be looking at - not ways to force people out of their homes.

Yep freelancing here too....no boss would ever allow me to troll the forum at this hour after all...!

There have been times where I've had to SORN for a couple of weeks while I waited to have enough money to pay for MOT and then tax. Should I have sold or scrapped my car then?

Hmm I wonder where 'Dear lucy' or the writer got the idea from then lol....(must be someone local)

So that's why you are so hot at those footy skills....;-)

I agree that someone who works for minimum wage IS fending for themself....but that the cost of living is too high for them is not their fault and nor is it right for a wealthy politician (who has never known poverty) to then say that it is. We will always need cleaners, porters, and all of those poorly paid workers. It's about time we started valueing them too. What Cameron is really representing is the survival of the fittest free market ideology. He believes that is the solution even though it hasn't worked for the last 30 years. The idea that you drop vulnerable people into water and see if they can swim out of it is what's behind many of these reforms because they won't make very much difference in government coffers after all. They genuinely believe for example, that all the poor need is a little shove to force them to do better. They also believe that council rents should be as high as private sector rents. It's etonian bs that seeks to make the cost of living for the poor even more expensive than it already is. They have no interest in alleviating poverty. Upward mobility has gone backwards and the gap between the top and bottom in society is wider than ever and still widening and nothing he is proposing will reverse that.

I stopped renting movies form shops years ago. From Lovefilm you have a massive collection to choose from, it's cheap and no late fees...all delivered to your door. How can any store compete with that?...well they can't. Would like to see a 'Poundland' in it's place ;-)

I'm with you Emily .....have the same feelings about the Peckham Pulse library too - ugly and made from cheap materials that look dirty in no time. But the school is badly needed and has to be big and functional - just wish as much though was put into the architecture.

Well also there is no such thing as job security. So how long before the family forced out has to be rehoused by the local authority? And if any person is ever going to suddenly find themselves in a position to afford private sector rents then they are far more likely to buy their council home as the mortgage on that will be cheaper anyway. I will never be able to afford to buy a home, but don't mind renting either as long as my rent is within my means. But as long as my rent is paid I expect to be secure in my tenancy. And the law currently protects me in that way. Cameron clearly sees these proposals as the solution to the shortage of social housing. That is where he is completely off the mark. He just won't accept that the solution is more affordable rents/ housing - so long as he and his homeowner buddies can contiue to enjoy vastly inflated growth and profit (one bank recently predicted 20% growth on house prices in the next fours years ffs).......it's just an insane approach to the real problem.

taxpayer funded accommodation But it's not tax payer funded. People pay rent, but unlike many private landlords most councils don't have pricey mortgages to pay back. The idea that you can somehow just pass your property on to your kids despite it being government property is surely laughable Only one sucession is allowed and only to children that have lived (and still are) at the address as their primary home for a set period of at least a year. Also the council can force the child into smaller accommodation (and regularly do) if the home is too big for their needs. So can't really see what the problem with that is. Again no private landlord can evict a child on the death of a parent from the property. So it's pretty standard legal protection.

I just think he's completely lost the plot tbh. As for secure tenancies - No private landlord has the right to evict you because you earn more than the rent you have to pay.....and statistically so few council tenants do get themselves upwardly mobile that he's barking up a tree that's not in the real world. He wants to make the review every five years? So why would anyone then bother to spend money on their council homes - because a lot of tenants do spend money improving their homes. If anything, allowing the cheap sale of council homes is what has done the real damage in creating the shortage of suitable housing. I'm just beginning to think he's evil now. An ignorant privileged typical (and not very bright) tory hell bent on bashing the poor in every way he can. Meanwhile the banks are returning as healthy as ever profits. Hopefully in four years he'll be gone.

c/o Guardian.co.uk An end to lifetime council tenancies was signalled today by David Cameron as he warned the coming public spending cuts will not be restored when the economy recovers. Cameron said he wanted to see fixed terms for all new council and housing association tenancies lasting as little as five years to help increase social mobility. The prime minister admitted that "not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument". Speaking in Birmingham, he said: "There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won't need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector." A consultation paper, due to be published as early astomorrow, will say the new short-term tenure would be for local councils to implement, but would involve regular reviews of tenancies to see if the council tenant still needed such a large property or had sufficient income to shift to the private sector. At present council tenants have secure tenancy for life. Housing association tenants have secure tenancy for life after a probationary year. Council tenants have the right to hand the property over to their children, whereas housing association tenants do not. The communities department estimates that it costs each taxpayer ?35 a week to keep people in affordable homes, and it is argued the tenancy for life is an inefficient use of scarce resources. Under the government's proposals council tenants could be forced to downsize. A total of 234,000 households in the social tenant sector are overcrowded while 456,000 are under-occupied, meaning people have more than one extra spare room, according to official figures. The government has already announced separate plans to cut housing benefit. Defending the reforms that have proved too politically explosive for Labour housing ministers to implement, the coalition's housing minister, Grant Shapps, said last night: "It is quite clear that the real losers from the current system are the 1.8m people on council house waiting lists who the current arrangements do not help. "It is time to consider whether our affordable housing system can be better used and whether one of the benefits would be greater social mobility. Any benefits from these changes might take many years, but it does not mean we should shy away from doing something. This will have no impact on existing council or housing association tenants." Shapps has been holding private talks with key housing groups to persuade them to back the reforms. Critics of the proposed reforms say it could disincentivise the unemployed to seek well-paid work as they might lose their tenancy as result. There are also fears that it would increase the chances of council estates becoming ghettos of the workless poor. The homeless charity Shelter said tonight: "We do not believe the big question in housing policy is security of tenure for new tenants. The prime minister has sidestepped the fundamental cause of our housing crisis ? the desperate lack of affordable housing supply." Helen Williams, assistant director at the National Housing Federation, said: "There is a case for looking at what is offered to new tenants, as a way to seeing if over time social housing could help more people." Cameron today urged the public to recognise that the deficit was a moral issue and suggested public spending would not be restored to its current levels when the economy improves. "Should we cut things now and then go back later and try and restore them?" Cameron asked. "I think we should try to avoid that approach ? people should open their minds and find new ways of doing more for less. We're going to have to change the way we work. How can we do things differently and better to give the value for money?" With the Spending review due to be published in October, he urged people to recognise there would be light at the end of the tunnel, and that "it is not all doom and gloom". Cuts of 25% ? the equivalent of a 5% cut every year ? was what many businesses and families were facing with their own budgets. He said his aim was to tackle the big ticket items like pensions public sector pay, and welfare before tackling smaller budgets. Does he not know that local authorities already operate homeswap schemes? And they they can force succeeded tenants to move if the property exceeds their needs? Some local authorities offer incentives to other tenants to downsize. He is completely in denial of the real problem, of a lack of unaffordable rents and that the bill for HB in propping up private sector rents is far more obscene than that of social housing. He says he wants to encourage upward mobility - well how will that happen is at the moment you earn some disposable income you are forced to move only to see it swallowed up by private sector rent? I live on an estate...not many high fliers here Mr Cameron. Another Tory attempt to destabilise the poor and keep them poor imo.

Big Fun - Inner City

I'm guessing the burgers are a sideline then? lol ...And I can only imagine what the ketchup is used for! Plenty of sausage looks to be on offer though.