Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Local authorities already have the power to force succeeded tenants to downsize and offer incentives to other tenants to downsize. Southwark however have not bothered most of the time to use those powers.


Also Southwark Council already uses short probationary tenancies for new tenants (usually of a year) and a secure tenancy is only offered after that. Any changes the coalition brings in will only apply to NEW tenancies and it is doubtful those new measures will do anything to improve the quantity of housing stock available as the majority of council tenants who work are in low paid jobs and tend to stay in low paid jobs.


The issue of charging up to 80% of market rents will be totally at the discretion of the local authority and can only be done until 2016. After that rents and rents rises will be subject to convergence and cannot be raised above 1% above inflation year on year.


The housing benefit proposals just haven?t been thought through.


Firstly the proposal to reduce HB for the long term unemployed after a year by 10% may well face a legal challenge. The base rate of benefit (ie JSA) cannot be reduced because that would require a judicial review of what is thought to be the minimum a person needs to live on, and in the current climate any review is likely to find that it actually needs to be increased. So this HB reform may well be challenged as a method to reduce the value of the base rate of benefit via an essential benefit.


The proposal for capping benefits is also a red herring. HB already is capped, but at a level relative to average local rents. The proposal is to reduce the cap to a level below average local rents and flatten the cap nationally. This means that the numbers of properties those reliant on HB can afford will be reduced, at a time when there is already a shortage of affordable housing. To me it is a measure likely to see a return to families being housed in expensive B&B accommodation because local authorities cannot find somewhere affordable to house them.


The hope is that private landlords will be forced to drop rents but the evidence is that this is not happening. Rents are increasing and private landlords are simply making their properties unavailable to those on HB.


A third of people in full time work require some level of HB because their salaries alone are not enough to pay their rent.


The shortage of social housing has been created by many things. The sale of almost 50% of local authority housing through right to buy along with a shortage of affordable housing in the private sector are the main reasons, but also a growing population in the south east has meant it is drastically short of affordable housing whilst other areas of the country have a surplus. Unfortunately the areas with surplus housing tend also to be the areas with highest unemployment.


It?s worth also pointing out that there is no shortage in housing, just affordable housing, and Immigration is NOT the primary cause of that crisis Tarot ? the over inflated housing market is the primary cause of the lack of affordable housing.



On immigrants and benefits?you really do not know what you are talking about here Tarot. Asylum seekers are not eligible for standard benefits. Also illegal migrants waiting for right to stay are not eligible for housing or benefits. Most migrants to this country are from the EU and have a legal right to move here just as we have a legal right to move to anywhere within the EU. The vast majority of migrants are legal.

I'd love to see more council owned housing and then get manage it well. No long term leases, just housing allocated on a best-needs basis. I don't give a damn if you've lived there for 20 years and the neighbour is your best friend - council housing should be seen as a benefit allocated to those that need it the most. Be they British, European, Nigerian or whomever.


And I'd like to see the gradual phasing out of HB (in parallel with more council housing). As I've said before, I think HB just distorts the rental market, pushing up rents and therefore meaning more people needing HB, pushing up rents further in an ever increasing spiral.

So what do you replace HB with then because revenue will still need to be paid to someone and there will still need to be provision for those with no income?


It's also a bit naive to blame high rents on HB as though cheap mortgages and other factors particular to speculation in housing as a commodity had nothing to do with it.

Cheap mortgages surely aided rent reduction as there's now an oversupply of rental properties and, post crash, landlords desperate to get them filled as they can't sell them at a hideous loss.

Admittedly this applies more to cities who thought they could tempt more people than they actually managed, than to London. (see Cardiff, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow etc etc)

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's also a bit naive to blame high rents on HB as

> though cheap mortgages and other factors

> particular to speculation in housing as a

> commodity had nothing to do with it.


Sort of true, but there is also a supply/demand situation here - if landlords can charge higher rents because more money swilling around the system, they will. Charging ?400 p/w for a badly maintained flat only works if someone can pay it.

On paper yes, but it reality that's not happening. Like I also said before HB is already capped. The other problem is that many rental properties are mortgaged and the landlord can't actually afford to lower rents. This a problem buy-to-let landlords face particularly. On maintenance...the law requires that a property be fit to live in and stipulates just what that means. We still have a year to go before the new HB rules start to kick in though and we'll see then if there is any real impact. I don't expect that in the South east there will be. It will simply create a two tier housing system with an even greater shortage of affordable rents for the low waged and unemployed imo.

Why on earth should you be entitled to stay in a council house, just because you've lived there for n years? It doesn't belong to you. It's a public facility, for the benefit of those who need it.


If your circumstances have changed... e.g. earning more money, or people have moved out... your position is unjustifiable.

"the landlord can't actually afford to lower rents"


That one. Again.


*Shakes head in disbelief*


If they're higher than the rest of the market, no-one will occupy it so they lose the house. That's how markets work.


You don't rent a house because you feel sorry for the landlord, you rent it because you like it and you have the dispoable income and inclination to pay the price.

Where are you living Hugh in exotic Singapore, or India, too crowded here was it.

I can understand you getting rattled being part Indian,"sticks and stones" as they say.

D,J.K.Q.

Very informative thank you.

There will be changes coming ,and Southwark council and others will be investigated and it will be all over the news

sheets of the corruption thats gone on.Wait and see.

Tarot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where are you living Hugh in exotic Singapore, or India, too crowded here was it.


Singapore is something like 20 times more densely populated than England. So it would be a strange choice, if he was looking for the quiet life.



> I can understand you getting rattled being part Indian


That was my favourite bit...

Frankito Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have a related question: why do people who don't

> work and never intend to think they have some

> divine right to a lifelong tenancy in a Chelsea

> riverside flat....?


Can you find me the ones that do please? I work with the homeless and their expectations for housing are substantially lower than this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who, by moving to your position on the right, are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...