Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:21 pm  

World of Redboy wrote:

Are governments allowed to say to councils, here's a certain amount of money, you will build low cost housing?

Its how it used to be, or seemed to be, but probably the other way around.

Local authorities had a requirement (as they still do) to provide social housing, housing for rent at what some would say was subsidised prices albeit that the ones who say it is subsidised are usually the ones who prefer to charge as high a price as possible in their own rental properties.

Anyhoo, back in the day when I was working in construction we would always tender to the local authorities on new developments or for refurbs so it was they who commissioned the sites and they who ultimately were the paymasters, presumably that money had come from central government in the first place so that they could fulfil their requirement to provide a certain level of affordable rental properties.

It all sounds very socialist now but Tory governments worked the same way too albeit that occasionally there was friction with some very far left councils, I seem to recall some Tory Minister mentioning that Derek Hattons Liverpool would be defeated by starving of investment but all in all I worked on many social housing schemes through at least the early years of Thatchers reign.

[DaveO]

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:42 pm  

Dally wrote: What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages There is nothing wrong with it at all. Many people of my grandparents and parents generation started on low incomes in council houses but remained there all their lives despite eventually earning an income that would have afforded them a mortgage on a house elsewhere. This was quite normal and accepted as people were not expected to up-root if they hit a certain earning level. In fact one of the worst things a Labour government did was introduce restrictions and certain priorities on who qualified for a council house. That meant you ended up with council estates made up of mostly the less well off and needy thus introducing a kind of ghetto status to these places there never used to be. While not many would be on £145K people earning a good wage in council houses ought not to be such an exception. As to Crow, would the Daily Mail be happier if he bought it under right-to-buy thus reducing the social housing stock further?

Dally wrote: What do you think are the rights and wrongs of this case: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445211 ... r-in-wages There is nothing wrong with it at all. Many people of my grandparents and parents generation started on low incomes in council houses but remained there all their lives despite eventually earning an income that would have afforded them a mortgage on a house elsewhere. This was quite normal and accepted as people were not expected to up-root if they hit a certain earning level. In fact one of the worst things a Labour government did was introduce restrictions and certain priorities on who qualified for a council house. That meant you ended up with council estates made up of mostly the less well off and needy thus introducing a kind of ghetto status to these places there never used to be. While not many would be on £145K people earning a good wage in council houses ought not to be such an exception. As to Crow, would the Daily Mail be happier if he bought it under right-to-buy thus reducing the social housing stock further?

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:42 pm  

what this story shows is how messed up Social Housing is, and has increasingly become under successive governments (of all colours). He has a tenancy agreement and that agreement will have been made when he was initially assessed and deemed to be "in need", it was an open ended tenancy with no review period or clauses (see Fixed Term tenancies, which are now used widely for examples of the clauses for re-assessment). It's the same as when you have an elderly person, living in a 3 bedroom property, that chances are they can only afford to heat three rooms (invariably the "living" room, the bedroom and the kitchen) they cannot use the other rooms (and have no need of them), but they either wont move "because this is where I brought my family up" or the local area has no suitable smaller stock to move them into. At the same time there'll be a family of 6, who could use the property to it's maximum, being accommodated in inadequate temporary accommodation at increased expense, it's a mess, and nobody has the appetite or will to actually address the issue, because they'd become unelectable overnight.

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:02 pm  

Standee wrote:

what this story shows is how messed up Social Housing is, and has increasingly become under successive governments (of all colours).

I think you're spot on.

Standee wrote:

He has a tenancy agreement and that agreement will have been made when he was initially assessed and deemed to be "in need", it was an open ended tenancy with no review period or clauses (see Fixed Term tenancies, which are now used widely for examples of the clauses for re-assessment). It's the same as when you have an elderly person, living in a 3 bedroom property, that chances are they can only afford to heat three rooms (invariably the "living" room, the bedroom and the kitchen) they cannot use the other rooms (and have no need of them), but they either wont move "because this is where I brought my family up" or the local area has no suitable smaller stock to move them into. At the same time there'll be a family of 6, who could use the property to it's maximum, being accommodated in inadequate temporary accommodation at increased expense, it's a mess, and nobody has the appetite or will to actually address the issue, because they'd become unelectable overnight.

What you say is right, but it's always coming back to the core lack of social housing. One trade union leader – or even some elderly people – are not the cause of the problem.

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:19 pm  

You cannot treat human beings as chattels or ignore the fact that what most desire is a place to call a home rather than a house - what is actually wrong in a person settling and investing in an area and then wanting to stay put - why should they instead regard this dwelling house as a mere transition point in their life that they have to surrender when their children grow up and move away, or a family member (maybe even a child) dies and they don't need three bedrooms any longer - what housing officer is going to call around and tell a family "I'm really sorry that your husband has left you and the kids and all that, but can we have the keys on my desk by 9am tomorrow please and we'll have a small flat ready for you in the next town as soon as we can".

Are we playing Monopoly or something ?

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:41 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

what housing officer is going to call around and tell a family "I'm really sorry that your husband has left you and the kids and all that, but can we have the keys on my desk by 9am tomorrow please and we'll have a small flat ready for you in the next town as soon as we can".

any of my team doing their job properly, so long as the tenancy provides for it.

Social Housing isn't meant to be a lifelong answer for those who no longer need it.

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:42 pm  

standee wrote:

nobody has the appetite or will to actually address the issue, because they'd become unelectable overnight.

I reckon any party that proposes a massive house building programme would sweep to victory with a landslide.

But I have a feeling that building more houses is not the solution you would prefer

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:48 pm  

Standee wrote:

any of my team doing their job properly, so long as the tenancy provides for it.

Social Housing isn't meant to be a lifelong answer for those who no longer need it.

So basically you're running a very large hotel where bodies check in and are checked out when you think that you can utilise them more profitably elsewhere ?

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:52 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I reckon any party that proposes a massive house building programme would sweep to victory with a landslide.

But I have a feeling that building more houses is not the solution you would prefer

I'd like more housing to be built, yes, and for it to be more appropriately utilised.

Re: Housing : Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:54 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

So basically you're running a very large hotel where bodies check in and are checked out when you think that you can utilise them more profitably elsewhere ?

It's not about profitability, it's about appropriateness, there are people trapped in Social housing because there isn't the encouragement to move on, a little like benefits. But hey, I've been a housing professional for 15 years, what do I know.