Council Housing is not subsidised

11/06/2011 5:00 pm

Prior to transfer nigh on 5 years ago, the government was whipping away about one-third (approximately £5,000,000) of our rent money.

13/06/2011 9:33 am

Melvin, don't be coy.  Do tell.

13/06/2011 10:33 am

One stat then. Decent homes. This was introduced in 2000 and was even then estimated to cost £19 Billion in 1997*.Was this also available to the private sector? No.Therefore is it a 'subsidy'? Yes. (IMHO).

*http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0910/the_decent_homes_programme.aspx

13/06/2011 11:08 am

I've no real view on this debate having not researched anything about it....BUT- a question: If council housing is not subsidised, why is it not? It is, after all, a national resource, administered by the public sector and recieving at least part of it's income via HB which is public money.

I've never worked for a council or lived in a council property...but I really don't understand the passion often created by the suggestion that council housing is subsidised. The railway is subsidised but I don't hear train users getting all worked up about that! OMG....the state is paying for part of the cost of me getting to work ****shock**** 

If council housing is subsidised (in my view) so what? It is in theory at least available to anyone that needs it at lower rents than the private sector and thus is a response to a social need....so if it's not subsidised...then maybe it should be!

13/06/2011 11:26 am

I love a hairshirt me. Oh BTW I'm waving not drowning.

I'm not against social housing being 'subsidised'. I'm against people stating it is not 'subsidised' when I think it is. It then seems to turn into a 'discussion' of semantics.

Seconds out...

13/06/2011 12:39 pm

I'll try to avoid getting too embroiled here so will ask one question:

If Council/Social Housing is not subsidised and 'profit' is being made and returned to the treasury, why doesn't the private sector provide it?

13/06/2011 1:17 pm

My housing assopciation carried out improvements and decent home work over the past 5 years -- the dosh to pay for these came from the bank loan at transfer -- we, the tenants pay for the bank loan -- so. therefore, we paid for the decent homes standard and the improvements.

Also, leaseholders had their contributions to improvement works capped at £5g and some of the work was around £30k (plus VAT) -- we, the tenants, subsidise the leaseholders .. many of whom see us as scum.

Could someone, Melvin preferably, how decent homes work was subsidised BECAUSE it wasn't for us -- or perhaps the loft insulation was in the form of government (or other) grants?

13/06/2011 2:11 pm

Sssh Rick, don't let Melvin know that the Government gave homeowners and private landlords taxpayer money to fund upgrading their homes - it will shatter his delussions.

But to shatter them some more, Private Landlords have had access to grants to increase the thermal efficiency of homes, the age of their amenity, and in certain cases the safety of their structure. Owners have had access to funds for increased thermal efficiency, including the replacement of boilers and windows. The cost to the taxpayer for these will not be recovered. The cost of the reciprocal items installed in tenant's homes will be recovered through the rents, and total rents will still exceed total cost. On that basis the currently subsidised sector is the privately owned sector.

Going back to before the installation of the great Thatcher god, the highest levels of subsidy were paid to owners with a mortgage.

So Melvin - you are not only wrong now, but where wrong before, and indeed appear to have been very wrong for a very long time. I think you should keep the shirt. I'll just roll around in my state funded loft insulation instead.

13/06/2011 2:31 pm

Melvin. I''m not having a go at you but can you please explain how council housing was subsidised in relation to decent homes standard work -- would it be somewhere on the lines of ALMO.

I used to be au fait with council housing finance but am perhaps sorry to say that my interest in it wained when we transferred.

13/06/2011 3:01 pm

Hi Sancho - I think you answered your own question.

Council Rent + no subsidy = Private Rent - profits

Seems simple enough even a Tory Chancellor should get their head around it.

Simplistic in that the management costs of the private units are likely to be higher, either because of cost floor difference and/or unit scaling of cost, plus ongoing agency and other management middlemen costs (never forget the Southern model of ideal). The surplus rent from the council stock is a direct income to the treasury. The tax offsets for income and trading to the private sector are a direct loss to the treasury.

As I said before, I wish that the Council stock was subsidised and so rents were even lower, or at very least much more stock was being built because of direct grant funding for low cost social rented homes. The demonisers who queue up to knock tenants over subsidy either are ignorant of reality, or trying to hide the absence of available affordable rented housing for the majority of our working population.

If only such money was spent on social housing, every one would gain.