Good on them, if they can manage to get some of our own money back from the EU to help develop affordable housing in the UK.
Comment on: Ask Pickles postponed as he is ill
I suspect Cllr Suzanne Richards will be in for a toasting over Manchester Council's much-worse-than-average financial performance after asking a pointed question like that.
Just a guess.
Comment on: Councils slam pooling of new homes bonus
I just love the idea of bribing council tax payers with their own money.
You couldn't make it up.
LHA is support for those on low income to help them cover the cost of their housing. It is means tested so not everyone gets it. It is paid to a landlord by the tenant in exactly the same way as a tenants's own money would be paid if he had earned it himself. It is not a taxpayer subsidy of the private rented housing market!
Mr Webb - LHA is not a "subsidy" of the private rental market!!! No wonder I have such difficulty understanding the points you make with thinking like that behind it.
Gavin Rider has not added any discussions yet.
Posted in: Query re RTB and affordable rent
Surely the safest route would be for you to ask these questions of your landlord and to ask for the response to be given in writing.
According to DirectGov:
"You’ll only get a discount through Right to Buy if you’ve been a public sector tenant for at least five years. These five years don’t have to be continuous and could have been in different homes with different landlords."
So, you will carry over your qualification for RTB discount from your existing tenancy to the new one.
If the new tenancy is being offered only at Affordable Rent then that is what you will have to pay for that home. Fred's comments about confirming the terms of the new tenancy are important, and you should seek clarification about that in writing from the landlord concerned.
In all cases of doubt ask your questions to the landlord; get the response in writing and keep it in your files for later reference in case it is ever needed.
I'd say that rent payment would still be required monthly, to ensure the "two months in advance" condition was continuously satisfied throughout the tenancy. However, two months from the end of the tenancy contract there would be no more rent to pay. The landlord could not legally take back the property until the end of the tenancy if the rent for the full term had been paid, so effectively he would be forgoing the security of a deposit.
Since deposits (as distinct from payment of rent in advance) protect the landlord by acting as security against damage that may be caused by the tenant, failing to secure a deposit in addition to receiving the rent in advance would represent an increased risk to the landlord, but would be no disadvantage to the tenant.
I cannot see any legal problem in this, or any disadvantage to the tenant, except having to find the money to pay two months rent in advance.
Posted in: Parlour House rates
Derren - I believe this is up to the individual provider to decide. If it is being let as a four-bed property to a tenant who is using it as such, it should be charged as a four-bed. There is a property near me that is being charged for on that basis and there is such a high demand for larger homes that it is never likely to be let as a three-bed, even though that is what it was originally intended to be.
Posted in: Rent increase for 2011/12
Actually, Derren's observations go to show that an immense amount of time and effort goes on working out subsidies, compensations, fixed rates of permitted increases etc. None of this is constructive.
It would be better if social housing were pegged to the open market housing price, not RPI. Within the industry there are already mechanisms to measure house pricing and these can be used to determine what the rental price for any house should be, on the open market.
That rent, plus a small supplement to charge for security of tenure (if it is given) should be charged. Then Housing Benefit should be paid to tenants who need it, to bring the rent they pay down to a level they can afford. The benefit would be administered in the same way it is currently worked out. Benefit would be paid directly to the housing provider.
The income from a provider's housing stock would be based on the value in the open market, significantly boosting income. This extra rental income would replace the HCA and local authority grants that currently have to be paid to support housing association developments. The absence of these other grant funding routes and the administration of them would compensate for higher payments and staffing in the HB system.
Overall the total amount of taxpayer money needed to subsidise the social housing sector and allow it to operate as a not-for profit (and not-for-loss) entity is fixed, so the cost to the taxpayer by having to pay housing benefit would be no more than current grants and other subsidies. However, the higher rental income from tenants who could afford market rent but were previously not paying it would reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
Ultimately the social sector should become fully integrated into the normal housing market. By competing equally with other providers but on a non-profit basis this should help to suppress private sector rents.
Posted in: Rent increase for 2011/12
Oh dear, I see Chris/F451 is still spouting his "social housing is not subsidised" nonsense.
May I suggest checking out the document "'Table 651: Housing finance: Local Authority expenditure and income on housing from the Housing Revenue Account, England 1, 1997-98 to 2008-09" It shows a considerable level of housing subsidy being provided over those years (£24bn).
Or how about "Rural Housing Economic Viability Toolkit – Stage 1 Report" available from the HCA.
This document details the economics of many rural affordable housing developments and providers. For example, English Rural Housing Association reports the accounting of ten of their sites, and 43% of the cost is covered by HCA and local authority grants.
One other thing that becomes apparent from the HCA document is that even though these housing providers are supposedly "not for profit" organisations, there are plenty of people that are making handsome livings partly thanks to the taxpayer subsidy. For example, the ERHA costs listing includes a "construction consultant" who is paid a large chunk of money for every project. Overall, out of £813,333 total costs, £447,433 went to the "Construction Consultant" while legal costs were just £146,232.
Looks like a very lucrative gravy train to me.