Thursday, 28 August 2014

Tenancy for life

Posted in: Discussion | Policy forum

13/10/2008 5:47 pm

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this discussion

Sort: Newest first | Oldest first

Author

Message

Harry Lime

Harry Lime

Posts: 164

17/11/2008 12:09 pm

But wouldn't such a major programme of social housing bring about the "ghettoes" that so many are claiming the CIH proposals would cause? In the current market you certainly wouldn't find any developer wanting to take on the risk of having open market properties for sale, the only thing developers are interested in talking to me about are 100% rented schemes, which on the whole we are rejecting because they don't produce mixed communities - it's simply not as simple as just "building" hunderds of thousands of new social property, a great deal of thought has to go into it to ensure you don't get monotenure nightmares. The CIH proposals and Bob Kerslakes are making an attempt to get the discussion started. Simply saying build more social housing as social rented, fair rented or however you'd like to term it, will come back to bite us in 5,10,15 yars when the churn of tenants has taken place and no one wants to live there.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

17/11/2008 12:37 pm

I am far from being an apologist for the PSLs but we need to move away from the 'public good, private bad' starting point as well. To emphasise that point is the only reason private landlords are there in the first place simply because there is a need for more housing? Or, if there was enough social housing then the so-called 'speculators' wouldnt enter the market would they?

One final point is the London / South East dynamic that is not prevalent in the rest of the country. There isnt a huge disparity between public and private rent levels.

I tend to agree with Harry above on this but excepting his comments over mixed communities. As I stated earlier, if all social rented housing is perceived as the option of last choice - and the CIH are doin their best to portray it that way! - then why would prospective owner occupiers mortgage a property on a mixed development? I doubt they would and the more the CIH and others decry tenants and tenancies the less likey they are to buy as well.

One last point on public / private cost. I was engaged by a council (oop North!) many years ago to look at dispersal / reception of asylum seekers. The council took my advice and went 100% with private landlords for amongst others reasons, (a) their property standard was better than its own, and (b) it worked out much cheaper - and I mean much cheaper.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

17/11/2008 3:54 pm

look, i think most people in this forum (and others) are intelligent people. If I say something like the government should embark in a huge social housing programme - do i mean it should do so recklessly, not giving a s*** about any other consideration? To do it the Statlinist way?... Give me a break! Or do you expect me here to write a gigabyte proposal here sayng how it should be done?... Saying that social housing programmes end up in a disaster of a sort or another - it's just nonsense. For a start, even the present situation the great majority of tenants are happy in their accomodations. For any social housing programme big or small It all depends how it is done and by whom it is done and for whom it is done, etc. etc. As long as people involved are passionate in creating a better and fairer society for all I am sure the the results will good ones... As far as private rents being cheaper in the north than in the southeast I cannot comment as I do not know the north. But you try to rent a private flat in London and I can tell you it will cost you at least three times than one from a RLS. People on benefit in London renting privately are paying enormous amounts compared to their social landlords counterparts. All maoney which could be saved if there were in place new social housing programmes i was talking about... Well, it makes sense to me anyway.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Ged Quayle

Ged Quayle

Posts: 27

17/11/2008 4:33 pm

The crux of this argument would seem to be that housing association tenants in work should pay more because they're being subsidised. They're not. Or they should pay more because it's 'fair'. It isn't. Or that building more HA homes would require planning. Well yes, but that's hardly news is it, and any large scale construction needs that. Are we suggesting that we should never build social housing because of the lack of, oh I don't know, urban planners? It’s claimed that creating large newbuild developments would create 'monotenure nightmares'. Driving out the higher income and more economially active tenants would do that surely? Stigmatising social tenants as either spongers or scroungers would do that very nicely. In my primary area, far from London, the disparity between our and private rents is approximately 100%. Yet our bills are paid and our properties are Decent Homes standard, which is more than can be said for a lot of private landlords. But then we haven't committed to large buy to rent programmes, we're not faced with gaping holes in our bottom lines and we're not looking about for ways to raise a quick bit of extra cash in a hurry. And we're not libelling our tenants to do it.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Joe Halewood

Joe Halewood

Posts: 247

17/11/2008 7:06 pm

Ged makes two significant points that I have to agree with

1. HA tenants are not subsidsied
2. Working tenants should not have to pay more

Point 1 is a matter of fact that has been correctly proven above. Point 2 is of course a subjective opinion - yet as has been argued successfully above,is or would be a nightmare of a proposal in practical operational terms that would also require legal consents and legal changes.

Why have we come to this? Simply because huge errors have been committed in housing policy in the past - the RTB / RTA that perversely only applies to social housing not private rented. The unwillingness of successive govts to allow local govt to invest in and build more social housing. Its no good simply stating lets take a lessons learned approach (that typical euphemism for ok we cocked up in the past lets not go back there!)

All of these cock ups have create the situation in which PSLs enter the markrt and charge higher rents. But that is not the problemeither. The CIH proposal to stop tenancies for life is also not the issue.

The issue is a chronc shortage of available socially rented accommodation. Within that is massive pockets of housing where no-one wants to live, and unlike Ged's area plenty of socially rented stock that is highly unlikely to meet the decent homes standard. Then add the environment of a recession and uncertainty and we have a pigs ear of a mess.

Its going to need some very radical solutions to address the chronic shortage, yet one that should be thrown out post haste is this CIH shameful proposal. I cannot see any solution to the shortage of available socially rented housing that includes the CIH labelling that option as the option of no choice. Any solution needs to incorporate tenancies as a viable option, somewhere that people want to live and not forced to accept - but that is the basis and reality of the CIH proposal.

Was it Kass that mentioned Stalinism??

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

27/11/2008 4:46 pm

'tenancy for life' can mean a number of things to a number of people.

Personally I think people who earn above a certain threshold should not be entitled to council housing and given the shortage of council homes should be asked to either pay more rent or go find some where else to live.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Brian Capaloff

Brian Capaloff

Posts: 6

28/11/2008 9:21 am

That's a useful contribution, Camden tenant, with the logical conclusion being the creation of estates in which aspiration ultimately leads to the breakdown of communities. A society to be looked forward to, where those who move up the career ladder are ultimately forced out of their home. And as we reach the occasional economic slump and those people who have been encouraged to/pushed out of their secure home lose their jobs they get welcomed back onto an endless waiting list, because groups such as the CIH played the government's own game rather than got their priorities right by campaigning for new housing, which everyone with the vaguest interest in housing need can see is the absolute priority.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

28/11/2008 10:50 am

camden tenant, get your facts right, because it is people with clouded facts like you that create cliches about rich social tenants which have no solid foundation whatsoever. for a start no one who is working (or not) and having an income high enough to afford private renting is entitled to any new social tenancy let alone a tenancy for life. New Tenancies are given only to priority people on housing lists which are worked out in terms of needs of the applicant. Most new social tenants are homeless people who cannot afford anyh other accomodation with their own means... You might well come across to some scam, and I am sure there are, where someone who shoulnd't get it is given a social tenancy, but scams are everywhere and it's up to those in charge to detect them... Besides new tenancies for life - and by that I mean secury tenancies - do not exist anymore. they have been abolished for new tenants... We should all campaign for secure tenancies to be given to any tenant who has been living for a certain period in the same property (let's say 4 years - same time you need to get British citizenship). As I said before if people social tenants or not get better jobs or richer - there are millions of other ways for the state to get more money off them. They can also be given incentives to buy or move into private properties - but without ever forcing them to do so directly or indirectly. At the end of the day wherever you are and whoever you are you should have a roof upon your head.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

28/11/2008 3:18 pm


Kass what are the 'facts' that I should be getting right? I didn't actually state any 'facts' I simply gave my opinion, which obviously isn't to your liking.

With all due respect, the problem with tenants like you (who have no real argument based on facts), and we have a few of them in camden who bully other tenants, is that you don't have the intelligence to come up with arguments based on fact, reason and logic so you resort to bullying other tenants to get your mindless points across.

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

kass

kass

Posts: 629

28/11/2008 3:55 pm

camden tenant, get your facts right, because it is people with clouded facts like you that create cliches about rich social tenants which have no solid foundation whatsoever. for a start no one who is working (or not) and having an income high enough to afford private renting is entitled to any new social tenancy let alone a tenancy for life. New Tenancies are given only to priority people on housing lists which are worked out in terms of needs of the applicant. Most new social tenants are homeless people who cannot afford anyh other accomodation with their own means... You might well come across to some scam, and I am sure there are, where someone who shoulnd't get it is given a social tenancy, but scams are everywhere and it's up to those in charge to detect them... Besides new tenancies for life - and by that I mean secury tenancies - do not exist anymore. they have been abolished for new tenants... We should all campaign for secure tenancies to be given to any tenant who has been living for a certain period in the same property (let's say 4 years - same time you need to get British citizenship). As I said before if people social tenants or not get better jobs or richer - there are millions of other ways for the state to get more money off them. They can also be given incentives to buy or move into private properties - but without ever forcing them to do so directly or indirectly. At the end of the day wherever you are and whoever you are you should have a roof upon your head.

THE ABOVE IS WHAT I SAID

BELOW IS WHAT YOU REPLIED

Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:18 GMT

Kass what are the 'facts' that I should be getting right? I didn't actually state any 'facts' I simply gave my opinion, which obviously isn't to your liking. With all due respect, the problem with tenants like you (who have no real argument based on facts), and we have a few of them in camden who bully other tenants, is that you don't have the intelligence to come up with arguments based on fact, reason and logic so you resort to bullying other tenants to get your mindless points across.

BELOW IS WHAT I SAY

camden tenant, if what I say above is mindless... on the other hand what you say is highly admirable. I am not in the business of giving prizes but I might just propose you for the Nobel for services to the housing community - or lacking which I might ask the Queen to consider you for a Knighthood... I got to add that last one is the most likely for your even thought there have been some people who (shock and horror!) have refused it.


Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

Development Diva

Development Diva

Posts: 3

21/09/2009 3:40 pm

This is an arguement that can rage on (and has) but we are still only talking about a very low percentage of social housing tenants who have chosen to stay when their income substancially outstrips the 'social rent' they are paying.

Although just a few tenants, we seem to concentrate on those whose circumstances have changed for the financially better - for which I am pleased for them - but it does grate a bit when it's potentially at the expense of someone who can't access housing.

I recently found myself somewhat torn with a call from a social tenant asking whether as an RSL we were interested in renting their partner 's property - because they've decided to move into the 'social rent' property.

If any of us can have the independence to resolve our own housing requirements - surely we'd take that opportunity and freedom to live where we chose to live? I guess not everyone see's it that way.


Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

regjoe

regjoe

Posts: 19

22/09/2009 9:04 am

Yeah keep all poor people in their place. Keep all crime in one area. Bring back ghettos and dictate to people there is no room for social mobility in society. You want a discussion about this!

Unsuitable or offensive? Report this reply

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

Rate this topic

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

You must be signed in to rate.

Post a Reply

You must sign in to rate this topic or make a post

sign in register

Why not register?

Registration allows you to sign up for newsletters, comment on articles, add posts in the forums, quiz our panel of experts, and save articles and jobs in the My IH section.

Register now

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

Most active members

Most recent posts

  • From Ansa Celestine, 22/05/2014 11:27 pm in Help With Disrepairs

    I spoke to someone the other day who very bravely withheld their rent and put it in a seperate account.  The housing association took them to court but then they told the judge that they did have the money, they are just desperate to be heard as they are not getting any help.  The judge ordered the housing association to do the repairs and the tenant to pay the rent.  Apparently now when the person phones the housing association they jump to do the repairs.  I am not as brave as that person, but I do understand the frustration ...

  • From Mia Woody, 07/04/2014 2:19 pm in Discussion forums re housing especially social housing

    rollonfriday.co.uk

  • From Mr Webb, 02/10/2013 4:32 pm in are housing benefit under occupancy rules a threat to vulnerable people?

    The vulnerable do appear to have been crucified by the welfare reforms. No doubt though the policy makers will claim it was not their fault and find some other group to blame it on.

  • posted Anonymously, 15/09/2013 9:07 pm in HCA Framework Document

    i know of a social rent property which was vacant one day, new tennant ( via nomination from homeless) informed 3 days later, no mention of " affordable rent" in offer letter. Rent has increased by over 300.00 per month.  Now that certainly is not Affordable..

  • From raymond hunter, 13/08/2013 7:51 pm in mutual exchange refusal

    had alot of questions but you guys got all the answers thanks.

  • From tony mcq, 06/07/2013 3:45 pm in L&Q Structural problems floor shakes when neighbours walk about

    PLEASE  LET  ME  KNOW  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  SEE  ME  OR  CONTACT  ME-----ABOUT   YOUR  HOUSING  DISTURBANCE--AND  STRUC TUAL   PROBLEMSS  IM  HAVING  SAME  PROBLEMS---WITH   L Q---IS  MY LANDLORD  TOO------TONY----

  • From Jason Matthews, 25/05/2013 1:11 pm in Bedroom tax and lack of smaller properties to move into

    thanks Anna - just what I needed

  • From DaftAida, 26/09/2012 9:25 pm in HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANT FAILURE

    Oh, and just a couple of other points; don't bother explaining to those who are obviously clueless. Unless they've been in an extraordinary situation they can't possibly understand - let them remain in ignorance. Cut them off and out as being too offensive to bother with.

  • From alan brunwin children's author, 03/08/2012 4:13 pm in Yobs with Dogs: Another "needs" based allocation outcome

    I live in shelterd housing and its a life of hell. we have a Rottweiler dog housed with two old people in a one bed no garden first floor flat next door to us 5 feet away, and its made our life hell. Kepts us awake night day with them taking the big dog down the staircase banging doors. The Housing assosiation are a law unto themselves do what they like to you. Even told us to move out if we don't like it. shame on them.The dog comes first.

  • From Chris, 18/07/2012 3:27 pm in The rise of the private rented sector

    What saddens me more Joe is that the scale of additional private rented homes has not involved any considerable extent of new building, simply the recycling of former home, and a large number of former social homes at that, into cash cows and multiple occupation rabbit hutches.

IH Subscription