On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38:59 +0100, News
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News

Doubtless, had they not bought those houses, they would still be renting
from the LA today, so buying has not changed house availability.

No, but it means there are less *rentable / social* housing to go
round for those even less fortunate than your friends?

Well yes - and no :-) As I said earlier, if friends had not bought
their council house, they would still be renting, so no change.

Understood.

One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

OOI, what sort of maintenance has he had to do to in the 30 years he's
owned it? By your logic, the Council can't own any property because of
the risk of having to maintain it ... and the cost of any of the
maintenance isn't factorised into the rent?

I can see both sides of the council house arguement.

Yes, so can I, and it doesn't seem balanced from a good supply of
'social housing' POV (or hasn't been balanced since the 'racket'
started in the fist place), IMHO of course. ;-)

I remember, as a
youngster, the parents of friends in council houses always seemed to be
better off than my parents, who bought a house.

Quite.

Those in council houses
seemed to have newer cars, BBC2 before we did, colour TVs before we did.

Yup ... because they often had more disposable income than those
trying to stand on their own two feet from the begriming.

A particular friend, one of four boys, lived in a large council house
with his brothers and parents. By the time we were mid/late teens, all
four boys and father were working, all four boys at home, and they were
awash with cash.

Yup, seen it loads.

Should they have been forced out of their council
house?

No, however, the rent could have been increased to reflect their
financial status and from what you have said (and I have also
observed) they could probably have afford to buy their *own* place,
off their own backs, the same way the vast majority of us have had to.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting they were doing anything illegal and
if there was more than enough social housing to go round then there
would be no problem but for those with the means to not rely on
subsidised accommodation to deny it to those who do, I think is a bit
immoral. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system for allowing
people to be the inconsiderate people they can sometimes be.

The same applies to those who win the lottery, pi$$ it all away and
then end up back on the dole (when they could be working if they could
be bothered I mean). They should be forced to first pay (us) back the
money that have taken in dole up to that point (just as if someone had
taken out a payday loan to survive) and the rest put in trust and used
for them to live on till they do get a job and become self sufficient.

No one wonders why the UK is seen as a soft target for scroungers.

Cheers, T i m


p.s. I'm not saying any of this is easy or that I know all the answers
(I obviously don't) but it does get me to see people in real need
suffering because of the greed or selfishness of others. Just like the
minority who empty the entire ''bargain' section at the food
supermarkets into their trolley, leaving nothing for anyone else, only
to put it back later when something cheaper is put out.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38:59 +0100, News
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News

Doubtless, had they not bought those houses, they would still be renting
from the LA today, so buying has not changed house availability.

No, but it means there are less *rentable / social* housing to go
round for those even less fortunate than your friends?

Well yes - and no :-) As I said earlier, if friends had not bought
their council house, they would still be renting, so no change.

Understood.

One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

OOI, what sort of maintenance has he had to do to in the 30 years he's
owned it? By your logic, the Council can't own any property because of
the risk of having to maintain it ... and the cost of any of the
maintenance isn't factorised into the rent?

I can see both sides of the council house arguement.

Yes, so can I, and it doesn't seem balanced from a good supply of
'social housing' POV (or hasn't been balanced since the 'racket'
started in the fist place), IMHO of course. ;-)

I remember, as a
youngster, the parents of friends in council houses always seemed to be
better off than my parents, who bought a house.

Quite.

Those in council houses
seemed to have newer cars, BBC2 before we did, colour TVs before we did.

Yup ... because they often had more disposable income than those
trying to stand on their own two feet from the begriming.

A particular friend, one of four boys, lived in a large council house
with his brothers and parents. By the time we were mid/late teens, all
four boys and father were working, all four boys at home, and they were
awash with cash.

Yup, seen it loads.

Should they have been forced out of their council
house?

No, however, the rent could have been increased to reflect their
financial status and from what you have said (and I have also
observed) they could probably have afford to buy their *own* place,
off their own backs, the same way the vast majority of us have had to.

Like I said, I'm not suggesting they were doing anything illegal and
if there was more than enough social housing to go round then there
would be no problem but for those with the means to not rely on
subsidised accommodation to deny it to those who do, I think is a bit
immoral. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system for allowing
people to be the inconsiderate people they can sometimes be.

The same applies to those who win the lottery, pi$$ it all away and
then end up back on the dole (when they could be working if they could
be bothered I mean). They should be forced to first pay (us) back the
money that have taken in dole up to that point (just as if someone had
taken out a payday loan to survive) and the rest put in trust and used
for them to live on till they do get a job and become self sufficient.

No one wonders why the UK is seen as a soft target for scroungers.

Cheers, T i m


p.s. I'm not saying any of this is easy or that I know all the answers
(I obviously don't) but it does get me to see people in real need
suffering because of the greed or selfishness of others.

Just how do you claim that they are actually 'suffering' when at most
the council pays the rent of commercial propertys so they can stay there ?

Just like the minority who empty the entire
''bargain' section at the food supermarkets into
their trolley, leaving nothing for anyone else,

Trivially fixed by limiting the number that
any one individual is allowed to purchase.

only to put it back later when something cheaper is put out.

Then anyone else can grab some.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:30:59 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

snip

The woman across the road bought her own council house and apart from
those things she chose to spend on it (like adding cavity wall
insulation and a conservatory) it's cost her nothing. The wet room was
added by the council for nothing and she gets her mobility car
allowance because she is disabled (but that is by the by).

Had it still been council owned (like many of those either side of it)
they would probably be housing a family of four (like the council
owned houses either side) and not just the one person.

snip

All of which is why they should be chucked out when they can afford to buy or rent in the real market.

Well, whilst having them leave and freeing up the social housing for
people in social need would be the ideal solution (like thinking you
can live for ever in a holiday let), an easier and more logical
solution would be to increase the rent (means tested still) to offset
the fact that they still need to find homes for people who *can't*
afford to buy their own (or rent privately).

If they have cars, they can afford to buy a house.

Especially if they have several new / expensive cars they probably
could. That said, many are on lease because that way they can 'afford'
to have something flash when really they can't afford to. Same with
those who don't have a pot to pi$$ in but still buy little Johnny 100
pound trainers but wouldn't be seen in a charity shop (not for
trainers particularly).

It seems many people are so bothered about what other people might
think of them when in most cases, those other people really CGAF and
in fact, if everybody saw the light, they could break the whole bogus
cycle and make things cheaper / easier for everyone.

The ultimate stupidity from my POV are those people buying 'pre
ripped' jeans and worn out baseball caps (at exorbitant prices as
well). How demoralising, confusing and frustrating must it be for some
working in a textile factory in China to be required to stitch
something up to the highest quality to see the next person slash it
with a knife or run it against a sanding belt. ;-(

I wonder if they will start selling 'pre dented and scratched' new
cars for the fashion conscious in London? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 30 May 2016 09:02:35 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 29-May-16 8:01 AM, harry wrote:
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

How do you identify Council houses? At one time it was simple - all
those in a particular street were Council built and owned. These days,
most of those houses are likely to be privately owned and the Council
tenants are far more likely to be living in property rented by the
Council from the private sector.

And are people seriously suggesting it's more expensive to maintain a
property than to pay the market value to rent a private house to
provide social housing? A house must need some serious work to justify
the £1000 / month over a house they built, paid for (via rent) and
owned from 20 years ago.

Don't they call that 'asset stripping' or 'giving away the family
jewels', jewels we paid for to provide housing for those of us who
couldn't afford anything else. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38:59 +0100, News
wrote:

One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

OOI, what sort of maintenance has he had to do to in the 30 years he's
owned it?

Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

By your logic, the Council can't own any property because of
the risk of having to maintain it

Not at all. Merely that ongoing maintenance is a cost that is
eliminated when the tenant buys the house. My MK I in-laws had a
council house, which meant the slightest problem meant nothing more than
a phone call to the council who would send a man out. Routine
repainting of the exterior, updated kitchens and bathrooms etc. All
costs that house owners bear themselves or go without. Which is why our
bathroom suite is still a horrible colour and our kitchen was
fashionable about 1970 :-)

... and the cost of any of the
maintenance isn't factorised into the rent?

Compared to what? How is rent calculated? I have no idea how much rent
is, or how it is calculated. Yes, the rent includes maintenance, but
the council's overall rental income must surely exceed overall
maintenance costs? But by how much? The cost of building the houses
divided by x years? I don't know.

Funnily enough, as an ex local postmaster, I was handling rent payments
day in, day out, yet no two were the same. There must be a sliding
scale according to size of property, and perhaps age of property,
location etc. Then there are means tested subsidies.
--
Graeme

In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

But then you'd not expect Mail readers to know the meaning of fair.

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

And the disincentive for tenants to take a better paid job. There needs
to be a clear benefit to encourage the downsize move.

--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
News wrote:
Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved. Or do you mean 1% of the re-build
costs?

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 30 May 2016 10:51:27 +0100, News
wrote:

In message , T i m
writes
On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38:59 +0100, News
wrote:

One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

OOI, what sort of maintenance has he had to do to in the 30 years he's
owned it?

Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do.

So not really justification for selling off all their social housing
stock (and not replacing it)?

I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc.

I think we should differentiate 'routine maintenance (required to
maintain the structure of the building) with 'decoration', as that's a
personal choice. I understand how it might be a good rule_of_thumb re
forward planning though. ;-)

That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

Me too and I'm happy to say I've spent little on it over the ~40 years
I've owned it.

By your logic, the Council can't own any property because of
the risk of having to maintain it

Not at all. Merely that ongoing maintenance is a cost that is
eliminated when the tenant buys the house.

At the 'cost' of having less social housing (that must be replaced
with something else that presumably will also have a maintenance
cost)?

My MK I in-laws had a
council house, which meant the slightest problem meant nothing more than
a phone call to the council who would send a man out.

Ok, and covered in their rent.

Routine
repainting of the exterior, updated kitchens and bathrooms etc. All
costs that house owners bear themselves or go without.

Quite, as with any rented place in theory.

Which is why our
bathroom suite is still a horrible colour and our kitchen was
fashionable about 1970 :-)

Same here (but both are ok). ;-)

... and the cost of any of the
maintenance isn't factorised into the rent?

Compared to what?

Like you just said, having to pay for such things out of your own
pocket. The 'whole point' of living in a rented council place is that
you don't also have to carry the responsibility for such things, just
as employing a self-employed person means you don't have to cover
their PAYE / NI / Holidays etc.

How is rent calculated? I have no idea how much rent
is, or how it is calculated. Yes, the rent includes maintenance, but
the council's overall rental income must surely exceed overall
maintenance costs?

Well, you would hope so but I doubt it would because of all the
tenants who are living there on benefits (and I don't know if the
council get 100% of the money they might from the government under
those circumstances). At the other end there are those with the means
to pay more who probably aren't so it would never balance out.

But by how much? The cost of building the houses
divided by x years? I don't know.

Me neither mate but it must be something like that.

Funnily enough, as an ex local postmaster, I was handling rent payments
day in, day out, yet no two were the same. There must be a sliding
scale according to size of property, and perhaps age of property,
location etc.

Yes, I'm sure there are 'grades / bands', just as there are for
rateable value etc.

Then there are means tested subsidies.

And if done correctly seem a fairer way of doing things .... except,
that can also have it's pitfalls. Like, if you save your money but
then lose your job you will have to fend for yourself till the money
runs out. Pi$$ all your money up the wall and you can get access to
the handouts sooner (or some such).

I wouldn't want to sort it all out that's for sure! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 30 May 2016 11:11:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

True.

Then I guess they do what I've seen done round here were they pull
down a few houses and replace them with a small block of (individually
smaller) flats.

But then you'd not expect Mail readers to know the meaning of fair.

;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:25:59 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

And the disincentive for tenants to take a better paid job.

And that can be there even with ordinary workers where a wage rise
takes you into the next tax bracket (so the rise isn't worth what it
might have been otherwise).

There needs
to be a clear benefit to encourage the downsize move.

Other than 'doing the right thing' you mean? ;-)

Mum is now on her own in what was once our family (3 bed) house but
she is considering downsizing so she can (amongst other things), free
up the house for another family.

Cheers, T i m

On 30/05/2016 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

But then you'd not expect Mail readers to know the meaning of fair.


Fair?

If you rent privately and are on benefits they won't pay for you to rent
a house with spare rooms. Its been like this for many years. The spare
room tax is just a start to making it fair. Just why should someone in
council property get a spare room(s) for nowt when a private tenant can't?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If you rent privately and are on benefits they won't pay for you to rent
a house with spare rooms. Its been like this for many years. The spare
room tax is just a start to making it fair. Just why should someone in
council property get a spare room(s) for nowt when a private tenant
can't?

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

But doesn't surprise me many think they should now be chucked out on the
street.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 30 May 2016 14:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:
Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved. Or do you mean 1% of the re-build
costs?

You could buy a terraced house for 4 grand in the 70s. £40 a year maintenance, I wish.


NT

On 29/05/2016 10:46, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:08:31 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 29/05/2016 09:27, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:29:19 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Corse no one living in a council house should ever be
allowed to have anything like that, even the ones who
had bought them from the council when Maggie allowed
that or ones like Adam who actually own the house.

snip

It's all down to what would be considered fair and reasonable by the
majority.

Anything that is subsidises a minority (for no reason) by the majority
should be means-tested.

Being able to rent a council house at under the market level of rents
(because they are subsidised by other taxpayers) when you have the
means to pay the market value and to *then* be given the opportunity
to buy said property (at well below the market value) is a massive
kick in the teeth to those unable to have access to a council house
and with insufficient funds to buy their own off the private market.


2 things. Council housing was not built with 'taxpayers' money'. It was
built with loans, repaid with rent.

But to / by whom? If it's 'the Council' then don't we fund them (The
Council) via our rates and some funding from central Government though
taxes?


The LA took out a loan (usually for 40 years at very low rates), and
that loan was repaid with rent. That's the basis on which it was built.

It could at a stretch be argued that central taxation has funded council
housing through housing benefit.

Some LAs have in the past used rates to support maintaining council
housing - but that was long ago. In 1989 it was effectively banned. If
anything, the flow now goes the other way - council rents support other
LA services.

A no-cost to the public (except possibly publicly owned land) mass
public housing programme would actually be quite easy to do.

So the issue wasn't really how the houses were initially funded or
subsequently paid for but (IMHO) who owns them (on paper) once built
and who has the right to then buy them and at what price?

Most LA housing current accounts now
operate in balance or surplus.

As it should be, even with straight rents (over the required period to
pay back the loans etc). I thought 'Social housing' was aimed at those
not in a position to afford to buy (or rent) their home from the free
market and so certain prerequisites should be met (means testing etc).
[1]


Means testing is a long-running debate. In essence, LA housing is not
means tested. But in effect, you'd have to be asset poor(ish - it's
complicated!).

I used to work for Guinness, and at the time I was there (1990), we used
to mean test. Quite common in the housing association sector back then.

On 'should be (in surplus)', that's also been something of a political
football over the past 50 years, largely because of the control of LA
rents by central government (google Clay Cross rent*).

If there were an abundance of Council housing then of course, anyone
who wants to rent one should be allowed to. [1]

Some councils actually build using the
surplus.

I understood that to be the idea but I'm not sure just how many your
'some' represents. ;-(

Very few. It's not the idea, in fact. It'd be like you or I buying a
house with cash, saved from our wages over a couple of years. it's the
sort of thing current governments celebrate, alas.

snip

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


That was (part of) the basis of the bedroom tax - get people to think
about that 'spare' bedroom, or have their benefits cut. And down-size
incentives have always been there. Basically, if somebody wants to move
somewhere smaller, it's in everyone's interest if it can be made easy.
That's just good management.

But it reality, it's a tough call. It's home, after all.

* I'm sure that used to work. In 1972, Clay Cross councillors refused to
apply a demand by central government to increase rents - the only
council to do so.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Monday, 30 May 2016 10:54:26 UTC+1, News wrote:
In message , T i m
writes
On Mon, 30 May 2016 08:38:59 +0100, News
wrote:

One
particular friend acquired his council house 40 years ago, bought it 30
years ago, and is still happily living there. Yes, he bought at a
discount, but has saved the council 30 years of maintenance.

OOI, what sort of maintenance has he had to do to in the 30 years he's
owned it?

Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

By your logic, the Council can't own any property because of
the risk of having to maintain it

Not at all. Merely that ongoing maintenance is a cost that is
eliminated when the tenant buys the house. My MK I in-laws had a
council house, which meant the slightest problem meant nothing more than
a phone call to the council who would send a man out. Routine
repainting of the exterior, updated kitchens and bathrooms etc. All
costs that house owners bear themselves or go without. Which is why our
bathroom suite is still a horrible colour and our kitchen was
fashionable about 1970 :-)

... and the cost of any of the
maintenance isn't factorised into the rent?

Compared to what? How is rent calculated? I have no idea how much rent
is, or how it is calculated. Yes, the rent includes maintenance, but
the council's overall rental income must surely exceed overall
maintenance costs? But by how much? The cost of building the houses
divided by x years? I don't know.

Funnily enough, as an ex local postmaster, I was handling rent payments
day in, day out, yet no two were the same. There must be a sliding
scale according to size of property, and perhaps age of property,
location etc. Then there are means tested subsidies.
--
Graeme

A big cost is the "loss of interest" on the money taken to build the house in the first place.
Or the cost of the loan to build it.

On Monday, 30 May 2016 16:59:46 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 30 May 2016 14:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:
Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved. Or do you mean 1% of the re-build
costs?

You could buy a terraced house for 4 grand in the 70s. £40 a year maintenance, I wish.

In the 70's you could buy a house for £400 as I did.

On 29/05/2016 13:18, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Adam Aglionby wrote:
Having had a buyer who had pretty much very rock available thrown in
their path when they attempted to use Scottish `Help to buy` with a
private residential sale , under no illusion that the schemes were only
ever aimed at subsdising large housebuilders and artificially inflating
new build prices.

Housing Associations can be some of the shadiest operators of all
landlords.

Surely that can't be so? After all the whole idea of privatizing
things is
it gives a better deal to everyone? Or could it be we were lied to?

No, you're given a chance to regulate, tax, and monitor the people
involved.

Seriously?! That'd be like financial services then ;-)

Whatever, the long and short is that the housing association sector has
changed beyond recognition since 1980, and becoming a wing of the state.

Unlike when the service was in "public" ownership, when you
were told to mind your own business.


HAs were never in public ownership - they were entirely private (think
Guinness, Samuel lewis, Rowntree etc).

But I take your point - the tenants (and indeed the public) had very
little control over what they got up to. Which to be be fair, included
quite a lot of good.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/05/2016 16:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If you rent privately and are on benefits they won't pay for you to rent
a house with spare rooms. Its been like this for many years. The spare
room tax is just a start to making it fair. Just why should someone in
council property get a spare room(s) for nowt when a private tenant
can't?

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

The private rented ones may also have done so but they don't get the
extra money for the extra room.


But doesn't surprise me many think they should now be chucked out on the
street.


The can pay the tax and they can't be chucked out on the street anyway.

On 30-May-16 10:44 AM, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 09:02:35 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

On 29-May-16 8:01 AM, harry wrote:
While out leafleting, I couldn't help noticing the number of council houses with two or three cars, parked on verges, front gardens (sometimes concreted over) etc.
BMWs. Audis. New cars. Caravans. Motor homes.

How do you identify Council houses? At one time it was simple - all
those in a particular street were Council built and owned. These days,
most of those houses are likely to be privately owned and the Council
tenants are far more likely to be living in property rented by the
Council from the private sector.

And are people seriously suggesting it's more expensive to maintain a
property than to pay the market value to rent a private house to
provide social housing? A house must need some serious work to justify
the £1000 / month over a house they built, paid for (via rent) and
owned from 20 years ago.

Don't they call that 'asset stripping' or 'giving away the family
jewels', jewels we paid for to provide housing for those of us who
couldn't afford anything else. ;-(

I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 30-May-16 6:52 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


A qualifying tenant in Council owned accommodation has a legal right to
buy it at a discounted price. That is quite different from making an
offer on a private property at the market price that the owner can refuse.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:25:59 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
It makes sense if you are rattling about in a big place and fancy
summat smaller (and presumably cheaper to rent)?

The problem is there were far more family sized council houses built than
those for couples or even singles. If you are going to force someone out
of a too large house by taxing them, a decent 'authority' would make sure
they have a suitable alternative for them to move to.

And the disincentive for tenants to take a better paid job.

And that can be there even with ordinary workers where a wage rise
takes you into the next tax bracket (so the rise isn't worth what it
might have been otherwise).

That has always been a myth. There is always a positive benefit
from the wage rise.

There needs
to be a clear benefit to encourage the downsize move.

Other than 'doing the right thing' you mean? ;-)

Mum is now on her own in what was once our family (3 bed) house but
she is considering downsizing so she can (amongst other things), free
up the house for another family.

That is fine for those that want to do that, but
IMO not a great idea to force everyone to do that,
particularly with so many kids moving out for a
while and then moving back in again when their
relationship busts up etc.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.

No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the purpose
of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.

But doesnt have any RIGHT TO BUY it.

In article , News
writes
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price
is, say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not
been sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the
houses available to others. In other words, people who rented council
houses before the sale would have carried on renting even if they
couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build
more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political
persuasions.
--
bert

In article ,
writes
On Monday, 30 May 2016 14:11:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
News wrote:
Just the general, ongoing, household maintenance that we all do. I was
told, when I bought my first house in 1975, that I should allow an
annual average budget of one per cent of the value of the house for
routine maintenance, decoration etc. That probably holds true today,
although I do live in a Victorian house.

If I had to pay out 1% of the value of this Victorian house every year on
maintenance, I'd have long since moved. Or do you mean 1% of the re-build
costs?

You could buy a terraced house for 4 grand in the 70s. £40 a year
maintenance, I wish.


NT
Under the old Rates system there was a deduction for maintenance after
"rental value" had been determined.
--
bert

On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:59:55 +0100, RJH wrote:

snip

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize. It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(


That was (part of) the basis of the bedroom tax - get people to think
about that 'spare' bedroom, or have their benefits cut. And down-size
incentives have always been there. Basically, if somebody wants to move
somewhere smaller, it's in everyone's interest if it can be made easy.
That's just good management.

But it reality, it's a tough call. It's home, after all.

* I'm sure that used to work. In 1972, Clay Cross councillors refused to
apply a demand by central government to increase rents - the only
council to do so.


Thanks for the interesting and informed reply Rob. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 30/05/2016 17:49, dennis@home wrote:
On 30/05/2016 16:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
If you rent privately and are on benefits they won't pay for you to rent
a house with spare rooms. Its been like this for many years. The spare
room tax is just a start to making it fair. Just why should someone in
council property get a spare room(s) for nowt when a private tenant
can't?

The whole point of the bedroom tax is that they don't. And those not
entitled to benefits generally pay a higher rent for a larger property.


Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.


Quite. It escapes me that people on this group don't seem to get that.

The private rented ones may also have done so but they don't get the
extra money for the extra room.


But doesn't surprise me many think they should now be chucked out on the
street.


The can pay the tax and they can't be chucked out on the street anyway.


Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

But it seems that you are right - the expected mass evictions haven't
happened. Early research is suggesting that food banks and greater
poverty is taking the strain.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/05/2016 18:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 18:43, Nightjar wrote:
I thought that the driving force behind putting Council tenants into
private sector housing was that they wouldn't have the right to buy that
housing.


It was more a squirm out of statutory rights of the homeless to 'secure
accommodation'. Whether LAs could discharge their housing duties with
the use of private housing has always been vague. Now it's routine.


No, that was a piece of propaganda dreamed up by the left for the
purpose of being ****s as usual.

Obviously any tenant can make an offer on the house he rents.


Odder than usual, but still as offensive. Progress?


--
Cheers, Rob

On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:05:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

Quite. It escapes me that people on this group don't seem to get that.

Boo. Hoo. Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the
exact same property for generations on end?

I don't see why I should pay for somebody else's nice-warm-fuzzy-feeling
while they live in a property that's far bigger than they need,
simultaneously blocking others into overcrowded conditions.

Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

Seems like an indirect result, at best, to me.

To put it into perspective, somebody with one spare room retains 86% of
their housing benefit, somebody with two spare rooms retains 75%. The
average reduction is estimated at £14 per week. Fourteen quid. Pensioners
always retain 100%.

On 29/05/2016 23:17, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News
wrote:


I have friends who bought their council
houses, mainly because there was no way they would have been able to
save a large enough deposit to buy on the open market, and could not
have afforded open market prices anyway.
Yes, but they did afford to buy and so took that property out of the
social housing / rental market?

And at the same time they took themselves out of the social
housing/rental market.

Net change in council houses required: Zero.

Andy

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , News
writes
In message , T i m
writes

[1] With a massive shortage of property, especially family and starter
homes, there could be a positive incentive put in place (assuming
there isn't) to assist people to downsize.

Perhaps nil rate stamp duty on the purchase, when the purchase price is,
say, 100k or more than the sale price?

It would be no less 'fair'
than giving away publicly owned property at below market value,
especially when they (The Councils) then have to rent property
themselves at the market value to home people in need! ;-(

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty years
ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not been sold.
The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the houses available to
others. In other words, people who rented council houses before the sale
would have carried on renting even if they couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build more
houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political persuasions.

Essentially because they didn't see that it made any
sense to have the govt involved in building houses.

On 30/05/2016 20:55, bert wrote:
In article , News
writes

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not
been sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the
houses available to others. In other words, people who rented council
houses before the sale would have carried on renting even if they
couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build
more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political
persuasions.

Thank you for that. A datum I was not aware of.

Mind, you could happily delete "Social" from the thread title. That's
why private rents and sale prices are both rising fast.

Andy

On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:44:18 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 29/05/2016 23:17, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 22:40:00 +0100, News
wrote:


I have friends who bought their council
houses, mainly because there was no way they would have been able to
save a large enough deposit to buy on the open market, and could not
have afforded open market prices anyway.
Yes, but they did afford to buy and so took that property out of the
social housing / rental market?

And at the same time they took themselves out of the social
housing/rental market.

By buying something that should never have been sold in the first
place. ;-(

Net change in council houses required: Zero.

Net change in social housing stock, -1.

If they were renting they wouldn't live for ever so the house remains
'available' to others (in need).

Ok, the guy opposite us rented a council house whilst his neighbour
bought hers. He recently died and his kids thought they could live
there again. They couldn't, and the place was gutted, put back to
stock / up to current code and is now being lived in by a new family.

When the woman who bought hers dies, it goes to her NOK and would only
be returned to 'social housing' if sold to a HA.

Cheers, T i m

On 30/05/2016 21:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:05:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

Quite. It escapes me that people on this group don't seem to get that.

Boo. Hoo.

Hold it together now.

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the
exact same property for generations on end?


That was the assumption, if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

I don't see why I should pay for somebody else's nice-warm-fuzzy-feeling
while they live in a property that's far bigger than they need,
simultaneously blocking others into overcrowded conditions.


I somehow doubt you do.

Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

Seems like an indirect result, at best, to me.


As I said and you snipped, early research is suggesting that the
expected evictions haven't happened on the scale predicted. Households
are poorer, and relying on food banks.

To put it into perspective, somebody with one spare room retains 86% of
their housing benefit, somebody with two spare rooms retains 75%. The
average reduction is estimated at £14 per week. Fourteen quid.

Perspective? Good grief.


--
Cheers, Rob

On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 30/05/2016 21:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:05:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

Quite. It escapes me that people on this group don't seem to get that.

Boo. Hoo.

Hold it together now.

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the
exact same property for generations on end?


That was the assumption,

Ah, and we know what that makes. ;-)

if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

Yeahbut ... maybe you should look up 'Renting'? ;-)

"Renting, also known as hiring or letting, is an agreement where a
payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property
owned by another."

*Temporary*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting

snip

Don't get me wrong, I'm guessing many people *do* assume they will be
renting the same place forever ... like I've been renting a lockup for
a good few years now but I've never assumed I'd be able to forever ...

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact same
property for generations on end?

That was the assumption, if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

Home is a state of mind. No more than that. You can easily move your
home, if you want to.

Property is the bricks-and-mortar.

You rent property. You make your home.

I don't see why I should pay for somebody else's
nice-warm-fuzzy-feeling while they live in a property that's far bigger
than they need, simultaneously blocking others into overcrowded
conditions.

I somehow doubt you do.

Don't get me wrong - I'm _quite_ happy to pay for homes for those who
cannot otherwise afford homes.

Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

Seems like an indirect result, at best, to me.

As I said and you snipped, early research is suggesting that the
expected evictions haven't happened on the scale predicted. Households
are poorer, and relying on food banks.

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.

But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether eviction
for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.

On 30/05/2016 23:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

On 30/05/2016 21:25, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 21:05:07 +0100, RJH wrote:

Because they could have been living in that house all their life and
brought up their family there.

Quite. It escapes me that people on this group don't seem to get that.

Boo. Hoo.

Hold it together now.

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the
exact same property for generations on end?


That was the assumption,

Ah, and we know what that makes. ;-)

if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

Yeahbut ... maybe you should look up 'Renting'? ;-)

"Renting, also known as hiring or letting, is an agreement where a
payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property
owned by another."

*Temporary*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renting


Well, fair comments! But really this is what's being discussed: *secure*
renting:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...ncil_tenancies

and they used to be a whole lot more secure . . .


Don't get me wrong, I'm guessing many people *do* assume they will be
renting the same place forever ... like I've been renting a lockup for
a good few years now but I've never assumed I'd be able to forever ...


For ever was, more or less, the deal. And in writing.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 30/05/2016 23:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 22:25:36 +0100, RJH wrote:

Who ever promised some kind of inalienable right to rent the exact same
property for generations on end?


I'd just return to that point - council tenants had/have a form of
tenancy that is about as secure in practice as owning. As did housing
association tenants until quite recently. Obviously not the same rights
to succession etc.

So 'who' was the policy makers, and it really came straight from
Beveridge. Before that I suppose.

And there's a very real prospect of all of that changing, with the
Housing and Planning Bill - which I haven't really kept up on, except to
say that the House of Lords has actually proved itself useful for once.


That was the assumption, if that's what the tenant wanted. Look up
'home', and try to think of it less as 'property'.

Home is a state of mind. No more than that. You can easily move your
home, if you want to.


I do agree that's a valid point, and this is one on which we might have
to agree to differ. The mind is what makes it real - not the bricks or
mortar.

Property is the bricks-and-mortar.

You rent property. You make your home.

I don't see why I should pay for somebody else's
nice-warm-fuzzy-feeling while they live in a property that's far bigger
than they need, simultaneously blocking others into overcrowded
conditions.

I somehow doubt you do.

Don't get me wrong - I'm _quite_ happy to pay for homes for those who
cannot otherwise afford homes.

Yes, they can be evicted as a direct result of the bedroom tax -
non-payment of rent is a mandatory ground for possession.

Seems like an indirect result, at best, to me.

As I said and you snipped, early research is suggesting that the
expected evictions haven't happened on the scale predicted. Households
are poorer, and relying on food banks.

Fourteen quid a week is not turning people to food banks.


As I say, early research is suggesting that it does. for example (one of
many):

The bedroom tax has increased poverty and had broad-ranging adverse
effects on health, wellbeing and social relationships.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org...ed.fdv031.full

More than happy to defer to evidence elsewhere.

But, anyway, that's a _completely_ separate question to whether eviction
for non-payment of rent would be a direct or indirect result.


Well, strictly I suppose the tenant is evicted for non-payment of rent.
But the 'why' isn't completely separate, I'd have thought.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Monday, 30 May 2016 21:49:31 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/05/2016 20:55, bert wrote:
In article , News
writes

I still struggle to understand why the sale of council houses thirty
years ago caused a shortage of homes. Suppose those houses had not
been sold. The occupants would not suddenly vaporise, making the
houses available to others. In other words, people who rented council
houses before the sale would have carried on renting even if they
couldn't buy.

Which was the logic behind selling them and would have been sensible had
the councils been allowed to keep the proceeds and use them to build
more houses. But they weren't - by governments of both political
persuasions.

Thank you for that. A datum I was not aware of.

Mind, you could happily delete "Social" from the thread title. That's
why private rents and sale prices are both rising fast.

No, that's a shortage caused by migrants.