Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

< P.S. Believe me social tenants are not mollycoddled, far from it. It can be nigh on impossible to get essential repairs done to a housing Association home. The associations are gravy trains, and the people who run them try every trick in the book to spend as little as possible on their housing stock, so they can retain as much money as possible for their own salaries and bonuses. >

We became private tenants about 6 years ago, due to a number of unfortunate incidents, and have to say that it isn't only the council tenants who get a rough deal on repairs etc. At the last house we rented, the boiler packed up on July 12th. After many lies and excuses from both the agent and the landlord, it was eventually fixed on the 24th. October, we left 3 weeks later in November.

2 days after moving to our current home the boiler packed up, a week later it was fixed. This house has so very many faults, but you just try to get the landlord to put his hand in his pocket.... Not to mention that he and his wife still claim to live here, I have to hold on to all their mail, and during the winter months post it off monthly to a P.O. Box in Portugal   What really irks me is, I pay £80 a month more for this 3 bedroom hovel than my mortgage was on our last house even with 4 fewer rooms....

This is another annoying twist of the knife mortgage - wise.  You get turned down for a mortgage due to a shortfall in your income multiples -- yet can demonstrate that you have been paying more in rent for the last xx years!!

The banks have become incredibly risk averse of late, which is understandable tbh. The current mess started because they had been lending money to a lot of people who couldnt afford to pay it back. Everything in the industry now is about taking virtually no risk whatsoever, and they are employing more and more people (who generate no wealth or profit) who check every T has been crossed and every i been dotted for the sake of compliance with all the FSA directives etc. I think it will be that way for a very long time to come, unfortunately.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it

Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?

Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.

That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.

The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?

Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living.  They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses.  They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub.  In many ways you cannot blame them!!

Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.

I agree with Albs on this point.......What's the difference between "the millstone" that is 25 years of mortgage payments ....or "the millstone" that is 25 years  of paying rent.

Unless you are a dysfunctional adult who lives with his parents well into middle age ....you will be paying for one millstone or another...

The difference is Opti that if you have a mortgage and lose your job, then you will lose all security and a home.  Paying rent means for many the ability to take things day by day, and if the worst happens as many workers fear, then they can stay in their home with benefits paying the rent!  In addition there is a large proportion of the population that do not believe in lumping themselves with a mortgage, even if they can, as it gives them no flexibility, especially with the culture of "living together" couples that may stay together for a few months / years, but then split.

It is for practical reasons why many opt to rent, and they believe mortgages are not for them.  Who says they are wrong in their particular circumstances?

[Mr Skrunts]

Through work I get out and about, and the amount of people sat at 'home' (their cheap rent social housing) all day, with the heating on full, huge flat screen tv, all home luxuries etc whilst not being at work or working very little whilst claiming all the benefits under the sun is unbelievable. There is a cost to everything, make them pay. Social tenants are mollycoddled with kid gloves. Put the rents up AND limit the tenure. The socialism that labour tried hard to bring about is one half of the country going to work to pay for the other half who sit at home but still have it all. Hopefully the coalition will redress this and I'm all for it

Social housing rent isnt actually cheap imo. For example - a 2 bedroom terrace house, in not very good condition, cost approx. £450 pcm in rent from a housing assoc. in my local area.
The market value of the house would be approx. £160,000.
How much would the monthly repayments be on the mortage for that house at current interest rates ?

Depends on their salary and amount of deposit, but assuming a conservative 10% deposit and salary of £40k, about £900 a month - more if the salary is less (assuming you could find someone who'd lend, which is unlikely) less if the deposit is more.

That's a fairly hefty discount in my book.

The 10% deposit assumption is very conservative imo. The typical buyer would be selling their first home -typically 1 bed flat - and using profit as deposit, which would have quite an effect on monthly repayments.
There is also the fact that home ownership builds wealth, and renting doesnt, to take onto account. Mortage repayments are usually an investment, whereas rent obviously isnt. So, for me the question remains - why would anyone live in social housing if they could afford to buy their own home ?

Because Albs many prefer not to have a mortgage and instead enjoy plenty of cash flow for everyday living.  They also do not want the millstone of their own property with all the expenses.  They would sooner go on holiday every year and go regularly to the pub.  In many ways you cannot blame them!!

Sorry, dont buy that. Owning your own property is not a millstone, it is and always has been a very good long term investment. People in almost all cases imo, dont own property because they cant afford to.
I still havent had anyone suggest what the problem is that the Govt. are trying to fix.

You missed a few bits out albs.


People pften get married/divorced so a guy owing his own property, gets married and has kids and then divorces or marries and takes on a family and then divorces and in both cases only gets half of what he put into then meets someone else, puts all his money down on a deposit and buys a new family home only to end up divorced again.

Then there is the single person, no relatives, no family, why buy a house when it's cheaper to rent.

Where I used to live there were families taking advantage of houseing booms  (80's) selling up thier 4 or 5 bed properties and moving into rented accomadation (3 bedroom) for £20 a weekand just banking thier house money and making a profit  alot of who invested abroad.



Same old situation, goverment make rules, people will allways simply take advantage of them. 

[Entwood]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

[albitz]

If you lose your job, benefits will take care of your mortage for a certain amount of time. Then it is possible you could lose your home. If this happens you have only one realistic course of action - social housing.
I grew up on huge housing estates, and the vast majority of the tenants lived in the same house for many years, and took a lot of pride in their homes. I dont believe it would be right in any circumstances to take those houses off these people.
Chavs who wreck the houses and have no respect for anything or anyone are a different matter, but this policy claims to be about getting people out of social housing who could afford to live elswhere, so the chavs wont be affected by it. In fact it could easily turn the estates into ghettos, if you take out the people who work for a living.
If it isnt done in a very careful way, it could cause outrage. For example - the first time someone has their house taken from them  for those kind of reasons, and the new tenant is an immigrant, it would be christmas come early for the BNP etc.
They would have a field day with the media, claiming ethnic cleansing against the indiginous people. Particularily against harmless people who pay their way in the world, and dont tend to bang the table for "their entitlements and rights" etc.
It would be very easy for the media to portray it as bullying against people who have done nothing to deserve it.
But Im sure the spin doctors will advise Cameron of that before it gets much further. Expect it to get watered down considerably before it gets anywhere near the statute books.

[albitz]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

But you are only subsidising the rent if the tenant is recieving housing benefit, and this policy wont affect those people.
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes. Since her enabling many more people to become home owners attitudes seem to have changed to the point that it seems that if you live in rented housing you are a workshy pariah who is to be looked down on.
As Lizzie says, in the rest of Europe it is the norm to rent, but the problem in this country is that house prices, and therefore private rental prices are so ludicrouly high, that it isnt really an option for many people.
How can someone these days who earns a normal wage of say£22,000pa possibly get on the housing ladder,or pay £800 pcm to rent a 3 bed semi in the private sector? :-/

[Varche]

The one factor that we have all forgotten to mention in this discussion,which skews any figures mentioned by a huge amount, is the fact that houses in this country are absolutely ludicrously overpriced. I accept Aarons argument that the differential between social housing rent and mortage repayments is higher than I thought it would be, but that is only due to the price of property. Although it is almost impossible to achieve, I would really like to see a catastrophic crash in property prices, but the rest of the economy growing nicely at the same time.The economy has shrunk quite a lot in the last 3 years, but house prices dont seem to have dropped by anything like the same amount. This is obviously a simple supply and demand issue, due to the increased number of people living in the country, so there probably isnt much that could be done about it.
Who gains from these high property prices apart from estate agents? :-/

You could be right on that on Albs.  However historically the wealth of the country has been in land, and it has represented the collateral for commerce and private transactions almost since certainly Roman rule.  Land, and therefore property, represents the worth of us all and if the values slip, as you suggest as a good thing, then the commercial worth of all transactions is ruined with disastrous results.  Negative equity is just one result, but even worse is the value of all investments based in property, and I warrant that is a majority, plummet with that resulting, in our capitalist system, in the ruination of many businesses and subsequently millions of our citizens as the credit worthiness of us all, and the UK as a whole fails in the eyes of the international markets.  We would be bankrupt in the eyes of those markets.

This is what almost happened recently

Historically. Well up until fairly recent times the wealth was in the hands of a few. Around Mrs Thatchers time we were encouraged to make a fast buck. Remember privatisations? Remember banks (sorry the b word again) lending like there was no tomorrow.2 times your earnings, then two and a half, then half of your spouse's as well, then even more clever instruments like delayed payments. Of course it didn't matter because house prices kept on rising. If you got into difficulty you just sold and "adjusted " your mortgage to suit. Of course all this market value isn't based on what a country produces but what its assets are worth. No good if no one else actually wants them.
Buy Gold I say!!

The motives ? I would hazard the following. There is insufficient housing stock because of the daft policy of selling off to tenants of housing stock at reduced price. So booting people out that have a bit of money to fend for themselves looks good. It doesn't really address the problem. There isn't the money to build more housing stock because we are wasting it on  daft military expenditure. We can't boot out the single mothers who never ever intend to earn a living as that would be plain wrong. The Condems are turning out to be just as rotten as the last lot. Am I surprised, err no I am not.

[Entwood]

I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.

The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc

It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.

The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc

It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.

Sorry Entwood, you are incorrect on that point as many huge council estates were built pre-war with no connection whatsoever with a persons employment.  Those estates can be found all around greater London, and around many, if not all, of British cities and towns.  You are right however about mining and railway housing, let alone of course the big social experiment of the Bourneville workers village in Birmingham.  That all was of course in the interests of the employers who 'secured' their workforce and started during the 19th century.

[Andy B]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

As usual, eloquently put! I agree!
I could take you around various 'council' estate around here where the tenants have far more disposable income than me, & I consider myself to be fairly well paid.

[Andy B]

....
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes.  .....

You sure? :-/
I know that massive profits were made by ex-tenants that bought their 'corporation house' with a 60% discount cos they'd lived in it for X yrs. I didn't get a discount on the cost of my house after I'd been a tenant of the MOD for a few years. 

[Vamps]

There is a major difference in choosing to rent as a lifestyle choice ... and having your rent partially paid by every other council tax payer.

Council houses/social housing/subsidised accomodation .. whatever label you place on it was SUPPOSED to be for those unable to afford the usual housing routes.

Now seen as a simple way to get almost "free" housing that allows - in many cases - an extremely high standard of living.

Why should a single pensioner occupy a 3 bedroom council house, for free, simply because they have lived in it 30 years If they still need low cost housing .. a single bed flat in sheltered accomodation is probably a better solution

Why should the child of a council house tenant have the "right" to take on the tenancy with no regard to their actual neeeds ??

All subsidised housing should be on time limited tenancy AND subject to means testing IMHO

And as I pay part of their rent I believe I should have a say .. 

and I won't start on councils knocking two houses into one just because the "tenants" can't control their animal instincts..... 

I am not going to get into the main argument, but there is a shortage of much needed social housing with 3 or 4 bedrooms occupied by couples or single people who's children have moved away imho these should be freed up by offering more appropriate alternative.........

[albitz]

I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.

The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc

It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.

Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I'm sorry ... but "subsidised housing" is NOT just about subsidised rent to those on housing benefit......... council tax payers have to buy the land, pay for the architect, pay for the building and then pay for maintainance, etc etc etc .... these "life style" choices cost the rest a lot of money.

The way some are going on one would think that pre-thatcher or pre-war everyone lived on the streets !! They didn't ... social housing then was linked to your employment .... if you worked for the (privately owned) Mining industry .. you lived in a mining village .. likewise railway villages, mill villages etc etc etc

It was only because the Labour Government nationalised many of those industries - mining/railways that they actually nationalised housing .. by default .. !! They than passed on the running and maintainance of that housing to councils .. and so the Council House came to be ... since when things have gone from bad to worse.

Factually incorrect imo. There has been virtually no council houses built in the last 30 years afaik. The houses which are council owned, will have had the initial costs covered many times over by rental payments. Many of these houses were built so long ago that the cost of building them is probably the same as a months rent today.
Housing association houses are built as part of housing developments. It is now normal practice when a building company applies for permission to build a number of houses, that permission is granted with the proviso that a percentage (typically around 10%) of the houses are to be used for social housing.
I am normally one of the most right wing contributors to discussion on the forum, but I cant understand why so many of you are happy to put the boot into people who dont buy their own house (for a variety of reasons) but live in a rented property, and go to work every day to pay their rent and other bills. I can only imagine its good old fashioned snobbery, and I have no time for snobbery, old fashioned, inverted, or any other type.

I totally agree Albs!

[albitz]

....
Lets not forget that before Thatcherism, most people in this country didnt own their own homes.  .....

You sure? :-/
I know that massive profits were made by ex-tenants that bought their 'corporation house' with a 60% discount cos they'd lived in it for X yrs. I didn't get a discount on the cost of my house after I'd been a tenant of the MOD for a few years. 

Yep - they didnt have the right to buy their houses until Thatcher gave it to them.