Long term rental

NorthNineteen · November 2013

Making it easier or even incentivising councils to build more council homes would be a good start. Increase taxes on vacant land particularly that with planning permisson.<br><br>New town program surrounding London with towns that are run by the GLA, transport provided by TfL etc.<br><br>I think a levy on second homes and buy to let investors would be good, but I imagine there are a lot of drawbacks.<br><br>I also think far too many large properties are used ineffeciently, i.e. large family homes with only one or two people in them but I'm not exactly sure what to do there.<br>

vetski · November 2013

Some councils already operate a scheme where people in larger council properties are encouraged to downsize (the scheme existed before the introduction of bedroom tax), but there isn't such a mechanism for private ownership. I'm one of those 'inefficient' property users, and I ain't moving!

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Sutent · November 2013

No why should he have to downsize?

Arkady · November 2013

To each according to their need. While there are families on waiting lists for homes capable of accommodating their family, even a one-child family, it sticks in the craw somewhat that single peoples or couples should feel they have the right to a spare room.

vetski · November 2013

@Misscara, yes in theory, and some people have been very happy to do so (it's a voluntary scheme). But the people most likely to be in larger properties are those whose kids have left home; so they themselves are getting on a bit, and would probably not be keen to leave the area/community/facilities they know if the council's only offerings were some distance away - a question of housing availability again, I guess.

Arkady · November 2013

I rather liked the amendment put forward in parliament - sadly kyboshed - that removal of the spare room subsidy would only happen if you rejected suitable smaller accommodation nearby.<div><br></div><div>With that proviso, I don't have an issue with people being compelled to downsize if they are reliant on council accommodation, and I don't see why there should be discrimination based on age. It ought to be seen as part of the social contract. The inconvenience caused to them does not, in my view, outweigh the needs of people with young families.</div>

andy · November 2013

@arkady - This 'right to a spare room' shit sticks in the craw a bit. <div><br></div><div>This is slapdash policymaking with straightforwardly irrational outcomes.<br><div><br></div><div>The govt's own figures suggest that two-thirds of houses affected involve someone with a disability. So that's a good demographic to hit to start with. </div><div><br></div><div>For those people who are prepared to move - especially in London - there are no smaller properties available. (see: articles on there being no social housing in London).</div><div><br></div><div>So the policy is: "We'll cut your housing benefit unless you move to a one-bedroom flat. By the way, there are no one bedroom flats" is a catch-22 and a bad joke. It's not even half a policy, it's a third of a policy. </div><div><br></div><div>Also, what's the obsession with bedrooms? The official guidance is about bedrooms, not square footage. My temptation would be to knock down an internal wall and no longer be 'under-ocuupying' a place. Insane. </div></div>

Papa · November 2013

In theory, if you get your housing paid for by the taxpayer and there is not enough of it to go round, then the taxpayer has the reasonable right to expect you to only take the amount of room that you need and free some up for someone else.<br><br>After all, look at the cold hard figures and a London bedroom costs about £100k.<br><br>But I find myself with Andy on the spare room thing.<br><br>Firstly, isn't denying people the right to a spare bedroom a bit of a race to the bottom. Who decided that having a spare bedroom wasn't part of reasonable living standards. You could make a good case for it being so.<br><br>Secondly, on a human level this has the feel of a deeply unfair idea. <br><br>My grandmother bought her council house in the late 1980s. Had she not done so, which she may not have done, she would be in the spare room trap. She has lived in that house since it was built in 1966, loves it and its garden and has contributed a huge amount to the local area over more than 40 years of helping neighbours and the wider community.<br><br>There will be many people out there like her, but who weren't lucky enough to buy their council house. I'm not sure uprooting them and shoving them somewhere else improves society.<br><br>Building on the South East and Green Belt would ease the symptoms but not the cause. The cause is too many people trying to live in one part of the country.<br>

Arkady · November 2013

@Andy: As I noted, I don’t think it should apply if you don’t have a reasonable alternative to move to. And if someone has a disability that requires a spare room to store relevant equipment (I have a friend in this situation) then they should also be exempt.<br><br>I’m not sure that those exemptions detract from the principle though. If the state is paying for your accommodation then you only ought to take what you need. If it were me I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night thinking of the people who did need it.<br><br>You can’t make internal alterations to council housing without permission.<br><div><br></div><div>@Papa : I don't have a spare room in my private accommodation, and don't feel I need one to have a decent standard of living. Why would I? What would be the argument for it?</div>

andy · November 2013

The words "reasonable" and "ought" are doing an awful lot of work in your response. <div><br></div><div>Read this, and then see wonder how you could sleep at night after designing a policy that's so completely inept, and so full of bad outcomes, for so little relative gain. Is this good law?</div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06272</span></div><div><br></div><div>It's pushing thousands of the poorest people in the country into rent arrears, for the first time in their life. (Good laws don't punish people who play by the rules)</div><div><br></div><div>Moving people into smaller rented accommodation in the private sector actually puts the Housing Benefit bill up by £143m. (Good laws designed to cut bills don't make bills go up)</div><div><br></div><div>Disabled people, under current guidelines, are being moved out of houses that have been specially adapted to their needs. They should be exempt in legislation, but aren't, this is happening through the courts. (Good law doesn't need to be dragged through the courts)</div>

Arkady · November 2013

I'm not defending the law - I think the law is a bit of a mess - I'm defending the reasonableness of the principle.

Ali · November 2013

<P>Strangely enough I think Mrs Thatcher was the last Prime Minister to build a large amount of public housing.</P> <P>It is time that the Government forced local councils to build more housing by ring fencing etc.</P> <P> </P> <P>Talking about ringfencing you can see the effect on Sure Start now that funds are not ring fenced</P> <P> </P>

Stella · November 2013

Last I heard was that unemployed people won't get a council flat; they want to people in those flats who have an income. That's just weird, in my opinion. They could probably safe a lot of money by 'granting' people on benefits those flats. And if they start working again, they'll have a much better chance of sustaining their lives. <br><br>Perhaps it would be an idea to rent them under the condition that if they found work, they can stay on a year and then have to find something on the private market? I'm talking about those who are actively seeking jobs. Even if not, the government will safe money, or do I see it totally wrong?<br>

NorthNineteen · November 2013

During the last year of Thatcher's governmnet more council housing was built than during the entire period that Blair and Brown were in power. Can't help but feel that massively contributed to the housing bubble and current rent crisis.<br>

Stella · November 2013

How? Genuine question.<br>

NorthNineteen · November 2013

Prices (property and rental) are simply a result of supply and demand. If Labour had built more council housing (i realise central gov don't build the houses, but they do set policy and guide councils) then supply would have been higher and therefore prices lower.<br>

Sutent · November 2013

@nothnineteen - it all depends how you interpret the data of Thatcher vs new labour.<a href="http://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270">http://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_labour_government-29270</a> <div>Blair and his mob were just Thatcher puppets. </div><div>The issue is we have a housing crises and something needs to be done urgently.</div>

Stella · November 2013

I know it's a matter of supply and demand. Thing is London's the city to go to for young professionals, or students, or those who want to work here for a while to get some experience. Young people often love sharing. That way landlords get even more out of their properties. <br>On the other hand, London's also a home--for those who grew up here, or moved to London and feel like it's their home, so they want to stay. Understandably. As you grow older you don't want to share anymore, but it's almost impossible to be able to rent on your own, unless you move to Edmonton *shudder*. There's certainly a demand for reasonably priced flats, but no supply. <br>

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Stella · November 2013

Or they could just swap with the family. There are 1-bed flats from the council, aren't there? If a family lives in such a 1-bed flat, they could swap for the 3-bed house occupied by the single person. <br>

Sutent · November 2013

You guys sound as though you have eaten the daily mail. There are 660,000 socially owned properties in the UK which have under used bedrooms. 66% of these are for disabled people who have carers. The others have other medical disorders or are in very low income brackets. No one wants wants tax payers money stolen. So many landlords avoid capital gains tax and get away with it. No one bothers about them. Our taxes should go to people who need it not on the pocket of the rich.

Stella · November 2013

Sutent, I think everyone agrees on that. Maybe the rich don't. :-)<br>

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

rainbow_carnage · November 2013

@Sutent - It's so easy to be casually liberal when you're living in a home of your own, on an oncologist's salary. It's a bit harder when you work two jobs and can barely afford a cupboard with a mold problem. When your friends are living in well-ventilated flats with hardwood floors (and, in one case, a cast iron fireplace), paid for by housing benefit. When you hear people complain about the benefit cap that is 30% higher than your own housing budget.<br><br>I'm certainly not a fan of half-arsed policy making by the sort of people who believe that the plural of anecdote is data, but it's ridiculous to deny that these people have a point. We can all bitch about the bankers, but, to be honest, I'm not in the same market as the guys making mid-six-figure salaries.<br>

Sutent · November 2013

@miscara - any sort of stealing is completely wrong. What upsets me the most is these people who live in these big empty council houses and stealing benefits are such a small number of people in society. More money is unclaimed in benefits than people who cheat it. <div><a href="http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud">http://www.cas.org.uk/features/myth-busting-real-figures-benefit-fraud</a></div><div><br></div>;

rainbow_carnage · November 2013

@Sutent - There are two types of benefit claimants that the public resents - the fraudsters and the 'undeserving poor'. The former are few and far between, but the latter... well, that depends on the individual's perception of who should be entitled to claim.<br>

miss annie · November 2013

Completely agree Rainbow and pretty sure we have had this discussion before. It's a complete lot of nonsense to suggest that only the disabled, sick or poor live in council houses with spare rooms. You sound like you've eaten the Socialist Worker! Plenty of people have council flats and houses with lots of spare rooms. They should be strongly pressurised into taking in others in need of housing or downsizing. Two of us live in a tiny flat, there is not a square inch of space. I'd love a spare room, especially if it was subsidised by the taxpayer!

Papa · November 2013

I am a huge supporter of the welfare state but it was designed as a safety net not a bar to prop yourself up against. The widespread support for trimming benefits that runs across the political divide of everyday working people tells us a lot about how we have got closer to the latter than the former. I still think the spare bedroom tax is a race to the bottom though. Although how does it actually work? Anyone actually encountered it in practice?

[Deleted User] · November 2013

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Long term rental

Comments