Housing Stories that Annoy me.

Off-topic
1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16376455

This is a story on the BBC about Council homes.

What annoys me about it? Not the subletting, I have no problem with a crack down on subletting.

What does annoy me is the use of language in the story by the Conservative Housing Minister Grant Shapps.

In the story he makes this remark: “a fantastically subsidised council rent,”

My counter argument is that the costs outside of council properties is actually heavily inflated, and that Council rental costs are what those properties actually cost to run and maintain, and that when you rent privately you are not paying what it costs, what you are paying is a heavily inflated price due to market forces, market forces that do not come into play with Council properties.

In my local authority there are 18,500 Social properties, I know I asked under the FOI. There is an average rent of about £90 a week. This would mean that my local authority earns £1.66m per week for the properties under their control. Over £85m a year.

Does it really cost £80m per year to maintain that many properties? I honestly do not know the answer to that question, so I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to my local authority asking them the profit/loss of council rental properties, excluding the placement costs of new tenants, as I am not sure that existing tenants should be tasked with paying for the placement of new tenants.

I know private rents are high, and that housing prices are high, it is a pet peeve of mine that they are so. I find it disgusting that people have to pay so much just to put a roof over their heads. I believe it is a scandal.

I dispute the idea that Council rents are subsidised at all, I believe the truth is that Council rents reflect the true cost of housing once you remove the market forces that have so inflated the housing costs in the private sector.

2

Market forces and cutting deals is what gets cheap private rent . I pay £500 less a month than the other houses on the street despite mine being the biggest with the big garage . This is because I paid my rent 6 months in advance and promised a minimum 2 year period of unbroken rent . I have now been here 8 years and the rent has not gone up one penny . Many landlords will accept offers way below market rates just so they dont have to play the Russian Rental Roulett game . … Or worse the Somalian rental roulett … I know it sounds racist and its taking advantage of being a Brit but its gotta be use for something . People who pay to much for private rentals pay to much because they pay the price the agent puts in the paper ,I see that price as the tourist price and not the price for me . The public needs to be re-educated in how to barter a price .

3

Sorry but £90 a week average is a good deal if you live in London… Do an FOI request and see how many flats compared to houses there are. If you get a higher % of houses then you can’t complaint at £90. You need to consider what the average mortgage payment in the area in comparison to the rent is as well.

The way I see it is that social housing needs to be offered to less people. A lot of people take the p!ss because they know they can whilst the rest of us work hard to make ends meet. For example, people in good health who choose not to work shouldn’t even be given money to eat. When their belly starts rumbling on their mate’s sofa that will be motivation to get a job. I’ve got too much pride to be sponging off anyone, even if it is the government.

4

Never said it wasn’t a good price, my argument is that this price reflects the actual costs, while the private rental price reflects the inflated costs of market forces.

It is like arguing that paying £5 for a bag from Primark is a good deal compared to the price of a Gucci bag at £80.

Yes it is, but does the Gucci bag actually cost £80 to make, is that the “real” costs or is that merely the inflated market cost? Whatever the reason for the inflated cost, not suggesting that the same market forces are at work, only that it is market forces that are at work.

My argument is that ALL rental prices should be equivalent to Council property rent, as this reflects the actual cost of housing, rather than an inflated cost due to market forces.

We should be endeavouring to remove those market forces from the costs of housing so that housing for everyone costs what the real costs of housing are.

The previous Government, in a completely failed scheme, attempted to build cheaper housing, the ACTUAL cost of building the housing was £30,000. That is the “real” cost of housing. Yes I may agree that the housing wasn’t actually that great, but that isn’t the point, even if you doubled that for better housing, the cost would still only be £60,000.

Yet those houses sold for £250,000.

Mainly due to the costs of the land, which is subject to a terrible lack of supply while there is a massive demand. The actual cost of the house itself, excluding the land, is a fraction of what housing costs for the end buyer.

Looking at these figures, excluding the cost of the land which the Council never paid for anyway, are Council rents actually subsidised or are they merely reflecting the true cost of housing, while the private sector reflects an inflated cost due to the land shortage.

Again, you use the term “sponging off the Government” but it isn’t sponging off the Government not to be trapped in the private market.

In essence you ARE sponging off the Government.

Why? because using this logic, you aren’t paying market prices for health care. So essentially you are not trapped in the private market in regard to health care, which appears to be the definition of whether you are sponging off the Government or not.

5

Ahhh. I get your point now. Personally, I think they should try and make more profit off housing I know people paying a silly £11 a week for a 1 bed (its not a very nice place to live but for £11 it is) but as soon as they work it shoots straight up so they won’t work.

I’ve used a hospital 5 times in 20 years. Did I mention 2 of the times I went I had to go private to get the healthcare they refused to give me? IMO there might as well be no NHS. My mum has nearly died from their negligence and went to Portugal to get the healthcare she needed. Now she goes private for everything. So where am I sponging? The tax I’ve paid since I was 16 covers 5 visits of unsatisfactory healthcare.

Oh yeah and I won’t use my local hospital because I know of 3 people who have got HIV after operations there. North Middlesex Hospital is the one to avoid. I discharged myself after a motorbike accident there and got a cab to the one in Archway.

6

Surely everything is subject to market forces, if everyone suddenly decided that they really want some bricks and joist hangers (or the brick & joist hanger factories all burned down) then the cost of the building would go up.

I don’t really have a problem with a modest profit being made on coucil flat rentals, surely it all goes back in the pot anyway and at some point they’ll need to pull down flats and rebuild them which is going to be an expensive year.

7

They are doing a lot of this in Manor House (near Finsbury Park).

8

This is why the story annoyed me, you, like me, believe that there is probably a modest profit being made on Council Flat rentals, I doubt it is much, but I think it exists.

Yet the housing minister implies that it is provided at a loss.

At one point he says “at taxpayers’ expense?”

Where is the expense to the taxpayer?

He was making a point about subletting council properties, which isn’t a crime, but it is against the tenancy agreement and can result in eviction if caught, but where are the costs to the taxpayers coming into it?

He is suggesting that taxpayers pay for council tenants, which I don’t believe is true.

They pay for Council tenants that are unemployed and receive housing benefit, but they pay MORE for private rented tenants that are unemployed and receive housing benefit, so the cold hard truth is that Council tenants cost the taxpayer less when they cost the taxpayer anything at all.

It is this sort of misinformation that annoys me. Why not be upfront about what is really going on.

They current Government doesn’t like the idea that there exists a real cost comparison to which people can compare, if they can do away with the low rental costs provided by Councils than tenants will have far less opportunity or reason to look at the exorbitant rents they are paying in the private sector and ask…why? Why isn’t something being done.

When we are ALL paying private rental prices, then it will be accepted that this is the price of housing.

That I believe is the aim of this Government in the long term.

9

Fact is that in an emergency, when you are unconscious and heavily injured, you will receive medical treatment that is not based on market prices.

We all will.

I agree that some NHS hospitals are a little bit worrying, Newham General nearly killed my father last year due to their incompetence. I am going there myself in January and all I can say is that I am more worried about going to that Hospital to receive treatment than I am about the treatment itself.

10

Hope your dad is ok now. I hope you used your skills to milk them for as much as you can as well.

I’ve never been to that one before. I’m sure you’ll be fine. Wish you a speedy recovery as well.

11

I agree with the housing situation. It’s being used as a way to milk people off for money. There is little control over the markets which is resulting in a housing crisis across London and the rest of the UK.

I’m not really certain what the solutions are, the average wage in London isn’t enough to get a mortgage in most places in or around the city. High renting costs means that saving for deposits is incredibly difficult.

Also what a lot of people forget who try to counter-argue this is that housing/shelter is a basic need, fundamental to survival and well being.

12

We live on an island. Land is scarce. Land in desirable locations is expensive. That’s capitalism. Other systems have been tried, and didn’t do too well.

-simon

13

Soon to become a Feudal system again.

14

The way I look at it is this… I have worked and paid tax on my earnings since I left school at the age of 16. The tax I have paid goes into one big melting pot, ran by the government. Some of this is used for the social benefits, some goes to paying for my services (NHS, Police etc…) some of it goes to pay for the various government stuff, some goes to the roads, the list goes on…

I don’t get a choice where my taxes go, or who gets them.

I have no problem with my share of the taxes being used to support people who need the helping hand.

However, (and I speak from experience of dealing with certain people) there are far too many people out there abusing the benefits system! You say that these people are not living at the taxpayers expense. I can only assume that you mean the people who work and have certain benefits (family tax credits and so on) and pay a reduced rent on their council accommodation, and I have no problem with them. The people who I have the problem with are the people who have never worked or contributed to the system, and then get benefits to pay for everything, have a bloody great big TV and every games console you can imagine, living in what was usually a nice place (that their neighbours pay a fortune to stay in) and then they pay a pittance for their rent (which is paid for by benefits anyway) and they still manage to smoke and drink like every day is New Years Eve, and only leave the house to get more fags, booze and shopping. These people are definitely living at the tax payers expense! :satisfied:

Personally I think that people who fall into the bracket of being able to work, but don’t because they believe they can be better off on the benefits, should be made to do certain types of work for their benefits. Then they would be in a position of working to earn the benefits they are on, until they find work which they woud prefer doing! Obviously there would be exceptions to the rule, such as people who can’t work due to illness or incapacity etc…

Of course this will never happen because it would probably be infringing on peoples human rights or something… God forbid that everybody hould have to work for living! :blink: :stuck_out_tongue:

15

a) labour camps :slight_smile:
and/or
b) force these people to build Autobahnen, I mean motorways :slight_smile:

16

Well it could reduce the labour market quite a bit, also let’s not generalise too much here either, probably a lot of the people on the dole at the moment are actively seeking work. It would be good to motivate people and get them moving again but if you just have people who are on the dole and doing a job they should be paid for then it’s pretty shitty. Surely it’d be better to invest in opportunities to enhance the labour market than force people to work.

If people do honestly believe that staying at home being pissed is more profitable than working then it’s a rather worrying picture of welfare distribution within the country. I can see how in London it might very well be the case, if you’re earning under £20k it’s hard to imagine any kind of independent living. Being idle and stagnating is very bad though, for the individual and those around them.

17

how come noboby has mention the Union Glory Boys…Bob Crow etc on over £100k a week and living in council houses wankaas

18

100k a week ? has he got a Saturday job with Man-city ?

19

Wouldn’t it be a bit hypocritical if he didn’t?

20

The problem is caused by several things:

  1. The LABOUR government in the 1970s started enacting legislation to give council tenants the right to buy.
  2. The Conservative passes the above legislation.
  3. Rent control being abolished

This has reduced the stock of council property, and because of the above legislation there is no incentive to be build new stock to replace old. This has increased the demand on Housing Associations and private landlords.

With the increase in the number of people applying for social housing and the falling amount it has increased the demand on private landlords renting to councils. The private landlords have taken advantage of this by buying more properties on buy to let mortgages and passing the cost onto councils. The net result of this is that the general cost of housing has increased massively beyond the rate of inflation.

The problem is far more complicated because most social tenants that are council legacy have the right to tenancy for live regardless of their income. I have been to estate where I see cars could never afford on three years net salary. And why the likes of Bob Crow has a council house and pays minimal rent.

What should be done about this? Well scrapping the right to buy for a start. The aggressive targeting of subletters, the forcing of people to pay market rates for council housing once the household income reaches a certain level. And scrapping the right for life of council properties. This solves the problem of single people in three and four bedroom properties and family being forced into one and two bedroom properties because they would be allowed to move within social tenancies.

Some of this is already happens but it needs to be made retroactive, but this would never happen.