Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Social housing to be demolished 'due to bedroom tax' 
Author Message
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Observer Article

Short version : Some social housing was built with 3 or 4 bedrooms. With the bedroom tax, only families who need 3 or 4 bedrooms can afford to occupy them and there aren't enough families like that who need housing. The upkeep of the empty properties is too much for the private housing associations to bear, so they're going to knock them down.

I'm kind of conflicted about this.

On the one hand, we have one million people in this country who don't have a regular home (i.e are homeless or in short term accommodation paid for by benefits). The fact we are knocking down perfectly usable ones under those circumstances is an utter disgrace.

However, the bare fact is the houses weren't built to meet a prevalent market demand. Patently, the demand for these large houses doesn't actually exist. They were apparently built on the assumption that they could be under occupied and that the state would continue to pay the required rent nevertheless. Essentially, the people who built/rented out the homes were creaming a nice bit of extra profit off the state. I have a feeling they were built not to fulfil an obvious demand but because someone sat down and worked out what gives you the best return on your investment, assuming the rules on housing benefit as they were at the time. Those rules have now changed and they're taking a bath. I have no real sympathy for them, they're just being reminded of what the word 'speculation' actually means (and it's not 'guaranteed return').

But I keep coming back to my first point - we have homeless people and we're knocking houses they could happily live in down because the owners won't make enough profit. How we can continue to call ourselves a civilised country sometimes escapes me.


Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:53 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
However, the bare fact is the houses weren't built to meet a prevalent market demand. Patently, the demand for these large houses doesn't actually exist. They were apparently built on the assumption that they could be under occupied and that the state would continue to pay the required rent nevertheless. Essentially, the people who built/rented out the homes were creaming a nice bit of extra profit off the state. I have a feeling they were built not to fulfil an obvious demand but because someone sat down and worked out what gives you the best return on your investment, assuming the rules on housing benefit as they were at the time. Those rules have now changed and they're taking a bath. I have no real sympathy for them, they're just being reminded of what the word 'speculation' actually means (and it's not 'guaranteed return').

The story listed three housing associations. They all have web sites with an about us page.
In each case it took me less than a minute to discover what was perfectly obvious anyway - namely that the majority of their housing stock is old council housing, not the product of speculation.
They are also not for profit ALMOs, which of course was blindingly obvious too. They are not evil city fat cats - they are however prominent campaigners against this government policy.
I'm not saying that makes the policy right, or the story biased, but sometimes stopping to verify facts is necessary to establish context.

http://corporate.cch-online.org.uk/?Section=2000
Quote:
Established in 2001, Coast & Country Housing Ltd took over the ownership and management of homes from Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council as part of a large-scale voluntary stock transfer (LSVT) in July 2002. As the largest registered provider in Redcar and Cleveland, we own and manage 10,190 homes which includes 88 shared ownership properties. We are a ‘not-for-profit’ Company, limited by guarantee, and are regulated by the Homes and Communities Agency.


http://www.walh.co.uk/About-Us/FurtherI ... outUs.aspx
Quote:
Set up in 2002 by Wigan Council Wigan and Leigh Housing is an arm's length management organisation, ALMO. The organisation is non-profit making and 100% owned by Wigan Council.

The Company is responsible for managing and maintaining all landlord services for Wigan Council’s 22,000 homes including rent collection, repairs and maintenance, dealing with empty properties and all tenancy matters.

Wigan and Leigh Housing also deals with other functions on behalf of the Council such as homelessness, council house sales, adaptations for tenants with disabilities and building new Council homes.


http://www.magentaliving.org.uk/about-us.aspx
Quote:
With approximately 12,200 properties, we are the largest Registered Provider of affordable housing in Wirral. We are a socially responsible, not-for-profit organisation.


Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:52 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
Lots of people house share – so if the house cannot be filled with 1 family why not with 3 single adults – I am sure there is a long waiting list of lower priority single people looking for social housing

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:26 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
Lots of people house share – so if the house cannot be filled with 1 family why not with 3 single adults – I am sure there is a long waiting list of lower priority single people looking for social housing

You can't sublet if you're receiving housing benefit so it would have to be the housing associations or councils that do it, and (an assumption) the houses aren't built for multiple occupancy, so there's be some refitting required which the owners don't want to pay to have done.

You're right of course there are massively more people in need of housing who aren't in big families than are, but we haven't been building that kind of housing. UKG won't/can't spend the money to do it so they don't and private enterprise can't see enough profit in it, so they don't. So the result is as the article states - homeless people and empty houses being demolished.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:33 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
hifidelity2 wrote:
Lots of people house share – so if the house cannot be filled with 1 family why not with 3 single adults – I am sure there is a long waiting list of lower priority single people looking for social housing

You can't sublet if you're receiving housing benefit so it would have to be the housing associations or councils that do it, and (an assumption) the houses aren't built for multiple occupancy, so there's be some refitting required which the owners don't want to pay to have done.

You're right of course there are massively more people in need of housing who aren't in big families than are, but we haven't been building that kind of housing. UKG won't/can't spend the money to do it so they don't and private enterprise can't see enough profit in it, so they don't. So the result is as the article states - homeless people and empty houses being demolished.


The whole Sublet thing is a local goverment issue so they could amend the rtules to allow it in some situations

I dont see why the house would need to be refitted - people house / flat share all the time in "normal" houses.

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:02 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
hifidelity2 wrote:
Lots of people house share – so if the house cannot be filled with 1 family why not with 3 single adults – I am sure there is a long waiting list of lower priority single people looking for social housing

You can't sublet if you're receiving housing benefit so it would have to be the housing associations or councils that do it, and (an assumption) the houses aren't built for multiple occupancy, so there's be some refitting required which the owners don't want to pay to have done.

You're right of course there are massively more people in need of housing who aren't in big families than are, but we haven't been building that kind of housing. UKG won't/can't spend the money to do it so they don't and private enterprise can't see enough profit in it, so they don't. So the result is as the article states - homeless people and empty houses being demolished.


The whole Sublet thing is a local goverment issue so they could amend the rtules to allow it in some situations

I dont see why the house would need to be refitted - people house / flat share all the time in "normal" houses.


Because, unless the people that were sharing were related then the housing would need to be a HOMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) and comply with the relevant regulations. You can have 2 non-related people living (renting) in the same property without having to comply with the HOMO regulations 3+ and you do. Most of the rules are concerned with things like fire safety.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:22 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
Flat sharing (WG) is very popular over here. A lot of under 30s live in flats together, at least 2 singles sharing a 2 bed flat. Often there are 5 or more people sharing a flat together. It is a very economical way to live.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:04 pm
Profile ICQ
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
There is no incentive to build one bed and two bed homes because of the caps on rents covered by Housing Benefits and the fact that private developers want to build for the rich anyway.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:05 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:50 am
Posts: 1911
Reply with quote
They're building lots of one and 2 bed flats round my way. I see lots of old run down shops are being converted into houses, and all the old vacant lots have something or other being built on them. About half of that stuff seems to be public private partnership stuff of one variety or another.

This is London, it's worth building stuff here, so people do.


Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:28 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
davrosG5 wrote:
Because, unless the people that were sharing were related then the housing would need to be a HOMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) and comply with the relevant regulations. You can have 2 non-related people living (renting) in the same property without having to comply with the HOMO regulations 3+ and you do. Most of the rules are concerned with things like fire safety.

err then there must be thousands of people in london living illegally - I know of at least 1/2 a dozon or so people in my office who house share with more than 3 people in the house

When I was a student I shared with 5 people

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:41 am
Profile
Officially Mrs saspro
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Posts: 4955
Location: on the naughty step
Reply with quote
big_D wrote:
Flat sharing (WG) is very popular over here. A lot of under 30s live in flats together, at least 2 singles sharing a 2 bed flat. Often there are 5 or more people sharing a flat together. It is a very economical way to live.

It also happens very commonly in the private sector here, but because rent increases are ridiculous ( I saw 10% for a house where no work was done, just because it was "the going rate"), you potentially can have to move every year, having to "interview" with new potential housemates etc. Very stressful.
I've moved every year for the past 7 years and I'm truly fed up with it.


Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:20 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
Over here you seem to get fixed rates for 3 years or the increases for the next 3 years are written into the contract.

You can also withhold part of the rent (up to 50%) for faults in the flat (leaky roof, damp walls, faulty heating etc.

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:40 pm
Profile ICQ
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
davrosG5 wrote:
Because, unless the people that were sharing were related then the housing would need to be a HOMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) and comply with the relevant regulations. You can have 2 non-related people living (renting) in the same property without having to comply with the HOMO regulations 3+ and you do. Most of the rules are concerned with things like fire safety.

err then there must be thousands of people in london living illegally - I know of at least 1/2 a dozon or so people in my office who house share with more than 3 people in the house

When I was a student I shared with 5 people


My bad - House in Multiple Occupancy linky. The law is apparently 5 unrelated people but councils are free to apply more stringent rules. It's 2 or more in Peterborough (or it was last time I checked) because there is or used to be a major problem with dodgy landlords packing people into houses that were too small for the number of people living there.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:50 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.