More Tinkering...
Another story that will affect many in Social Housing or pensioners/disabled/unemployed and even hard working families has been released over the weekend and mentioned in the press which will probably just add to concerns as to whether many can keep a roof over their heads.
In theory a figure will be set(income/savings we don't know which)or how much, if you reach it you could be evicted and such checks could be done every 2 years.
The MP's who appear to talk about this on TV or Radio say we expect rents in the private sector will fall and people will not be evicted or moved on.
Checks will not happen that regularly but they don't really know and the word expect means absolutely nothing at all. Such regulations will set at local level.
If people have to go into renting privately it will be more expensive and income and savings will suffer, before long it could cost the State more than it does now and many more may be trying to obtain help.
I might conceed that a change in circumstances might mean that you downsize if a house is too large, that it may not be an automatic right to pass it on to other family members etc but if they live with you and the tenant named on the agreement on or some family crises happens, you would hope that they will still have a roof over their heads.
I would hope that even the fairest amongst society would accept that.
These plans are only happening in England...but news has just come to light that the right to buy a house classed as Social(which has existed for something like 30 years after the idea was introduced by a Conservative Government with Margaret Thatcher as it's leader and PM of the UK)has just been stopped in Scotland so if you want or are able to afford to buy, now is the time to do so.
Like the new policies being introduced in England, it is said that existing tenants will be unaffected by the changes however new tenants will.
In today's society the fact that many jobs are poorly paid(even with the minimum wage)jobs for life are few, it seems crazy that under the new rules they want to raise rents on properties to the average of private properties in that area, that they want to cap Housing Benefit, so if you find yourself out of work after a year(even if it is not your fault)they will reduce help by 10% and as your Job Seekers Allowance is only £65 a week what remains of that will be reduced in effect.
If you do find a better job(and possibly your income improves)what if they then say move?
What if you rent privately and it costs more so any gain made is lost. What if the property is smaller and less attractive, you might ask why did I try to improve my life by aiming higher, as I am now in a worse situation as income has reduced to what it was before or worse than before I moved and my home is not as good.
Many are in social housing because private rents or buying a house is out of the reach of a sizable proportion of the population.
If you are going to be moved out in as little as two years or be constantly checked on, you could understand people not investing in the property as many tenants do now...quite often in this day and age a tenant will even take on some of the repairs themselves rather than calling in the Landlord. They will take pride in a garden should they have one.
Why would anyone carpet a building and put in furnishings if they have to leave within a couple of years especially as chances are the new property will be too snall to take everything with you and those moving in probably will throw out what you leave behind.
I could quite understand people saying why should I bother?
Could this be a subtle way of keeping some of the population working and in low paid jobs?
Plans have been announced in Parliament today but other stories have been given greater priority by the media and again this story came out on Saturday(a day that rarely sees a lot of discussion on anything political such news tends to get hidden or ignored)
It's very important and should not be ignored.
(Ireland's economic crises leads all news on radio and TV)
I suspect they'll go through on the nod because of the majority the coalition has.
The only lucky thing is that existing tenants will be unaffected...so they say.
David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation.
"It's difficult to imagine a more powerful disincentive to do well than the threat of losing your home if you start earning too much. We must ensure that this does not happen. People need the stability and security of a safe home."
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter is quoted as saying...
"From Shelter's 40 years of experience in dealing with those in housing need we know that very few people go from homeless to self-sufficient within two years. The proposal for a minimum of this period shows the government's naivety in how quickly people are able to get back on their feet, and we urge them to reconsider this in favour of at least a five-year minimum."
Charities Condemn Changes
I just did a limited search of private property available on my town that I would call decent(there is very little available the same few properties keep coming up whichever website you look at)or any in an acceptable area(2 bedrooms)and the average is £125 a week(compared to an area like London that's pretty good)but still in comparison with wages and work around here a lot to find and on top of the rent there is Council Tax.
If you find property at lower price this may be offset because it's in an out of the way location and savings will be lost because of what it costs to travel anywhere.
Your wage allowing for the other things you need such as heating, electric, gas, travel to and from work, food etc...you'd need to be earning quite an amount. I'm not talking about luxuries either. The average wage is said to be £500 a week not around here it isn't.
In theory a figure will be set(income/savings we don't know which)or how much, if you reach it you could be evicted and such checks could be done every 2 years.
The MP's who appear to talk about this on TV or Radio say we expect rents in the private sector will fall and people will not be evicted or moved on.
Checks will not happen that regularly but they don't really know and the word expect means absolutely nothing at all. Such regulations will set at local level.
If people have to go into renting privately it will be more expensive and income and savings will suffer, before long it could cost the State more than it does now and many more may be trying to obtain help.
I might conceed that a change in circumstances might mean that you downsize if a house is too large, that it may not be an automatic right to pass it on to other family members etc but if they live with you and the tenant named on the agreement on or some family crises happens, you would hope that they will still have a roof over their heads.
I would hope that even the fairest amongst society would accept that.
These plans are only happening in England...but news has just come to light that the right to buy a house classed as Social(which has existed for something like 30 years after the idea was introduced by a Conservative Government with Margaret Thatcher as it's leader and PM of the UK)has just been stopped in Scotland so if you want or are able to afford to buy, now is the time to do so.
Like the new policies being introduced in England, it is said that existing tenants will be unaffected by the changes however new tenants will.
In today's society the fact that many jobs are poorly paid(even with the minimum wage)jobs for life are few, it seems crazy that under the new rules they want to raise rents on properties to the average of private properties in that area, that they want to cap Housing Benefit, so if you find yourself out of work after a year(even if it is not your fault)they will reduce help by 10% and as your Job Seekers Allowance is only £65 a week what remains of that will be reduced in effect.
If you do find a better job(and possibly your income improves)what if they then say move?
What if you rent privately and it costs more so any gain made is lost. What if the property is smaller and less attractive, you might ask why did I try to improve my life by aiming higher, as I am now in a worse situation as income has reduced to what it was before or worse than before I moved and my home is not as good.
Many are in social housing because private rents or buying a house is out of the reach of a sizable proportion of the population.
If you are going to be moved out in as little as two years or be constantly checked on, you could understand people not investing in the property as many tenants do now...quite often in this day and age a tenant will even take on some of the repairs themselves rather than calling in the Landlord. They will take pride in a garden should they have one.
Why would anyone carpet a building and put in furnishings if they have to leave within a couple of years especially as chances are the new property will be too snall to take everything with you and those moving in probably will throw out what you leave behind.
I could quite understand people saying why should I bother?
Could this be a subtle way of keeping some of the population working and in low paid jobs?
Plans have been announced in Parliament today but other stories have been given greater priority by the media and again this story came out on Saturday(a day that rarely sees a lot of discussion on anything political such news tends to get hidden or ignored)
It's very important and should not be ignored.
(Ireland's economic crises leads all news on radio and TV)
I suspect they'll go through on the nod because of the majority the coalition has.
The only lucky thing is that existing tenants will be unaffected...so they say.
David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation.
"It's difficult to imagine a more powerful disincentive to do well than the threat of losing your home if you start earning too much. We must ensure that this does not happen. People need the stability and security of a safe home."
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter is quoted as saying...
"From Shelter's 40 years of experience in dealing with those in housing need we know that very few people go from homeless to self-sufficient within two years. The proposal for a minimum of this period shows the government's naivety in how quickly people are able to get back on their feet, and we urge them to reconsider this in favour of at least a five-year minimum."
Charities Condemn Changes
I just did a limited search of private property available on my town that I would call decent(there is very little available the same few properties keep coming up whichever website you look at)or any in an acceptable area(2 bedrooms)and the average is £125 a week(compared to an area like London that's pretty good)but still in comparison with wages and work around here a lot to find and on top of the rent there is Council Tax.
If you find property at lower price this may be offset because it's in an out of the way location and savings will be lost because of what it costs to travel anywhere.
Your wage allowing for the other things you need such as heating, electric, gas, travel to and from work, food etc...you'd need to be earning quite an amount. I'm not talking about luxuries either. The average wage is said to be £500 a week not around here it isn't.
posted by The Great Gildersleeve | 5:30 pm
6 Comments:
Gildy, as far as I can see these changes are not bad at all.
The reason for the changes is that there is a only certain amount of social housing and it should go to those who need it. The problem has arisen with the "council house for life" attitude that has numerous examples of those with well over multiples of the average wage. Imagine if you are a single parent and need social hosing...fine, but if you then get a 100K job (and I am not exaggerating or plucking figures out the air but this happens) you should not be in that council house; now OK time limits/job prospects and everything come into play but if you look at the small print it involves various years at certain salaries, they are not kicking people out as soon as they get a good job or if it is a temp job etc.
Why, just because you were once poor should you get a free house? Why because you were once poor should you get to go on 3 or 4 foreign holidays a year that any "normal" person/family could only dream of?
Everything has two sides and both must be looked at.
Except they are not really free as you do pay rent.
Ideally private rented property should come down rather than the other way around.
That is not likely.
Not free I know but as good as in many respects but that's not the point.
Some of the stuff is here, not sure how much has been published yet.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1775577.pdf
I'll take a look Span...if they hope that private rented property will come down, it seems just as easy to put new people into those properties(and I understand that you can still claim help)rather than moving people un-necessarily.
If they are to raise Social Housing rents to virtually match the prices of the private sector in the same area and they almost match each other it again seems un-necessary.
It just seems a little like playing musical chairs or rearraging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
In time I am usure if there will be any advantage and that's probably the idea.
No, still not convinced...
It might work if people could be in a position where they could save enough to move.
That if they lose employment or cannot work due to illness that they could still get some state support even if they have savings but the truth is that the level of savings you are allowed before you are penalised is far too low...
£6,000 loses you a lot of help...£16,000 you lose any help. That goes practically nowhere.
This also leads into how much freedom you should have to decide your own destiny or when the State should be involved.
But as has been said many times everything is getting passed because of the majority and everything seems to be being done in a hurry.
There are no safeguards that allow for any compromises.
An interesting aside...on BBC Radio Scotland they have announced that the cap on the help you can claim with your housing costs will be delayed by 9 months so will not be introduced in April...
People will still be worried as it's still coming.
Again, another announcement issued at a weekend when generally the media is quiet.
Post a Comment
<< Home