Council/corporation House Rent

[Skig]

Every individual has the right to live in decent affordable accomodation.

Actually they don't, although they should.

 

No one has the right to exploit people,as happens in the private sector.

 

Actually they do, although they shouldn't.

 

Rachman is alive and well and living in the Isle of Man.

 

Is he? He was rather popular amongst many of his tenants you know. I think you'll find he died in the sixties though.

 

What would my stategy achieve? It would stop people like you from prospering by your low life methods.

What a queer post to make, knowing, as you do, nothing whatsoever about me or my methods. Your strategy could seriously backfire by driving decent landlords from the sector. Which would be a bad thing regardless of what you think.

 

You are obviously a low life landlord.

By the way, did you by any chance stand in the November General election?

[Albert Tatlock]

a letting agent. Robbing ****rds!

 

So, if the housing stock is increased, demand falls and therefore prices. Ergo, the maintenance of what is effectively your second home also falls?

True enough - but my earlier points were on moral grounds not selfish ones.

 

The letting agent may be a robbing ****rd, but who says I'm paying for the house anyway ...Always remember that 'assumption' is the mother of all **ck ups!

[torchy]

All private tenants have the right to aplpy for a rent to be fixed by the IOM Renta and Rates Appeal tribunal if they think the landlord is charging too much.

 

I can't say any more as I chair the tribunal.

 

Good for you Mr Wright.

 

But you have no idea of the victimisation that tenants receive when they actually approach your tribunal in its Ivory tower.

[keyboarder]

You are obviously a low life landlord.

 

You are obviously presumptuous.

 

By the way, did you by any chance stand in the November General election?

 

As a candidate? No. What is the relevance of this question anyway?

[John Wright]

All private tenants have the right to aplpy for a rent to be fixed by the IOM Renta and Rates Appeal tribunal if they think the landlord is charging too much.

 

I can't say any more as I chair the tribunal.

 

Good for you Mr Wright.

 

But you have no idea of the victimisation that tenants receive when they actually approach your tribunal in its Ivory tower.

 

 

They have statutory protection under the Act and Rules and under the Landlord and Tenant (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

 

Landlords also have protectiomns as well. I have to be seen to be even handed and fair.

[Max Power]

I know several people living on council estates and it enables them to have a comfortable life.

 

By living in subsidised housing that should be put to use for far needier people.

 

Think about that. You're paying a contribution to their rent even though they could quite feasably be earning significantly more than you. Strike you as fair?

 

Well you obviously don't think that anyone living in council accomodation should be comfortable. Perhaps they should be taken out and flogged to satisfy your perverted sense of righteousness.

 

Just how many needy people are there on this Island these days anyway?

And how are you and I subsidising theihousing needs of ordinary tenants? The rents are not subsidised, just realistic. Just because we live in a overheated market, you want these people to suffer to satisfy you? It is a lifestyle choice and as far as I know we live in a free country, not a socialist state. Isn't that what our fathers and grandfathers fought for?

As I said, these people sacrifice the stability that property gives them. Unemployed and needy people get subsidised housing. Ordinary tenants pay the full rent.

 

Why don't people think before they open their mouths. It makes me more than angry to listen to mealy mouthed hypocrites.

[Boo]

Manxlennie, you say that the maximum someone can earn and still qualify for a council property is £34,725. Am I right in thinking that most banks provide mortgages for 3 and 1/2 times your income. This being, at the maximum, £121,537.50 for a mortgage. Correct me if I'm wrong but most banks prefer a minimum deposit of around 10 to 15%. Therefore with the minimum required deposit you may be able to buy a house fro between £133,000 and £140,000 approx.

 

I have just looked on 5 websites of Manx Estate Agents and searched houses with 3 bedrooms in all areas within this price range...........How many did I find? A big fat ZERO!!!!

 

And there is the problem.

 

This is however the maximum earnings to qualify for a council house. What happens 10 years down the line when the kids have left home, there are 2 incomes and several promotion/payrises.

 

What I object to is that there are people out there living with high rent, in horrible flats and in conditions that I would quite frankly not put my dog in (if I had one) and yet there are people living a 'comfortable life' in property that is meant for better use.

 

There are the few who just take the screaming piss, to the detrement of people who really need it. That is where I have the problem.

 

But, who's fault is it? Theirs for doing it? Or the Government for making it so easy?

[Boo]

Unemployed and needy people get subsidised housing. Ordinary tenants pay the full rent.

 

Why don't people think before they open their mouths. It makes me more than angry to listen to mealy mouthed hypocrites.

 

And there is the point that most people are trying to make. Not ALL the people living in subsidised housing are unemployed or needy and it is them who are taking the opportunity of subsidised housing away from those who are by remaining in them after they need to.

[mojomonkey]

Am I right in thinking that most banks provide mortgages for 3 and 1/2 times your income.

 

Based on my recent experience most lenders now work off affordability, which can easily work out at more than the traditional 3.5 rule. Whilst I didn't take them up on the offer I could have got 5 times my salary.

[Boo]

Well the search has just gone from a big fat zero to loads.

[Max Power]

Unemployed and needy people get subsidised housing. Ordinary tenants pay the full rent.

 

Why don't people think before they open their mouths. It makes me more than angry to listen to mealy mouthed hypocrites.

 

And there is the point that most people are trying to make. Not ALL the people living in subsidised housing are unemployed or needy and it is them who are taking the opportunity of subsidised housing away from those who are by remaining in them after they need to.

 

But why is everyone assuming that council housing is for unemployed an needy people? That is not it's only function.

On this island there would be hundreds of empty local authority houses if it was a prerequisite that you were were unemployed or had very little means.

I think there is a general misunderstanding here of what council housing is, it is not the modern day equivelant of the poor house!

[ans]

But why is everyone assuming that council housing is for unemployed an needy people?

 

Because subsidised housing should be made available to those who need it and struggle to maintain a quality of life while paying commercial rent, not those who just want cheap rent. I don't think a household earning 55k (to quote an earlier example) would have difficulty maintaining a good quality of life in a commercial rent environment whereas a manual worker earning 15k a year would.

 

I object to my taxes being used to assist people who don't need assistance.

 

If you were in charge, and you had one house to allocate and your choice was a couple with one child, both parents worked and had a combined income of 60k or a warehouse packer earning 15k with two children who's wife can't work because they can't afford childcare, who would you give it to?

[iurinagh]

This topic makes my blood boil.

 

A friend of mine enquired about moving into council accomodation near on 12 months ago. He was told at the time that the waiting list was 3 years and that there was nothing that Douglas Corporation could do for him, his wife and then unborn son. The privately rented flat they resided in was nothing short of a health hazard due to the damp that was prevelant throughout the year and with a child on the way, they were in need of a larger more convenient property (I forgot to mention that their flat was on the top of a 3 storey building with access gained via an outside staircase)

 

They were "lucky" to spot an unfurnsihed 3 bedroomed terraced house in Douglas available for rent. So my friend applied and was given the opportunity to rent the property. So he, his wife and newborn baby moved into the property along with a lodger to help with the rent payment. As circumstances and situations change, the lodger has recently stated that they will be moving out of the property within the next 6 months. Knowing that he and his family will not be able to afford the rent without the lodger, he went to speak to the corporation.

 

Now remember, he has been on the list for near on 12 months - he went to speak to Douglas corporation only to be told that he would have to wait 3 years for a house to become available (the same amount of time quoted 12 months earlier) and that Douglas Corporation could do nothing to help him, his wife or baby.

 

So, is it fair to say that the family unit that earn £65k a year are eligible for subsidised housing? Is it fair for someone, like my friend, who genuinely needs housing who earns 3 to 4 times less than the afore mentioned family to subsidise their rent through paying Douglas corporation rates? This is nothing short of fraudlent.

 

It's about time the Government and Local Authorities should revise their current methods and practices and start to means test these individuals who do not need subsidised rent. If an individual or family are over a certain threshold, then their rent should be recalculated accordingly to reduce or remove the rent subsidy from their rent. This would free up cash collected from the Local Authority rates, to either provide more subsidised housing to reduce the never-decreasing waiting list or a rate reduction.

 

I know of one person in particular who owns their own property, but has since moved in to a corporation house rented by their partner and is renting their own property out. What an entrepreneur, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Foxtrotlima]

This topic makes my blood boil.

 

A friend of mine enquired about moving into council accomodation near on 12 months ago. He was told at the time that the waiting list was 3 years and that there was nothing that Douglas Corporation could do for him, his wife and then unborn son. The privately rented flat they resided in was nothing short of a health hazard due to the damp that was prevelant throughout the year and with a child on the way, they were in need of a larger more convenient property (I forgot to mention that their flat was on the top of a 3 storey building with access gained via an outside staircase)

 

They were "lucky" to spot an unfurnsihed 3 bedroomed terraced house in Douglas available for rent. So my friend applied and was given the opportunity to rent the property. So he, his wife and newborn baby moved into the property along with a lodger to help with the rent payment. As circumstances and situations change, the lodger has recently stated that they will be moving out of the property within the next 6 months. Knowing that he and his family will not be able to afford the rent without the lodger, he went to speak to the corporation.

 

Now remember, he has been on the list for near on 12 months - he went to speak to Douglas corporation only to be told that he would have to wait 3 years for a house to become available (the same amount of time quoted 12 months earlier) and that Douglas Corporation could do nothing to help him, his wife or baby.

 

So, is it fair to say that the family unit that earn £65k a year are eligible for subsidised housing? Is it fair for someone, like my friend, who genuinely needs housing who earns 3 to 4 times less than the afore mentioned family to subsidise their rent through paying Douglas corporation rates? This is nothing short of fraudlent.

 

It's about time the Government and Local Authorities should revise their current methods and practices and start to means test these individuals who do not need subsidised rent. If an individual or family are over a certain threshold, then their rent should be recalculated accordingly to reduce or remove the rent subsidy from their rent. This would free up cash collected from the Local Authority rates, to either provide more subsidised housing to reduce the never-decreasing waiting list or a rate reduction.

 

I know of one person in particular who owns their own property, but has since moved in to a corporation house rented by their partner and is renting their own property out. What an entrepreneur, you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

I can totally understand your friend's position, but I found myself earning 12k with 2 children living in a one bedroom flat. I had to wait 3 years to get subsidised housing. There is certainly nothing dignified about lifting a bin or pram up 3 flights of stairs. I think that the criteria has gone to shite (scuse language).

 

I am going to refer to Boo's previous comment, a yearly evaluation would be a godsend, keeping those that need in subsidised housing in it, and those that don't out of it.

[iurinagh]

You are right, the criteria has gone to shite and the powers that be need to revise their housing strategies, the yearly evaluation would be a step in the right direction.

 

My friend also feels that he should not in anyway be subject to preferencial treatment by the council - after all his situation is probably prevalent thoughout the island. However, for there to be no difference in the waiting time for an available house over a 12 month period should be questioned.