Council/commissioners Property

[manxman8180]

Surely they went through a 'means test' of some kind when they were allocated a house?

I would presume so, also. Which means they are familiar with the process which has led them to access the subsidised housing and benefit greatly from it.

If your circumstances change it's your good fortune and if you don't want to move so what?

But this comes at the expense of potential new 'tenants' surely? What about their rights to access subsidised housing? This kind of 'I'm all right Jack....' mentality falls down at this point. By all means fight for your right to subsidised housing, but in turn, be fair to your fellow citizens and either move into the private market, or pay a means tested fair and equitable rent for your property, therefore, assisting the susidised housing of others. (potentially including your children, grandchildren, close friends etc)

I know businesses registered at council houses, they have to live somewhere and it shows that 'social class' is no barrier to entrepreneurship, good on them

No problem with that, pursuant to my other points of course. Don't believe I have stated an objection to such.

Really what you are advocating in akin to telling people to move if they only need one bedroom and have three. It aint right and it won't work

I actually advocated means testing in rent payment, not in allocation of suitably sized housing. However, if it were managed properly, there is no reason why movement between housing, owing to size etc, should not work. Surely if you are one of the lucky ones to benefit from the system, you must be prepared to sacrifice a little in return. Just as those who enter the private property market make significant sacrifices in order to afford that choice.

[Foxtrotlima]

I am speaking specifically about Ramsey Town Commissioners here, but when I was allocated housing just over 11 years ago, originally for myself and my son, and then subsequently for my daughter too, it stated very clearly that should my circumstances change, then I have to relinquish my home, and be allocated a more suitably sized house.

 

I think what tenants have to remember is that it actually works both ways. Yes, when my children leave home I will have to move into a smaller house ( not that I actually plan on being in subsidised housing then), but if my family should grow I would also be able to apply for a larger house.

 

I think yearly means testing would be ideal. Yes, it is not very nice having to parade your bank statements to the housing board, but if someone wants subsidised housing, it would be a small price to pay to prove entitlement.

[Gladys]

There speaks a voice of reason and sense FTL!

[Albert Tatlock]

I think yearly means testing would be ideal. Yes, it is not very nice having to parade your bank statements to the housing board, but if someone wants subsidised housing, it would be a small price to pay to prove entitlement.

...though 'means testing' is not 'simply' the salary that people earn. There are numerous factors that have to be taken into consideration. Two people on the same wage do not neccessarily have the same means, the same responsibilities, the same health, the same career prospects or the same age etc. as any mortgage advisor will tell you.

 

I think means testing would be a 'fair' system, but only if it were done 'fairly'. Otherwise you could find quite a few people in these circumstances becoming homeless as a result if the means testing were to be oversimplified.

 

I think a better idea would be for the council to sell off it's homes (on condition) the council build a replacement home with the profit - and still maintain strict entitlement criteria for entry on social housing. This would encourage some people to own their own property, but ensure that the social housing stock was maintained.

 

I do think that some of the older people who are sat in three bedroom houses, now that their kids have grown up and left, should be encouraged to move to houses with fewer bedrooms. That said, numerous people have still had to invest thousands of pounds (carpets, heating etc.) - so that would be unfair without a significant period of 'notice to relocate' e.g. 5 years.

 

Anytime this topic is raised it get's people bitching. Which goes back to my main point that a house should be a home and not an investment. It is always when house prices are high that people get upset over the allocation of social housing. IMO, anyone who thinks high house prices benefit anyone doesn't understand basic economics. People are going to be in for a hell of a shock once they realise just how much debt the current UK economy is built on.

[Foxtrotlima]

I appreciate what you are saying about means testing not necessarily being reflective of merely the salary a person is on Albert, which is why submitting bank statements would seem a sensible option in my opinion. It would at the very least be a chance to spot any trend in a household's income.

 

Just to throw in an idea, it might be prudent for the Housing Authority to seek the advice of a mortgage advisor if such an upward trend was spotted in a couple of yearly reviews, and on the other side of it, should a household's income reduce, it would also flag that one too.

 

I would be damn proud if I were able to buy my own home. Although I am fortunate enough to have a lovely home in a wonderful area, the baseline is, it is NOT mine.

 

With regards to what you mentioned about carpeting, yes, that is a large factor to account for. AFAIK, Ramsey Commissioners do not permit tenants to install heating systems into their properties, but will actually facilitate carpeting for those willing to downsize as it were.

 

I would welcome wholeheartedly "Right To Buy", but this is not currently available in Ramsey. My neighbour and I had our houses valued just to see what their current market value was and I was more than surprised to find out that our properties are valued roughly in the £170,000 to £180,00 bracket. Bearing in mind, this factors in that my house is on a small terrace in a rather nice area, with ample parking, double glazing and oil central heating. Not to mention one hell of a view!

 

I currently find myself in a financial no man's land. I earn a respectable wage, but the last time I mithered my bank, it was only enough to buy a one bedroomed flat. Great if I was on my own, but by law now I would need a 3 bedroomed flat, having a son of 14 and a daughter of 10.

 

I am not in a single income house through choice, but by circumstance. Something I am sincerely not proud of, but something I try to make the best of.

 

I am on the Government First Time Buyers list, but that is going to be at least 3-4 years away. At least being in subsidised housing is giving me a fighting chance of getting a deposit together for when the time comes.

[Lonan3]

I do think that some of the older people who are sat in three bedroom houses, now that their kids have grown up and left, should be encouraged to move to houses with fewer bedrooms. That said, numerous people have still had to invest thousands of pounds (carpets, heating etc.) - so that would be unfair without a significant period of 'notice to relocate' e.g. 5 years.

It should also be realised, however, that its not merely such tangible things that can be taken into account.

Take the example of someone who has, perhaps, lived in a three-bedroomed council house for many years and been excellent tenats. They have probably raised a family there and then, after thekids have left and their partner is deceased, they might want nothing more than to spend their declining years in the place where they are surrounded by good memories and by neighbours who are long-term friends.

Encourage them to move by all means but, in such circumstances, it would be heartless to force such a move onto them.

[Addie]

I agree that many widowed people whose children have flown the nest, may wish to stay put in their family sized homes.

 

Sadly, it’s not always possible to do so. A lot of older people may have to sell their homes because they simply can’t manage them anymore. They may have to sell because they must move on for reasons of health, age, family, work or health.

 

If the garden gate or a window breaks or a boiler dies , it can be a major problem.

 

I was shocked to see a lovely old man who rattled around alone in the commissioners house that previously housed five people. He said that he’d love a single bedroomed flat – small enough for him to look after – with no garden to worry about.

 

Last night on the TV we saw a woman, her 8 year old son and 18 year old daughter in her home (family semi with garden) with a ‘garden’. They obviously had no interest in the garden whatsoever. It was simply a dumping ground. Her mother (living in similar housing) visiting all day every day to help out. How many houses does one family need? Why give everyone a property with a garden?

 

Foxtrotlima had made some superb points on here. Not everyone has such a good attitude.

 

Last thing. I truly believe in social housing. I just think it’s an important social asset being totally mismanaged and abused.

[manxman8180]

It should also be realised, however, that its not merely such tangible things that can be taken into account.

Take the example of someone who has, perhaps, lived in a three-bedroomed council house for many years and been excellent tenats. They have probably raised a family there and then, after thekids have left and their partner is deceased, they might want nothing more than to spend their declining years in the place where they are surrounded by good memories and by neighbours who are long-term friends.

Encourage them to move by all means but, in such circumstances, it would be heartless to force such a move onto them.

Unfortunately, those of us who don't 'work' the system (or have had legitmate access to subsidised housing) have to live in the real world.

 

The real world where your home is sold from under your feet, when you have to call upon the Government to provide respite care in your dying years.

 

Is that not 'heartless'. Or is that just tough shit because they haven't learnt how to fleece the system during their busy working lives.

 

I still (just about) believe in the social state in which we live in, but let it be for those who truly need it, and not for those who see it as a cheap and easy life.

[puddy]

For some reason or other, certain people in society don't like the fact that when they have to get up at 6am every day to clean their Lexus, people not as well off as them are living in subsidised housing, perhaps even in the same town and with their children going to the same school.

 

I grew up in a council house and will never forget the so-called 'posh' children from the estate nearby coming into our garden and upsetting my mother, stepping foot into the house and saying they had a right to do whatever they liked because we didn't own our house. Their parents used to shout at us when we played on the green near their estate because we were from a council house and they thought we didn't have the right to play on public grass near their homes.

 

Nice to know some things never change.

[Tugger]

I do think that some of the older people who are sat in three bedroom houses, now that their kids have grown up and left, should be encouraged to move to houses with fewer bedrooms. That said, numerous people have still had to invest thousands of pounds (carpets, heating etc.) - so that would be unfair without a significant period of 'notice to relocate' e.g. 5 years.

It should also be realised, however, that its not merely such tangible things that can be taken into account.

Take the example of someone who has, perhaps, lived in a three-bedroomed council house for many years and been excellent tenats. They have probably raised a family there and then, after thekids have left and their partner is deceased, they might want nothing more than to spend their declining years in the place where they are surrounded by good memories and by neighbours who are long-term friends.

Encourage them to move by all means but, in such circumstances, it would be heartless to force such a move onto them.

 

I disagree (at least potentially). There may be low-income families who need that three bedroomed property more. That old person should have to move out to accommodate them

[doodlebug]

For some reason or other, certain people in society don't like the fact that when they have to get up at 6am every day to clean their Lexus, people not as well off as them are living in subsidised housing, perhaps even in the same town and with their children going to the same school.

 

There are people in subsidised housing who can afford a Lexus. Which is the whole point of this discussion. Nobody is denying that there are people in subsidised houses who will always need to stay there, but there are plenty whose circumstances change, and they get a good income, have a good lifestyle, but don't want to have to save up for a deposit (which they could do) and get a mortgage when they could just as easily live the high life paying peanuts. Which incidentally I, as a ratepayer, am subsidising for them on a lower income and lousier lifestyle than them.

 

I grew up in a council house and will never forget the so-called 'posh' children from the estate nearby coming into our garden and upsetting my mother, stepping foot into the house and saying they had a right to do whatever they liked because we didn't own our house. Their parents used to shout at us when we played on the green near their estate because we were from a council house and they thought we didn't have the right to play on public grass near their homes.

 

Nice to know some things never change.

These sort of people are the exception and not the norm at all.

 

 

I disagree (at least potentially). There may be low-income families who need that three bedroomed property more. That old person should have to move out to accommodate them

 

Totally agree. I am renting (privately) but don't have the "right" to stay in any house which I rent - that is entirely up to the landlord. The same thing should apply to those in subsidised housing. They don't have a "right" to stay in any house which they are renting from the Commissioners (landlord). They should be made to move to a house which is more suitable to their needs.

[Lonan3]

Totally agree. I am renting (privately) but don't have the "right" to stay in any house which I rent - that is entirely up to the landlord. The same thing should apply to those in subsidised housing. They don't have a "right" to stay in any house which they are renting from the Commissioners (landlord). They should be made to move to a house which is more suitable to their needs.

There is (or ought to be) a huge difference between private landlords who are renting out properties as a business - i.e. to make a profit - and local government who are providing homes for those who can not afford to buy their own. To compare the two is utter nonsense.

[The Thriller]

There are 3 Bedroom Commissioner houses in my estate where only 1 bedroom is getting used. Ive asked the Comms what are they gonna do about it and they said nothing, They told me they cant kick people out of there home. I have friends that live in a 2 bedroom house and really need a 3 bedroom but there are none available.

 

16 houses in my area and 6 of them have 1 couple using 1 bedroom.. its well out of order

[The Thriller]

Oh and I forgot to mention people who live in a Comm House who own £20,000 + vehicles.. thats also wrong.

[Lonan3]

There are 3 Bedroom Commissioner houses in my estate where only 1 bedroom is getting used. Ive asked the Comms what are they gonna do about it and they said nothing, They told me they cant kick people out of there home. I have friends that live in a 2 bedroom house and really need a 3 bedroom but there are none available.

 

16 houses in my area and 6 of them have 1 couple using 1 bedroom.. its well out of order

 

There is a house transfer system that most people seem to ignore, prefering to whinge and ask why nothing's being done.

 

Oh and I forgot to mention people who live in a Comm House who own £20,000 + vehicles.. thats also wrong.

 

So is jealousy.