Who should have a Council house?

[jazzactivist]

Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, has said that it should be necessary to have a job before being eligible to become a Council tenant, and people who are tenants who refuse to get a job should be asked to leave the property.

I think that this is a bit opposite way around, as Council housing is social housing and is meant for the poor and needy, especially as there aren't many Council properties around now and there are long waiting lists. I think that Council tenants should be encouraged to get a job and when they do and their circumstances improve they should be expected to leave their Council house and rent privately or buy a home, leaving their Council house for someone else on the list. The heady days of the 50s, 60s and 70s when there were high levels of employment and of Council housing are long gone, and it seems selfish to me to hang on to cheap, government housing when you can afford something else. What do you all think?

[fife]

I totally agree with you jazz it is important that the people who need council housing can recieve it and then once there circumstances change as you said move on. This seems very logical to the likes of you and us but for some reason like everything this government does it doesn't get put into practice. I have read in the paper how foreigners are coming here to work then applying for emergency housing and getting it, leaving very little housing for the rest.

[Oola]

I think it's fair of them to move on once they've got their feet firmly on the ground, but I guess it would involve all sorts of (dreaded) means testing etc. I think it wasn't the best move allowing people to buy their council houses, it kind of meant that they could be, in a way, less responsible and had no one to answer to about the condition of their houses. It also took away the opportunity for people in the community who genuinely needed housing the chance to have at least some decent accomodation, however temporary. Now we're left with a so-called housing shortgage, with tiny boxes of homes being squashed together and not exactly built to last.

But yes, I agree, there should be some plan to allow them to move into their own accomodation once they have subsequent income, but how exactly it would be implemented and measured, I don't know. With housing prices so high it could prove difficult to get them to take the next step on the property ladder, although private (more expensive) renting is still always an option.

[jazzactivist]

I suppose having a single threshold household income could be the answer, and keeping this at a level where an average private rental could be afforded in that area. Once adults in the household bring in an income above that then they should expect to move on, and be asked to. Also, maybe adopting the German method of only being allowed so many square feet of shared and private space per person in the household would work for Council housing. This would prevent older couples / singles from hanging on to their old family Council house, and they could move to a smaller property, freing up the bigger one. Some people think that it is a shame to ask people to move on when they have settled and have roots in a particular area, but perhaps Council housing should be recognised as only a temporary option until people get on their feet anyway.

I don't have a problem with people who come here as refugees / migrants from other countries getting Council housing, as they have usually lost / left everything, including their way of making a living. Most other countries don't have a welfare system so these social groups expect and want to work, but are prevented from doing so by government policy on migrants. On the other hand, there are people in this country who are earning good salaries, have expensive furniture and cars, and sometimes even second homes abroad and are still living in Council houses. I think that people in the most need should have the social housing and perhaps it could be annually reviewed, with the housing office automatically notified by the tax office as soon as someone receives their first pay check when they get a job.

[fife]

Oola i think that councils are or have brought in a law where by people who live in council houses have no option to bye. Jazz you made a good point that there are alot of people n this country who have made a good profit out of choosing to live or bye a council house.

[lily]

Can't see this suggestion ever working- I wonder if she (the minister) spoke without really thinking this through. What would happen for example to the children- presumably they would have to be taken into care? As to the general subject of Council housing, I think it has been regrettable that the dwindling stock has not been replenished. I have no problem with Right to Buy, but think we still need a supply of affordable homes for rent.

[Pippa]

The money made from selling Council Houses should have been used to build more, and nice ones at that. If people live in a well designed and sufficiently large house they will have pride and look after it. How can the gov. make children of non-working parents suffer if they happen to live in a council house, talk about not thought through.

[Healing Hands]

I suppose because there are few Council Home is because a lot of them were brought up by the tenants themselves in the Thatcher years. Where I live is an ex- Council House and all but a handful are privately owned, and in a way it is just as well as these ex council homes sell now for at least £300.000 it is a very expensive area.

But I agree that the Council Houses were for the poor and needy, but these days the council houses that are still have tenants seems to have all the mod con and flashy cars. Are they working or are they on benifits and buy all the mod con's on credit? :confused:

[sunflower]

When the council housing stock dwindled, the housing Trusts became numerous, having the same means testing as the council, for example-: conditions that would be renters living in at present, number of children etc. It is on a point system and works well. In the early seventies we were assigned a council house. After a few years, when the house became too small we were sent letters and visited by the Friendly council man who said there were no bigger houses availiable, but due to legality still had to send us the letters!!. We eventually bought our tiny house and built a new bedroom to accomodate our growing family. In the meantime, council tenants were moving away from our road, complaining that it was too isolated and found the country smells obnoxious!. Newcomers, who then bought council houses from past tenants changed the atmosphere of the estate...make it more balanced, and a really nice place to be. I would'nt move for the world. We have lived here for 31 years now and believe it was the right thing to do when buying our house.

[SummerSkye]

In Tasmania the state government controls public housing. Many of these were sold off very cheaply a few years ago; the reason given that they are too large for the modern family who often only want a smaller unit with no garden/grass to mow etc. The houses were/and still are only offered to low income buyers to enable them to make a start in the housing market. Unfortunately not enough new housing has been built and many families are awaiting housing. To meet the requirements, they are means tested, must be low income & eligible for a concession card. The rent I believe is a percentage of their income. If your income increases beyond the threshold then you are no eligible for the housing. Housing is given according to your requirements, re the size of the house etc. The idea of public housing is to help the disadvantaged, once people are on their feet they move on; of course there are always those who have no intention of moving on and are content to remain indefinately.