Forum Topic

Rent hikes for 'pay to stay'

It is quite possibly me but having read an article in which the Department for Communities and Local Government are justifying annual rent increases for "high income" social housing tenants averaging more than £1000 a year. I do not understand how this government department can say "It's not fair that hard-working people are subsidising the lifestyles of those on higher than average incomes". Well neither is it fair that £9 billion goes to private landlords in benefit, also paid for by "hard working people" yet they don't seem in a hurry to do anything about that do they?It is now widely accepted we are in the middle of a housing crisis but where are the plans for a massive public housing building programme? This is yet another example of this government's hatred of anything in the public domain and a stubborn refusal to put matters right.

Vanessa Smith ● 3265d29 Comments

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/31/londons-elite-pushed-out-of-exclusive-postcodes-by-super-rich?CMP=share_btn_Have a read

Jazz Brown ● 3258d

Shall we not hold our breath? Makes you laugh when you recall all the old cobblers about Brexit and 'taking our country back'. Boris had already done a pretty good job of flogging off lumps of London to the Chinese.

Vanessa Smith ● 3259d

Foreign investors have been doing this for years in London ..well before Brexit. Should be a law against it..

Keith Iddon ● 3259d

Apparently the reason that Chinese and other investors in property are going further out - some as far as Zone 4 is stamp duty. The stamp duty on a high end very swish property in central London, works out to nearly double that of buying 4 smaller properties further out.

Vanessa Smith ● 3259d

'You simply couldn't do this in other countries, so why the hell does the government allow this here?'Only a handful of countries restrict foreign buyers, as far as I am aware. Last night's TV showed Chinese people buying flats in Colindale. Now, I've never been to Colindale, but it's a long way out!

Susan Kelly ● 3259d

The pound has gone down by about 15%, so foreign property buyers are back in town. But of course, post-Brexit, 'we are open for business!' So much for taking control our own affairs.Here's part of a 2014 Guardian article describing a Far Eastern purchaser of a new flat on the big redeveloped Woodberry Down estate up in Manor House N4, who was lured by the brochure's misleading pictures of central London landmarks, and came over to have a look at what she'd bought.  She was taken there by one of the sales agents. "The client...bought an apartment off-plan at one of those hotel suites a world away. When it was finished, I drove her directly from Heathrow to have a look. As we got closer, the surroundings got rougher and she went quiet. And when we arrived she said: ‘I can’t stay here: put me in a hotel.’ The next morning she wanted to sell up. Immediately.” And that's just driving through Camden Town and Finsbury Park! See full article at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/18/-sp-truth-about-gentrification-how-woodberry-down-became-woodberry-park

Peter Evans ● 3259d

On the news tonight - the latest being that house prices in London have gone down since Brexit - but not for anyone who lives her - no - for foreign investors. Several Chinese people into buying up blocks of properties extending out into the suburbs because they can pay a lot less stamp duty than if they but £1M+ properties in central London. You simply couldn't do this in other countries, so why the hell does the government allow this here? Last week we had Grayling handing taxpayers money to privatised train companies - W.T.F.? Yet talk of any subsidy in the public sector and this shower nearly have a collective fit. There is something seriously rotten in this country.

Vanessa Smith ● 3259d

Providing social housing was a priority for most governments from the 1920s until the 1980s, when the emphasis moved to home ownership, such that the provision of social housing for a wide cross-section of the population is now regarded as 'bizarre'. See interesting history of council housing for more details at:http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/GraysonHistory.doc..or read 'Estates' by Lynsey Hanley.

Peter Evans ● 3261d

Council housing has historically been for the skilled and unskilled 'working class' and I agree with Susan...I grew up on one for some time and all the families were in the same leaky boat. The big difference nowadays is the blight that drugs have brought to estates and the massive reduction in the policing of public spaces. A visible police presence, bobby on the beat or in a jam butty, helps to prevent crime but that idea went out of the window with Dixon of Dock Green.

Keith Iddon ● 3262d

That depends on how you define 'richer', and anyway as I said, I doubt anyone with the wherewithal to buy their own home would want to rent. Unless it was for a short time to save up.

Vanessa Smith ● 3262d

Well, everyone on the council estates where I grew up was poor and I find the idea that you would deliberately allocate such housing to richer people plain bizarre.

Susan Kelly ● 3262d

"What we're seeing now is the exact opposite - the destruction of social housing, with the privatisation of education and health not far behind.  After 'pay to stay' rent rises, how long will it be before we have means tested hip operations or 'top up' school fees?"Peter, I fear you are right, we will be a country where the privileged will be able to buy the best, and those who can't will get a second rate service, or none at all. The P.M. now has the chance to make good on what she said outside No.10 when she took over, unfortunately her support for the appalling Jeremy Hunt does not bode well.

Vanessa Smith ● 3263d

My recollection is that the council housing boom in the sixties was to solve a problem - not unlike the one we have now. So much housing had been lost in the war is was vital to get housing people could afford comfortably and of a good standard, so it pretty much was available to all. It has never been 'for the poor'. The irony is that this housing was built under the auspices of a Tory government, and don't forget this was also the era when private property requisitioned by the government during the war was to be handed back to the owner. It wouldn't be a bad thing if a lot of the empty property standing around now was requisitioned for public housing, it is outrageous to see how much property there is that could be in use for homes, while at the same time we are all subsidising private landlords to make their fortunes. I'm no communist but what's wrong with the state building houses for everyone to rent? Chances are a lot of people wouldn't want to rent anyway, but it actually might also give people a chance to save to buy their own home without the ridiculous deposits now being demanded.

Vanessa Smith ● 3263d

In the 1950s extensive council housing was built to provide 'homes for all' for low rent, and in those days council tenants generally had to show they had some income and came from a range of social backgrounds.  It wasn't until the 1977 Housing Act that social housing began to be allocated according to need, with families increasingly being supported by social security payments and in effect being provided with rent-free homes. But in a civilised society it's not difficult to imagine a 'National Homes Service' that provides the population with free homes in the same way that we get free education and free health care, with the same possibility of 'going private' if you want to pay for something you think is better. What we're seeing now is the exact opposite - the destruction of social housing, with the privatisation of education and health not far behind.  After 'pay to stay' rent rises, how long will it be before we have means tested hip operations or 'top up' school fees?

Peter Evans ● 3263d

I don't understand why you say that Council housing was built for all, Jazz. What era was this? I was born in a council house in the 50s and even in that far-off time it was for poor people who couldn't afford to buy or to rent privately. Why would the state build houses for everyone to rent, regardless of income? Only communist countries did that.

Susan Kelly ● 3263d

Council housing was built for all. You don't seem to mind that people made loads of money from the sale of council housing, so why are you so bothered that people are at present paying a decent rent. Why do you want them to pay way above what they should be paying?  Private rents are so high because the tenant is paying the landlords mortgage. There use to be very little difference in the rent between private and council housing, but with the selling of of council housing, private landlords were told that they could have their mortgage paid and more if they rented out to homeless people. Now we have people on decent incomes paying out stupid amounts of rent, making their landlord rich. £25,000 in London will not get you much at all. In fact you have to be earning way above that to make ends meet while living in social housing, especially if you have children.  Where I live out of the 37 homes in the Close, there are 32 buy to lets, with very varying rents, depending on when the property was bought and how greedy the landlord is. I can't understand people who say put up rents, instead of fighting for decent affordable private rents. http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/GraysonHistory.doc

Jazz Brown ● 3263d

I actually worked for BHS for seven years in their head office near Baker Street. The business was going downhill back in 2005. We all knew it, even the staff. The pension was non-existence, the bonus scheme was a joke. Hey and guess what, my first job paid below £16k per year (year 2002). I still worked hard and even took a Saturday job to make ends meat, while getting a professional qualifications. What most of us did was move on once we had good experience. The whole BHS thing was down to mis-management from old and current owners. It is a good thing that final salary was stopped, however unfair to tell people after 25yr of input they plan to cancel. They deserve their money, the businesses need to pay less dividends to fill the gap.I totally agree cost of living has gone up against wage increase, but that is when planning comes into play. I.e. If you have a mortgage, over time it will reduce. This is probably the single biggest expense for anyone.  And in the old days back in 1995-2000, houses prices were amazing vs wages. If people did not take advantage of this, that is bad luck. Even better the right to buy scheme was great for people who took. They are so much better off. The whole issue with social housing is people currently in them, do they really need it currently? Those who don’t, need a rent increase, or move to private rented. Social housing should only be for those who need it. Or I have better idea, lets ask the government to build 10,000 houses all for social housing, with an amazing fountain outside and ask occupants to pay minimal or what they want to for rent.

Raki Smith ● 3264d

Couldn't agree more Martin, just airily saying that jobs paying in excess of £25K are out there just for the taking is nonsense. The fact is many jobs simply aren't secure these days, and even if you earn a half decent salary - as we know circumstances beyond your control change all that. Just look at the poor sods caught up in the BHS debacle. How can people take on any commitments when they haven't a clue how much work they will have from one week to another? Of course the government and employers bang on about 'flexible workforces'. Great if you can just drop employees as and when it suits, but these people have lives and bills to pay it is outrageously unfair. If you are in the public sector especially pay has nowhere near kept up with the cost of living. Never mind another planet - another universe is more like it.

Vanessa Smith ● 3264d

I really do think Raki lives on another planet.When i got my current job it was fairly well paid - with one of the countries biggest companies. 11 years later- same employer, i am now earning a lot more per year yes, but the cost of living has increased by far more than my wages - so i am now worse of than i was a few years ago. That's without the threat of my pension scheme closing and predicted payouts getting lower.    My council rent goes up most years but with my wife on minimum wage and my wage we cannot afford holidays or regular nights out. We live week to week most times.  Jobs paying £25k plus - i wish.I apologise for the personal attack Raki but the majority of your posts that i have read have a 'them and us' mentality to them.I am also sorry that us poor people affect your life so badly but it was us that made this area what it is, long before the new apartment blocks and high earners began to move in.

Martin Webb ● 3264d

And one should not be allowed to have a council/HA tenancy whilst owning one's own property(hello Julian Bell..) nor should one be able to sub let whilst not living in the property.

Keith Iddon ● 3264d

The principle of the policy is a good one, as people who get on in life and start earning a good living should not be taking council houses that are needed by poorer people. 40k is too low a household income, though.

Susan Kelly ● 3264d

You really are unbelievable - what an unfeeling, uncaring, selfish individual you are. Council house rents are NOT subsidised. The rent for an average council home repays the building costs within 25 years, and from then on more than pays for the upkeep. If you seriously think £1000 per house isn't much extra to find you really do live in a parallel universe. There are not all these well paid jobs out there as you seem to think, unless of course you were lucky enough to have a job with ex P.M. Dodgy Dave who was giving his aides pay rises of £18000, and in one case a rise of 24%, all this while keeping ordinary civil servants pay rises pegged at 1%. A little bit of thought and consideration for people who are not as well-off as you appear to be would not go amiss. Think of how many homes could have been built with the £9BN shelled out to private landlords, contrary to your hackneyed views the only way to solve the massive housing crisis is to build public sector housing, it is a basic human right to expect to have a decent roof over your family's head, and that should not solely depend on having shed-loads of money.

Vanessa Smith ● 3264d

In ref : "Wouldn't you rather decent affordable rent for all, irrelevant of income" That is impossible to work now, as the housing market is driven via the Private Sector mainly. Private sector prices go up, while public sector (Social housing), has stayed the same. It does need updating and rent increase is the only way.  Lets be honest £1k per house hold isn’t that much, and rents go up from £500 to £600 per month for social housing. Still a good deal. They need to clean up these houses, and now people earning more should pay more, rather than be on low rent. Social housing should only be for those who need it, not for those who demand it because they forgot that kids are expensive to bring up, or even worse, because they are generation who believe the government should be put them up. Come on, in order to earn 22/25k, there are plenty of jobs out there. There is sadly a generation of people who have been failed education wise, and it is still happening today. Both the government and parents are to blame for this. Let me guess next time we blame Apple for avoiding taxes, that can be used to build more houses in London where there is no space. 

Raki Smith ● 3265d

"To earn combined £50k isnt that hard. You dont even need many brain cells to earn £25k."I'm not sure what world you inhabit - but from my experience earning £25K isn't that easy, that is more than what is reckoned to be the 'average wage'. What about the poor sods on zero hours and low wages? They also do valuable and sometimes unpleasant jobs that people like you would look down on, but which make all our lives more pleasant. Apart from which, these people who the government are so exercised about are very small in number, the costs of this vindictive policy will far outweigh any money saved but it's the people on the borderline who will also get caught, it's just another grandstanding publicity stunt from people who have no clue what is really happening with housing, so they can say, look we're doing something. No they are not, do something about the conning, greedy private landlords, a real cost to the taxpayer.

Vanessa Smith ● 3265d

Wouldn't you rather decent affordable rent for all, irrrelevant of income. Someone earnig the average London wage after tax, cannot afford the private rents now, and I believe, should be able to access properties with affordable rent. When the BBC did a survey asking what the affordable rent of a two bed place should be, the average answer was £620 a month, not £1500. The government are saying a combined income of £40,000, and that includes student loans, really you think that a family should have to pay £1500 a month. After tax, they will just be able to pay for food and bills, is that what you want for people, no saving, no holidays, no one night out a week. Really?

Jazz Brown ● 3265d

Why dont people in social housing on high earning (combined at least £50k) move out and go to private and free up space for poeple who need. Off course they wont. They rather pay £500 a month than £1,500.To earn combined £50k isnt that hard. You dont even need many brain cells to earn £25k.

Raki Smith ● 3265d

Yet again! Social housing rent is not 'subsidised by the taxpayer'.  It's considerably less than the private sector market rent because social housing should cost less to build on already publicly owned land with rock bottom finance.  In its lifetime social housing will be paid for many times over and the rental income only needs to cover the cost of maintenance and management.  The real subsidies are now going to home buyers through right-to-buy discounts and help-to-buy loans underwritten by the government 'to line the pockets of greedy developers'. As for Housing Benefit, that's now set substantially below the market rent in any particular area and is strictly based on a family's needs.  Of course HB would be better spent on building new homes, but you have to thank Mrs Thatcher for cutting back on social house building and encouraging the private rented sector to take the strain funded by Housing Benefit - and not forgetting the insidious 'Right to Buy'.  Now local authorities are totally reliant on the private sector to help them fulfil their housing obligations, as their freedom to build social housing is still curtailed by central government. So it's as illogical to blame private landlords 'coining it in from people's desperation and being subsidised by the taxpayer' as it is to say that Tesco or Sainburys or McDonalds or anywhere else 'is subsidised by the taxpayer' when people spend their Job seekers allowance, or working Tax credit or even their civil service or NHS pay within their doors.

Peter Evans ● 3265d

Er, I think you are missing the other part - what about all those private landlords coining it in from people's desperation and being subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of a cool£9 billion? The amount of people reckoned to be earning all this money and living in council housing is so small it is reckoned that this nasty little scheme will probably cost more to administrate than it will save or bring in. You really are all heart.

Vanessa Smith ● 3265d

What is wrong with charging those on high income living in social housing on high income? The question should be why people on high income living in social are housing? Surely they are needed for those on low income. What is the average rent for social housing, say a three bedroom house? If on high income, what is the limit per household? If they are earning combined of £55/60k, then they need to pay more or live in private accommodation.

Raki Smith ● 3265d