The argument/complete nonsense thread...

[Ric Glasgow]

Wish I could have benefitted from right to buy, I’m living in an ex council house and paid 6.5x more for it than the previous ‘owner’ did 5 years earlier using right to buy and sponsoring its tenant (the owners son).

Hardly any council homes left at all around here, they don’t build and sub out all social housing to housing associations. R2B was the biggest gift to the elder generations that not only will very few others will ever get to benefit from but it has literally hamstrung affordable housing.

It's like anything else in life.

If you benefit from something it's a great idea,if you don't it's not.I'd paid rent for 21 years prior to buying which made me eligible for a 51% discount off a £100'000 home.

I'm not a big fan of looking a gift horse in the mouth and like many others who bought a council house,I don't need to rent a council house so nothing has changed really.I suppose the only thing that has changed is the population of the U.K but that's for another day.

 

[Edelman]

You have to do what's right for you but I think in a bigger picture the policy was wrong. The cash strapped councils got a short bump of income but lost out on a regular near guaranteed long term income. Then as the council had less and less houses to maintain they stopped taking on apprentices and training kids in plumbing, electrics, brickies, joinery and so on.
Do any councils actually build any houses to rent out today or are they happy to sell off school playing fields and other green spaces and let developers build big expensive homes for rich buyers?

The money. From the sales should always have been ringing fenced for future homes to be built .
We now have a situation where rented flats are also subject to lease charges .
You even pay lease charges if you buy new homes in certain areas for the upkeep around the homes .

 

[balkan tiger]

I think that unfortunately you have misunderstood a few things with the right to buy.
The income from the sale of council houses was ring fenced and councils could not use it. It actually had the opposite effect, all council stock was built using mortgages from the government and the right to buy was simply a massive political stunt that only benefited those who bought and the banks who they borrowed from.

There are two separate accounts in the council. Housing Revenues Account and General.
Schools sports pitches being sold has no relationship with Council or Social housing.
Here the County council runs schools and my district council provides social housing.

My council has its own workforce and as an example, when one of the heating contractors went bust, the council stepped in and took on its only apprentice even though it meant having to restructure its plumbing department to enable him to finish his course.

I am an involved tenant, I am formally recognised in the scrutiny process of housing matters in the council. I introduce change, hold my council to account and speak up on behalf of tenants.

My council is building new homes. This week another 20. We also provide new homes for shared ownership and will have another 60+ available for first time buyers this year.

We have a budget of £35m a year and operate at a small surplus. I work with the council to improve housing services and hold them to account.

My Dad was involved in the North Hull Estate Housing Action Trust and I am proud to follow in his footsteps as an involved tenant.

Whichever account it went into there was a bump up of income for councils or government coffers from the sale of council houses. Many got a massive discount (up to 60%) so the bump was much smaller than it could have been. As for saying they couldn't use that income are you suggesting the money is still sat there in a bank account.

The HCC have land they could have built rental properties on themselves but they sold it to developers to build private houses for sale.

My own parents paid rent on a house on NHE for over 60 years, must have bought it 10 20 30 times over. Initially the rent would have gone to the council not sure how the trust worked. Did they buy all the houses off the council and run it as a rental business? If so isn't that just taking money from the council and giving it to an investment company?

Can't deny both the council and the trust maintained and improved their house over the years.

 

[Edelman]

Whichever account it went into there was a bump up of income for councils or government coffers from the sale of council houses. Many got a massive discount (up to 60%) so the bump was much smaller than it could have been. As for saying they couldn't use that income are you suggesting the money is still sat there in a bank account.

The HCC have land they could have built rental properties on themselves but they sold it to developers to build private houses for sale.

My own parents paid rent on a house on NHE for over 60 years, must have bought it 10 20 30 times over. Initially the rent would have gone to the council not sure how the trust worked. Did they buy all the houses off the council and run it as a rental business? If so isn't that just taking money from the council and giving it to an investment company?

Can't deny both the council and the trust maintained and improved their house over the years.

There have been little pockets of Bungalows built in Hull .
There's some on Long hill and North Bransholme

 

[Amin Arrears]

It's like anything else in life.

If you benefit from something it's a great idea,if you don't it's not.I'd paid rent for 21 years prior to buying which made me eligible for a 51% discount off a £100'000 home.

I'm not a big fan of looking a gift horse in the mouth and like many others who bought a council house,I don't need to rent a council house so nothing has changed really.I suppose the only thing that has changed is the population of the U.K but that's for another day.

Can’t blame anyone for taking the option but the execution of it was absurd. Like in the case of mine the son had lived there for several years as a council tenant on housing benefit, then as soon as he was eligible for the full discount his parents bought it and rented it back to him, probably on housing benefit, making the house probably essentially free to the family to sell on at 6.5x the price 5 years later. Don’t see how anyone can argue that’s a good idea. Taxpayers absolutely rinsed and they’re pissing themselves.

 

[Ric Glasgow]

Can’t blame anyone for taking the option but the execution of it was absurd. Like in the case of mine the son had lived there for several years as a council tenant on housing benefit, then as soon as he was eligible for the full discount his parents bought it and rented it back to him, probably on housing benefit, making the house probably essentially free to the family to sell on at 6.5x the price 5 years later. Don’t see how anyone can argue that’s a good idea. Taxpayers absolutely rinsed and they’re pissing themselves.

I agree with your post,that's just exploiting the loopholes and wrong

 

[djsowtz]

There's a mob up here, 'Sanctuary Housing' who seem to have more of less cornered the market where I live and further afield and they've built just about every new blocks of flats going.

My Daughter has one in a relatively new £24 million project they completed a couple of years ago,cracking flats to be fair but the rents are hefty and on top of that they have to pay 'factor Fees' that are also steep but they do have a fairly sizeable army of tradesmen on hand.Don't get me wrong,she doesn't pay her full rent as she's a single parent with a 25 hour a week job so she gets Universal Credit but she still pays a substantial amount to it.

As I say,they'll spend the money on fairly expensive developments but they won't have to wait long to recoup it given the rent they charge.

The prices up here are getting ridiculous. I can get 390 a month towards housing while I get back on my feet, but I can't actually get anything. Even in Dumbarton/Clydebank and really not nice areas and flats, its 700 a month. Down in W Yorks where I was also looking, prices are similar, but I can get 670 a month. I can't get a house through the housing association (I've been on the list for over a year), because they are saying I made myself "intentionally homeless", I was in no danger at my previous property and should have squatted. So I'm sofa surfing and living in my car, even with a job, I'm over £400 a month short if I managed to get a private let (that's just bills, no treats). Even living in my car, I'm still nearly 200 a month short.

 

[Kempton tiger]

I don’t see it as a great injustice but an injustice nevertheless but not really ‘funny’
. I got made redundant some years ago , went for help with mortgage living etc and got £90 a week the same as the lazy ones , the newbies , but I’d paid in to the system for 40 odd years at the time , they’d done nothing . Bought a bike to get to a part time job all I could get , where I got paid about£98 a week , they took the £90 off me and there was no help to get the bike either .
The system does not appear to differentiate between ‘grifters’ as you call them and claimants who’ve paid in .

Same as me Springtiger. I had worked non stop for over 30 years, not a day off sick in 20. Was made redundant and had to sign on at Britannia House. Bouncers on the door and full of some of the dregs of society. Not all and many like me were looking for the work. At signing on, I had to provide details of what jobs I had applied for. Some of the staff were genuinely surprised when I did this and gave details of my interviews. It seems I was in the minority. I then found that those who had never worked and had no intention of working, received the same money as me, about £100 a week in benefit.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

Same as me Springtiger. I had worked non stop for over 30 years, not a day off sick in 20. Was made redundant and had to sign on at Britannia House. Bouncers on the door and full of some of the dregs of society. Not all and many like me were looking for the work. At signing on, I had to provide details of what jobs I had applied for. Some of the staff were genuinely surprised when I did this and gave details of my interviews. It seems I was in the minority. I then found that those who had never worked and had no intention of working, received the same money as me, about £100 a week in benefit.

What do you think they should do about it?

 

[Kempton tiger]

What do you think they should do about it?

Its a difficult one but somebody shouldn't be allowed to not work for 20 years without any penalty. I understand that some people have medical issues which might make some jobs difficult or impossible, but there do seem to be many who just have no intention of working and play the system.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

Its a difficult one but somebody shouldn't be allowed to not work for 20 years without any penalty. I understand that some people have medical issues which might make some jobs difficult or impossible, but there do seem to be many who just have no intention of working and play the system.

Oh I agree and it’s generational probs third or fourth now
I just don’t know how it’s solved

 

[Kempton tiger]

Oh I agree and it’s generational probs third or fourth now
I just don’t know how it’s solved

Me neither. I was lucky that I found another job fairly quickly. I just found it so frustrating.

 

[Howdentiger2]

Oh I agree and it’s generational probs third or fourth now
I just don’t know how it’s solved

Stop the benefits, if you're of working age and can work then you get a window of help 6-8months, then if you don't work you get nothing.

 

[tiptoe through the kempton]

Stop the benefits, if you're of working age and can work then you get a window of help 6-8months, then if you don't work you get nothing.

Many years ago a French guy told me that the system in France was similar, if you lost your job then you got full benefits for 6 months and then it was reduced, and again at 12 months. Not sure how true it was but seemed to be a good idea.

 

[The Omega Man]

The prices up here are getting ridiculous. I can get 390 a month towards housing while I get back on my feet, but I can't actually get anything. Even in Dumbarton/Clydebank and really not nice areas and flats, its 700 a month. Down in W Yorks where I was also looking, prices are similar, but I can get 670 a month. I can't get a house through the housing association (I've been on the list for over a year), because they are saying I made myself "intentionally homeless", I was in no danger at my previous property and should have squatted. So I'm sofa surfing and living in my car, even with a job, I'm over £400 a month short if I managed to get a private let (that's just bills, no treats). Even living in my car, I'm still nearly 200 a month short.

I understand completely your situation.
One of my projects this year is to highlight hidden homelessness especially in younger men. I am only just starting.
It is not acceptable that anyone sleeps on the street, in a car or sofa surfs.
I had nowhere to go when I left the Army. Lived with friends for 3 months. I could have come back to Hull, but there really was no work at the time and moving back with my parents could have meant that I slipped into a lifestyle that I didn’t want.
I struggled to get the deposit on a bedsit in the red light area. It was grim.
I had managed to get some agency work and I got a big tax rebate that I used for my deposit.

I wish I could offer you some advice and assistance but the catalyst for my project was a meeting in March were I challenged the figure of only 2 people being homeless in my area. On the industrial estate near me there are at least 16 living in cars and vans. Some have jobs on the estate. They will never fit in the priority for housing list.

 

[The Omega Man]

Its a difficult one but somebody shouldn't be allowed to not work for 20 years without any penalty. I understand that some people have medical issues which might make some jobs difficult or impossible, but there do seem to be many who just have no intention of working and play the system.

That is slowly changing.

The worrying figure is in the 16 to 18 year olds not in education.

I don’t have an idea what the solution is, but I know what the outcome will be.

 

[Heimdallr]

Stop the benefits, if you're of working age and can work then you get a window of help 6-8months, then if you don't work you get nothing.

The problem is that, for many reasons, there are a percentage of ppl who can't and won't work - many of those on long term benefits simply can't hold employment and firms don't want them. Remove their housing and benefits and you'll see a rise in crime and homelessness. It's always been this way - a certain percentage can't do normal life.

It's no different to when pensioners say that violent kids should do national service in the army - it doesn't work as they can't be disciplined and spend the time on the run or in military prison... Plus no decent soldier will want to be alongside someone who doesn't want to be there.

It's difficult to retrain ppl into working life if all theyve seen is unemployment and life on support. I don't know the answer, but a hard stop will result in chaos.

 

[Howdentiger2]

The problem is that, for many reasons, there are a percentage of ppl who can't and won't work - many of those on long term benefits simply can't hold employment and firms don't want them. Remove their housing and benefits and you'll see a rise in crime and homelessness. It's always been this way - a certain percentage can't do normal life.

It's no different to when pensioners say that violent kids should do national service in the army - it doesn't work as they can't be disciplined and spend the time on the run or in military prison... Plus no decent soldier will want to be alongside someone who doesn't want to be there.

It's difficult to retrain ppl into working life if all theyve seen is unemployment and life on support. I don't know the answer, but a hard stop will result in chaos.

Fair points, still pay something but make it the bare minimum to survive. It shouldn't be a comfortable life if they have no interest in contributing to society. On top of that, I firmly believe anyone receiving out of work benefits who is fit to work should have whatever benefits they get weekly divided by the minimum wage and they should have to work in the community for that number of hours to get their benefits. We have to work for our wages, why shouldn't they...

We make it far to easy and far to comfortable for lazy, bone idle, lay abouts to just do nothing and it needs to stop.

We should absolutely help those with a genuine need or those who physically can't work.

 

[Trumpton Tiger.]

Some years ago HCC were selling some 'run down' properties on NHE. I don't know what was wrong with them but quite a few became available all down the same avenue. The council invited bids, I put one in, my intention was to buy one for one of my kids. We are talking of less than £10k each in those days, which was par for the course for the housing market then to be successful. My bid went in, all funded, and I wasn't successful. I never actually spoke face to face with anyone, it was all done and decided on, matter of factually by a short letter.
In fact all of the available houses were sold for less each than I had bid, to a property developer, of which one of John Prestcott's lads had an, if not sole interest in. The reason given was the property developer had the funds to refurbish them all to a particular standard, what ever?
The sale never made any headlines any where and went through almost under the radar.
My in laws bought their council house on NHE with help of the tenants discount scheme. When they were admitted to a care home in later life, they had to sell the house to pay for their care, everyone else in the place avoided any costs because they were still renting. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Kempton tiger]

The problem is that, for many reasons, there are a percentage of ppl who can't and won't work - many of those on long term benefits simply can't hold employment and firms don't want them. Remove their housing and benefits and you'll see a rise in crime and homelessness. It's always been this way - a certain percentage can't do normal life.

It's no different to when pensioners say that violent kids should do national service in the army - it doesn't work as they can't be disciplined and spend the time on the run or in military prison... Plus no decent soldier will want to be alongside someone who doesn't want to be there.

It's difficult to retrain ppl into working life if all theyve seen is unemployment and life on support. I don't know the answer, but a hard stop will result in chaos.

I am not sure how we change the mindset of those who won't work but maybe go along the lines of other countries where benefit amounts are based on previous employment or benefits expire after a certain time. We would certainly see more crime and homelessness but it may in future years change that mindset and people will realise they must work or lose benefits.