Near to my heart this one and I can see both sides. Why should a couple on £40,000 pa have a cheap council house when the poor are homeless? or Why should I lose my council house just because I have done well? A bit stuck on this one so open to persuasion either way. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Couples on more than £40,000 'will not be entitled to council home' Couples who are paid more than £40,000 a year will not be entitled to council homes under plans being drawn up by a Conservative-run local authority. Hammersmith and Fulham in west London is among the first authorities to set out how it plans to implement new laws introduced by the Government, designed to stop the current practice that allows those on high incomes to stay in council homes for life and pass them on to their children. The council's proposals would also give priority for the homes to foster parents, former Army personnel, and special constables, according to a newspaper. Preference would be given to those in work or training or with a connection to the borough, such as their parents. The plans are thought likely to be mirrored by local authorities across the country as they try to find homes for the four million people on waiting lists, and with little new social housing being built. Hammersmith and Fulham has 14,000 properties, with 10,000 people on its waiting list and only 500 new places coming up every year. Westminster council is thought to be planning to adopt a similar policy and planning a higher cap of £50,000 or £60,000, while authorities outside the capital are expected to set lower ceilings to reflect lower salaries. The proposals come after new laws came into force last month, spelling an end to the "tenancy for life" and giving councils more flexibility on dealing with waiting lists. While they do not set any salary cap, housing minister Grants Shapps has suggested that those earning more than £100,000 should not be entitled to a council home. The new laws also suggest that councils should set fixed-term tenancies for all new tenants, generally for five years, and mean that in future no one will be able to inherit a council home. Andrew Johnson, head of housing at Hammersmith and Fulham, said that under its plans, the proposed five-year tenancy for residents would be reduced to two years if there was evidence of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. He said half the annual council house allocation each year would go to people in jobs or training or special priority groups. Currently, the authority gives just 15% of its homes to those in work. Mr Johnson told The Times: "We want to incentivise residents to make the most of their lives. Council housing can be a great safety net to help people get back on their feet - but it should be a springboard not a destination. "The current system does not promote personal aspiration or provide tenants with any incentive to try to move into home ownership and does not make the best use of the housing we have."
So where do they expect people to live? A couple in Hammersmith and Fulham need to be on a helluva lot more than £40k a year in order for them to be able to afford a property in the area... So the poorer people can get their council house, but a couple working, but yet don't earn enough to buy somewhere are to be forced out...Plus this said couple will be paying full rent and won't be getting it cheap, so basically the council will be losing money from their coffers.
And lets say they work hard and go over 40k, move out and rent privately then one loses their job and go back to well below 40k, what do we do then?
The man's argument is flawed in that it is very difficult to get a mortgage which anyone over £40k will still need
It's not a problem 'oop north, where we are. As housing is affordable. This is a government problem and a London and a south east problem. Once again the government look to kick the working classes in the bollocks. It is the job of government to provide cheap and affordable housing. They could get people back to work by starting mass urban regeneration. Clearing out unfit areas and building proper homes for people. They also need to take action and stop paying landlords in London vast fortunes of our taxes for poor people to live there. Surely we can do this better.
So why cant they rent in London, whats the problem £15,120 pw 2 bedroom apartment to rent Richmond Mews, Soho, London, W1D Outlet Property Services are pleased to present available to rent on a SHORT LET basis is this selection of four two bedroom stylish apartments situated in the gorgeous luxury Soho Hotel. There are 4 two bedroom apartments each with a fully equipped kitchen, 2 spacious bedrooms and bathrooms plus... £12,000 pw 2 bedroom flat to rent Flat 17, 48 Queens Gate, South Kensington, London, SW7 Penthouse apartment with lift and terraces - A stunning penthouse apartment to rent in Queens Gate, South Kensington SW7. The apartment is located on the fifth floor of a beautiful Grade II Listed Building within a short walk of the recreational facilities of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, off... New home New home £10,000 pw 2 bedroom flat to rent Park Street, South Bank, London SE1 Stunning duplex Penthouse on the river to rent in SE1 - SHORT LET FOR 2012 - AVAILABLE JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2012 New 1567 sq ft, duplex, air conditioned Penthouse with a huge terrace. London Bridge Station and Borough Market only 200m. Tate Modern/Bank of England ten minutes. Private residentia...
2 bedroom apartment to rent£15,120pw please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
Yes but when London councils proposed the idea of moving 'poor people' up North (i.e. to more affordable locations) to save money, we all screamed about social cleansing!! I agree that the answer is to build more more social housing in the London area so ordinary people can afford to live there. I would rather my taxes were going towards building projects, rather than paying greedy landlords. And what exactly is the Olympics legacy going to be? All the athlete's accommodation will be flats, but will they be council or private? I also think the government needs to do far more to support businesses to move to the 'North' (I don't mean Birmingham or Manchester either!), and to develop the infrastructure up here (Dualling the A1 to Scotland for example). We need more job opportunities for people who already live here, as well as to offer a viable option for people 'down South' who are sick of the commuting and poor housing they are forced to live in.
Scandalous prices, I’ve heard a lot of people giving out about the banker’s greed being to blame for the crash but think developers/estate agents also have a lot to answer for when they were bumping up the prices and living on a pigs back. I have listened to a few involved in the construction industry who made a fortune and are now complaining about the lack of work and complaining about the public sector pensions? They wouldn’t have touched a job in the public sector previous to the crash but all of a sudden have an opinion on it.
Which London council was it ( when Dame Shirley Porter was in command ) that got into trouble with the law for flogging council houses to "yuppies" so as to increase the Conservative vote? As they say, what goes around comes around.
I totally disagree with moving unemployed people up here. We have enough unemployed of our own. Where I live some southerners took advantage of being offered money to live up here. Needless to say they are wasters who have no interest in work adding to our problems!!!! This really annoys me. As you say we need more businesses and infrastructure. I'm stopping now as a can feel the need for some blood pressure tablets!
You can get a 3-bed detached house, 1,200 sq. ft, with basement and garden in the USA for £30,000. Only problem is it's in Detroit!
Although I am a home owner, I believe the Thatcherite policy of the masses being part of a home owning democracy have been very bad for society in general..On the one hand they have created a huge social divide, with many council estates neglected and turned into virtual no go areas. On the other hand, the government have developed policies which allows them to re-claim all the money people have ploughed into buying their homes by making them sell up to pay for their care in later life...It bloody stinks if you ask me.. Going back to the OP, it is my view that people should have the choice of living in council accommodation regardless of income.
