[Kizzy]

Higher-earning tenants in social housing, will pay a fair level of rent to continue living there, under consultation proposals.

Higher-earning tenants in social housing, will pay a fair level of rent to continue living there, under consultation proposals published today (9 October 2015) by Housing Minister Brandon Lewis.

Households in social housing with a total income of more than £40,000 in London and over £30,000 elsewhere, will pay a rent at market or near market levels.

This will put an end to the situation where higher-income social tenants benefit from taxpayer-funded subsidies of up to £3,500 per year.

Instead, social rents would increase as tenants’ incomes rise above this threshold – meaning those in real need continue to pay a subsidised rent, while continuing to ensure that work always pays.

Housing Minister, Brandon Lewis, said:

It’s not fair that other hard-working people are subsidising the lifestyles of higher-earners to the tune of £3,500 per year, when the money could be used to build more affordable homes.

’Pay to stay’ will ensure that those tenants on higher incomes who are living in social housing have a rent that reflects their ability to pay, while those who genuinely need support continue to receive it.

The money saved by councils by removing this subsidy will help contribute to the government’s £12 billion of welfare savings, and housing associations will be able to retain the additional income raised to help support their role in providing new housing.

There are currently more than more than 40,000 social rented tenants with household incomes in excess of £50,000 per year; and a further 300,000 with incomes over £30,000.

Strivers slapped back down again, what is the real issue here... Are they attempting to force those who can afford to purchase do so?
This will indeed create distinct 'them and us' communities with families on the same street in social housing paying wildly differing rents.
Instead of bringing private rents down, social rents are being raised in line with them. :/


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f...ts-pay-to-stay

[smudgie]

Sounds faIr to me.
Why should my kids pay private rent and then on top of that pay to subsidise somebody earning thousands more than them, and in some cases it would be tens of thousands more?

[Mokka]

They already do this in Canada... And I think it provides incentive for those who would abuse the system to move on so that people who need the low income housing can actually access it

[arista]

Originally Posted by Mokka

They already do this in Canada... And I think it provides incentive for those who would abuse the system to move on so that people who need the low income housing can actually access it

Yes I Love Canada

[Livia]

I'm okay with higher earners paying more. So long as it's still a fair rent and not some of the eye-watering private rents I've seen.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Sounds faIr to me.
Why should my kids pay private rent and then on top of that pay to subsidise somebody earning thousands more than them, and in some cases it would be tens of thousands more?

This - Exactly.

[Kizzy]

Here a post war prefab is £83pw, how much more can they expect to squeeze out of folk for homes not worth over 100k?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm okay with higher earners paying more. So long as it's still a fair rent and not some of the eye-watering private rents I've seen.

Yes I hope they put a cap on what landlords can charge, the sheer greed of some is astounding

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Here a post war prefab is £83pw, how much more can they expect to squeeze out of folk for homes not worth over 100k?

In my area a privately rented 3 bed semi is 1900 a month

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

In my area a 3 bed semi is 1900 a month

Is that for ex social housing?... :/
That's what I'm wondering are they trying to drive up the cost of rents across the uk to bring them in line with the south?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is that for ex social housing?... :/
That's what I'm wondering are they trying to drive up the cost of rents across the uk to bring them in line with the south?

No the houses are not ex council, I can' t see that happening as salaries are not the same though

[JoshBB]

Seems fair as long as it's not extortionate. We need far more council homes being built anyway, and they shouldn't be sold off.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No the houses are not ex council, I can' t see that happening as salaries are not the same though

Ah well as a fair comparison how much do you think a 3 bed social housing property would be per month?
I still say that it should be based on the market value of the house and not simple because as a couple you're earning over £30k.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ah well as a fair comparison how much do you think a 3 bed social housing property would be per month?
I still say that it should be based on the market value of the house and not simple because as a couple you're earning over £30k.

I honestly don't know Kiz, A friend rents and she pays top rent as the house is owned by a private landlord but she gets her rent paid with housing benefit

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I honestly don't know Kiz, A friend rents and she pays top rent as the house is owned by a private landlord but she gets her rent paid with housing benefit

Right, this has nothing to do with benefits of any kind, it's aimed at people who are working and paying full rent in social housing.
There is a cap on housing benefit though so I doubt that she'll be having £1900pm paid for her will she?
It has confused me as it states it will be used to bring down the 12m of benefit savings though, I can't see how that will happen if these people are working and paying rent, where is the saving?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Right, this has nothing to do with benefits of any kind, it's aimed at people who are working and paying full rent in social housing.
There is a cap on housing benefit though so I doubt that she'll be having £1900pm paid for her will she?
It has confused me as it states it will be used to bring down the 12m of benefit savings though, I can't see how that will happen if these people are working and paying rent, where is the saving?

The 3,500 subsidy that is being paid to everyone regardless of income I guess..


Aw yeah I took the thread off track a bit with private rents

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The 3,500 subsidy that is being paid to everyone regardless of income I guess..


Aw yeah I took the thread off track a bit with private rents

Is this subsidy classed as a benefit then?
Personally I simply can't see the justification for removing the subsidy, council properties are not very well built or maintained, added to that many are in quite undesirable areas (not all granted).
It will simply add to the pressures facing struggling families, why is it acceptable to keep hiking living costs in line with extortionate private rents?
As I said in Leeds a prefab worth around 100k or less is £83pw how will they justify raising that?
Just because they do it in Canada or wherever doesn't make it right, it was never the premise of council housing that they were only for people on very low incomes initially, they were for everyone.
Forcing people to pay over the odds for substandard housing is wrong., local councils will become the new 'slum landlords'.

Spoiler:

Local authority housing grew after World War I; 2 million houses were built before 1939, over 4 million more after the war. Initially, council housing was intended for the "working classes". The main justification for its development after 1919 was the provision of housing for general needs, but after 1930, it became focused on people displaced after slum clearance. The stigma of council housing probably dates from this period: council estates were built in locations where they would not adversely affect the values of owner-occupied property.

After World War II, references to the 'working classes' were removed. The replacement of the housing stock, particularly through clearances, became council housing's main role, with mass building. The subsidies favoured industrial, high-rise building, though this was often more expensive than the alternatives. Quantity was more important than quality. [4]

Housing policy changed after 1970, when political support for council housing was withdrawn by the Conservatives. In the 1970s and 80s, council housing acquired a more residual role, and is now more concerned with welfare issues and special needs. General subsidies have been progressively withdrawn; for most tenants they have been replaced by Housing Benefit. The sale of council housing to tenants at a discount reduced the numbers, but in due course the government found that few remaining tenants could afford to buy on any terms. The policy of reducing the role of council housing subsequently focused on mass transfers of stock to Registered Social Landlords. [5] As the role of council housing has diminished, Housing Associations have been encouraged to take over the limited opportunities for development.

http://www.spicker.uk/social-policy/housing.htm