This Government really do not like the fact the poor still exist in Britain and they detest even more working class council tenants.
I’ve never heard of anything so stupid, the past labour governments have encouraged the sale of council homes to tenants who found themselves able to buy and despite a 3 year bond to pay the council for maintenance of the properties thus bought, these properties are now in the private sector.
The councils have given themselves a pat on the back as they relieved themselves of a lot of older properties that had high maintenance costs. However, the purchase price they received for these properties was meant to be used for reinvestment in low cost house building. Very little has been spent on this, as councils instead have sold land on, to both housing associations under the premis to build homes at reasonable rental costs for both private and social housing needs, and also to commercial builders for private house development at reasonable costs to first time buyers.
Hence, local authorities have long lists of those waiting to be housed and even longer exchange waiting lists. In the none to distant future, it looks like these two lists are set to grow even bigger.
What I can’t understand is why the Government wants to do this? It should be a matter of choice, whether you opt to buy your home or rent your home. The likelihood is that if you can;t afford private rents, that you might be able to afford a socially set fair rent, from an association or local council, However, the unbelievable news is that, as soon as council tenants circumstances change and improve they could be evicted out of their homes.
I can;t understand this logic at all, If a council tenant has a job he could find himself homeless within 6 months. The majority of council tenants do have jobs, they are not the type of jobs that pay well, as they are normally people earning at the bottom end of the earnings bracket. Part- time at less than 6k a year or full time at less than 12k a year. To be able to afford private rents you need to be earning a secure income of around 19k plus per year and to be honest, I know nobody at all in these circumstances. Or if they were earning 30 k per year a mortgage of 90k might be possible for the rest of your life, but then this is all dependent on your job being secure for life and the likelihood of that in an economic depression is nil. Defaulting on mortgage payments also adds to the social housing problem. .
The simple answer to not allowing repossessions to take place, would be to allow the insurances people will have paid in with their mortgage, to cover mortgage payments and then when they had run out, to allow income protection plans and pension schemes to be used for mortgage payments and then finally for the bank or building society, to come up with a scheme that is akin to: "rent to buy" That gives the householder a certificate covering the percentage of their home they own already from paying the mortgage for x number of years.ie 5 years should equal 20% or 10 years should equal 40%. With a bond agreement to "rent to buy" for x number of years at a socially set fair rent for a similar sized council property for a minimum of say 5 years irrespective of whether circumstances change for the better. This way people would get to stay in their own home. After the five years is up the bank or building society would need to review the situation with regards to having frozen the original mortgage debt. In case of a family having paid 10 years and owning 40% they could now be asked to continue paying the mortgage as per norm until the next time.
In fact mortgage breaks are probably a good idea.
If council tenants can’t keep their home it is unlikely they will be able to keep their job. As the stress of keeping a roof over your head will be to heavy a burden.If the Government is that concerned about the lack of social housing why don’t they encourage single people to share flats as if they were renting from a private landlord as flatmates. A flatmate scheme.
I don’t feel it is fair to do anything at all about existing tenants living on their own in two bedroomed flats or their family home, but maybe if housing needs were expressed by the Colleges and Universities could the council tenant not be encouraged to rent out a spare bedroom during term time and if the main householder was in reciept of benefits than this should be reduced by the amount of the students rent.
I’m sure that there are options the Government could have looked at.
Common sense must prevail sometime soon, otherwise Britains streets and squares will soon be turned into a campsite.
For normal people to take care of their own welfare or their own healthcare or their own education or their own housing etc is all very well if you were lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth. A good 95% of Britains population weren’t born with a silver spoon. If the numbers who do pay into insurance schemes for health, income protection etc these folks are in that top end income bracket of 35k plus as these are ones who can afford it.
I laugh every time I look at these over 55 plans to pay for your own funeral and to leave something for your loved ones, because to be completely and absolutely honest this is another avenue people can not afford to pay into. Insurances etc are luxuries.
This question above and the debate is based upon the basics of essential to life. BTW had it not been for greedy middlle Englanders, bankers and property developers Britain wouldn’t be in a mess.