Jump to content


What happens to people who can't afford their social housing?

Recommended Posts

But the council evicted them in the first place, for non payment, so I wonder how it can make sense to spend the cost of eviction which must be a lot, legal costs, staffing, void periods etc, and then put the family up in probably just as expensive if not more so emergency accommodation. I think it's wrong on all fronts. A family who can't afford social housing clearly needs help not evicting. I don't get it. It doesn't sit well. It's cruel.

 

Why cant they afford their rent? If they are working then they should get additional benefits to make sure their income is sufficient to be able to afford the rent.

 

If they are on benefits, then they should get a housing allowance which will cover their rent.

 

If they do not use the money they are given for the rent to pay it then they are in default. If there is some genuine reason for this, then they should contact the Housing authority or association to explain the facts they have run into difficulties.

 

Its the responsibility of the tenants to be able to budget so they pay their rent as a priority. If they cant manage a budget then they should have requested to have the rent paid directly to the landlord.

 

As you said its the Council, then presumably they evict the people becayse they are unhappy with them as tenants i.e non payers and its unfair on other tenants who pay. They might be under a duty to rehouse, but they are likely to be less desirable properties.

Eviction doesnt happen unless its dragged on and there are plenty of opportunities to come to an agreement. Its a last resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why cant they afford their rent? If they are working then they should get additional benefits to make sure their income is sufficient to be able to afford the rent.

 

If they are on benefits, then they should get a housing allowance which will cover their rent.

 

If they do not use the money they are given for the rent to pay it then they are in default. If there is some genuine reason for this, then they should contact the Housing authority or association to explain the facts they have run into difficulties.

 

Its the responsibility of the tenants to be able to budget so they pay their rent as a priority. If they cant manage a budget then they should have requested to have the rent paid directly to the landlord.

 

As you said its the Council, then presumably they evict the people becayse they are unhappy with them as tenants i.e non payers and its unfair on other tenants who pay. They might be under a duty to rehouse, but they are likely to be less desirable properties.

Eviction doesnt happen unless its dragged on and there are plenty of opportunities to come to an agreement. Its a last resort.

 

I sometimes think that people don't take responsibility for themselves, and expect others to do it for them. I know we haven't seen eye to eye in the past, but you are spot on with this. It takes a lot to get to evictions in rented properties, unlike owner occupants, but in cases like these a lot is down to bad personal finance management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what happens especially to families when for WHATEVER reason they can't afford the rents, top ups, and are evicted? Where do they go?

 

This is why there shouldn't be any long-term social housing. If the option does not exist, it can not be abused. The current system sees people receive funding of the state for housing that is then misappropriated for whatever reason (often because they simply aren't good with money/budgeting.)

 

Social housing should be aimed at the short term, helping people who have an urgent need for a roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the option does not exist, it can not be abused.

 

What sort of argument is that? How much abuse is there in the system?

 

If taxes didnt exist, then thered be no tax evasion.

If laws didnt exist then nobody would break them etc.

 

Clearly there is a need for social housing. Not everyone can afford a mortgage. The problem is not social housing, but the fact the tenants have not paid their rent, managed their finances or reached a compromise with the Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are still entitled to housing benefit, so they can rent privately; no money is saved by not helping them.

 

Would they be able to rent privately which is usually more expensive if they can't afford social housing? Would a private landlord take them on do you think? And what about the deposit, bond etc?

 

Housing benefit often doesn't cover the full cost of the rent these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What sort of argument is that? How much abuse is there in the system?

 

If taxes didnt exist, then thered be no tax evasion.

If laws didnt exist then nobody would break them etc.

 

Clearly there is a need for social housing. Not everyone can afford a mortgage. The problem is not social housing, but the fact the tenants have not paid their rent, managed their finances or reached a compromise with the Council.

 

Firstly, you pulled the argument out of its context. Secondly, your counter-argument makes no sense. You rile against the fact that I bring up abuse in the system yet then explain that the problem isn't in the social housing but with the tenants not paying their dues.

 

That means there is a problem with social housing, it is being abused by some. Also, why should it be up to the government to house people? What sort of backward argument is there for that? All the government needs to do is get proper funding and freedom to develop to the housing associations and decouple them from the local government as much as possible. The way housing associations are run in this country is laughable and does not fill the need that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit often doesn't cover the full cost of the rent these days.

 

these days?

 

In past days you got nothing and had to pay your own way. These days are a lot better than those days. People like you just don't see it though, it's just more more more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biggest problem is people think sky subscription's, cigs, booze, fancy TV's and electronics etc, are more important than paying rent, feeding and clothing their kids etc. Then blame everybody else when it all goes t*** up.

 

Really... can you back this up with any verifiable facts?

 

Actually the biggest problem is people do not have enough money to cover rent, food, bills and debt. It's that simple.

The debt is often owed directly to the council for things like emergency loans, borrowed for things like say a replacement second hand cooker, and is taken from benefits at source.

 

What do you think the cuts of the last few years have actually been doing to these people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why there shouldn't be any long-term social housing. If the option does not exist, it can not be abused. The current system sees people receive funding of the state for housing that is then misappropriated for whatever reason (often because they simply aren't good with money/budgeting.)

 

Social housing should be aimed at the short term, helping people who have an urgent need for a roof.

 

Good post. I think that some people link together 'job for life', 'healthcare for life' and 'house for life'. The first is a leftie ideology, the second wasn't well thought out, but is still working to some extent, and the last is nonsense.

 

My Auntie got a house in the 60s with her 2 kids. She was told that she would only be entitled to it as long as the kids needed bedrooms. If someone is told that today, a minority claim it breaches 'their human rights'. The minority are what get politics debates talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, you pulled the argument out of its context. Secondly, your counter-argument makes no sense. You rile against the fact that I bring up abuse in the system yet then explain that the problem isn't in the social housing but with the tenants not paying their dues.

 

That means there is a problem with social housing, it is being abused by some. Also, why should it be up to the government to house people? What sort of backward argument is there for that? All the government needs to do is get proper funding and freedom to develop to the housing associations and decouple them from the local government as much as possible. The way housing associations are run in this country is laughable and does not fill the need that exists.

 

I just thought your point that if you simply remove something then it gets rid of the problem was lol..

 

The point was that social housing isnt the problem. In the example under discussion the tenants are provided with money to pay for their rent or they earn enough to pay it, but they fail to manage their finances. In any financial system you would get none payers, including the private sector. A few none payers should not invalidate the entire system for everyone else pays.

 

People have mortgages, some people dont or cant pay and they get evicted, but that doesnt mean you should ban mortgages or the system is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My Auntie got a house in the 60s with her 2 kids. She was told that she would only be entitled to it as long as the kids needed bedrooms.

 

If someone is told that today, a minority claim it breaches 'their human rights'. The minority are what get politics debates talking.

 

Can you provide evidence or a link to this 'minority' who claim it breaches their human rights? :suspect::confused::huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who came up with the bright idea of not paying the landlord directly but instead giving the tenants the rent money to pay the landlord???? Recipe for disaster .... :loopy::loopy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.