I am not discussing home owners, only people who generaly rent. You may wish to research the fact that, worldwide, the English are looked on strangely for their aversion to renting, and their desire to own.
Let me take you back to the 1960,s, and a programme called Cathy Come Home (CCH). Prior to this being shown, families (Dad,Mum and 1 or more kids) were housed in, predominantly, Council housing. This was usualy allocated to the man, as he would normaly be the breadwinner. Currently, and following case law, any Tenancy signed prior to 1972 by the husband only MUST ne regarded as a Joint Tenancy.
CCH highlighted that a girl on her own and with a child would find it incredibly difficult to get housed because she couldn't afford to rent, being unable to work for the money. After CCH, such girls were not only allowed to claim benefits, but were also given priority for housing. This has led to the current situation where a girl CHOOSES to have a baby, so that she can have everything laid on without ever having to, or having had to, work to provide for herself. The current degredation in Society is a direct result of these policy changes. Discuss?
Where does this idea that it so easy to get council housing (will use council housing as a generic term to include housing association) come from? Where are the millions of empty council properties just waiting for these young girls to move into to. I know of three people in different situations - 1 young girl with a new baby (planned but the husband walked out) has had to find her own private accomodation; a couple with three little ones, both made redundant so had to give up private renting are living in a one bedroom council flat. Told it is not overcrowding as their kitchen is large. One divorced mum in the midlands with an 18 year old given a one bedroom flat. These are all people I know personally.
The papers only highlight the exceptions to the rule of people living high on the hog in council palaces, but they are not the norm. The majority of people on the council waiting list will never get to the top of that list. Council housing has decreased dramatically since the right to buy came into force, hence the high rise of private landlords.
Where does this idea that it so easy to get council housing (will use council housing as a generic term to include housing association) come from? Where are the millions of empty council properties just waiting for these young girls to move into to. I know of three people in different situations - 1 young girl with a new baby (planned but the husband walked out) has had to find her own private accomodation; a couple with three little ones, both made redundant so had to give up private renting are living in a one bedroom council flat. Told it is not overcrowding as their kitchen is large. One divorced mum in the midlands with an 18 year old given a one bedroom flat. These are all people I know personally.
The papers only highlight the exceptions to the rule of people living high on the hog in council palaces, but they are not the norm. The majority of people on the council waiting list will never get to the top of that list. Council housing has decreased dramatically since the right to buy came into force, hence the high rise of private landlords.
I have to agree. Although the media publish the exceptions where young girls do go out and get pregnant, a lot of single parent families looking for council housing are not in the situation of their choosing. I do know of situations where young girls have got pregnant deliberately and they do shoot straight to the top of the waiting list. But on the whole, they are the minority. I do agree with the original poster to the extent that housing should be geared to families (of which single mother are part of) who are in genuinely in need, but we need to make sure that we don't paint all single mothers with the same brush. Most single mums I know are in the situation because their relationships broke down.
This has led to the current situation where a girl CHOOSES to have a baby, so that she can have everything laid on without ever having to, or having had to, work to provide for herself. quote]
Disgusted as your remarks - I think you will find it takes two to tango ! Sadly a whole heap of men don't have the balls to stand by their "mistakes". Then of course, there are those that stick around purely so they have a wife/girlfriend they can knock around whenever their football team looses or they have had a skin full. Single Mum's of all ages and backgrounds are single for variety of reasons. Oh, and before you judge me, I don't fit into any of your narrow minded categories.
Disgusted as your remarks - I think you will find it takes two to tango ! Sadly a whole heap of men don't have the balls to stand by their "mistakes". Then of course, there are those that stick around purely so they have a wife/girlfriend they can knock around whenever their football team looses or they have had a skin full. Single Mum's of all ages and backgrounds are single for variety of reasons. Oh, and before you judge me, I don't fit into any of your narrow minded categories.
If a girl tells the guy it's OK because she's on the pill and allows unprotected sex, the man may believe that it is a casual encounter and understands that the woman believes the same. If she is using him as a donor then he can't really be blamed.
I find it a little insensitive to suggest that a fella only stays with his concubine so that he can knock her around. There are cases of abuse across all the levels of society, not just the younger 'chav' element. I've seen loads of tracksuited men with pushchairs and a youngster outside the benefits office and I can't believe they all fall into that category.
Anyway, why do you think that you might be up for judgement within the context of this thread.
If a girl tells the guy it's OK because she's on the pill and allows unprotected sex, the man may believe that it is a casual encounter and understands that the woman believes the same. If she is using him as a donor then he can't really be blamed.
.
So shocked ! Can't believe I am reading this. One word on the subject CONDOMS - although I understand some "sensitive" little souls don't like using them.
If a girl tells the guy it's OK because she's on the pill and allows unprotected sex, the man may believe that it is a casual encounter and understands that the woman believes the same. If she is using him as a donor then he can't really be blamed.
Unprotected sex with someone who you do not know well is reckless by any measure.
So shocked ! Can't believe I am reading this. One word on the subject CONDOMS - although I understand some "sensitive" little souls don't like using them.
Why are you shocked, condoms have been around for quite a long time now and have changed over time from a device to prevent unwanted pregnancy to that of preventing the transfer of disease. But, the mindset of the uneducated will take the risk knowing that if they do get the 'clap' a trip to the doctor will sort that out. The fear of Aids is not something that local lads and ladesses turn their mind to. So, the condom has more or less ceased to be a method of birth control for the end users. Hence the trap for the unsuspecting lad who goes unprotected, the father of the child which will provide the social accomodation.
Why are you shocked, condoms have been around for quite a long time now and have changed over time from a device to prevent unwanted pregnancy to that of preventing the transfer of disease. But, the mindset of the uneducated will take the risk knowing that if they do get the 'clap' a trip to the doctor will sort that out. The fear of Aids is not something that local lads and ladesses turn their mind to. So, the condom has more or less ceased to be a method of birth control for the end users. Hence the trap for the unsuspecting lad who goes unprotected, the father of the child which will provide the social accomodation.
Firstly, we were talking about pregnancies not STD - I don't think an STD gets you a council house (not yet anyway). Something like 80% of UK pregancies are "unplanned" - and I don't think that's proportional to the "uneducated". Your poor "unsuspecting lad", is quite frankly as much of an idiot as the girl who "traps" him. What I find shocking, is you portray this lad as a victim, when really the only victim is the unborn child - as I said before "It takes two to Tango".
How well do you have to know someone to know that they aren't suffering from an STD. Weeks, Months, Co worker in the office, next door neighbour.
Co-worker in the office ?? Next Door Neighbour ??? Whatever next !
Lots of defence here, but far away from the subject. Sure it takes two to tango, and I know men who have been single parents, but what we're talking about here is girls making the DELIBERATE choice because they KNOW they'll get housed, they'll get benefits, and they can have all the boyfriends they want.
I recall a group of Greenham women announcing in the local rag that children need Fathers, and I agree. However, NO separated Fathers will get their children's rights to see them enforced by the Courts of this country, and that's why Fathers For Justice exist.
Council housing will be coming back, and yes, the Right to Buy was a deliberate ploy by Maggie Thatcher (1988 Housing Act) to take public (tax) money out of housing. And before you start, Housing Associations get most of their development money from PRIVATE sources, supported by land grants from Local Authorities and a bit of cash from tax money.
Currently, anyone living in a Sovereign property is paying something like the first £15 per week in interest on the private money that was borrowed to build the place in the first instance. If they're getting Housing Benefit, that money is going out of the country because most of the private lenders are foreign banks.
[quote=191]Lots of defence here, but far away from the subject. Sure it takes two to tango, and I know men who have been single parents, but what we're talking about here is girls making the DELIBERATE choice because they KNOW they'll get housed, they'll get benefits, and they can have all the boyfriends they want.
quote]
Are you implying that they have chosen the "easy option" ? If you have children, and are actively involved in their upbringing, you will know it is possibly the toughest job in the world. A very good friend of mine is a senior midwife, and the person you describe is practically non-existant. A very high proportion of pregancies are "accidental", and most single mums have been "abandoned" by the father. If they have chosen to get pregnant to get a council house, then they have been let down VERY badly by the education system, and indeed their own parents.
Lots of defence here, but far away from the subject. Sure it takes two to tango, and I know men who have been single parents, but what we're talking about here is girls making the DELIBERATE choice because they KNOW they'll get housed, they'll get benefits, and they can have all the boyfriends they want.
I recall a group of Greenham women announcing in the local rag that children need Fathers, and I agree. However, NO separated Fathers will get their children's rights to see them enforced by the Courts of this country, and that's why Fathers For Justice exist.
Council housing will be coming back, and yes, the Right to Buy was a deliberate ploy by Maggie Thatcher (1988 Housing Act) to take public (tax) money out of housing. And before you start, Housing Associations get most of their development money from PRIVATE sources, supported by land grants from Local Authorities and a bit of cash from tax money.
Currently, anyone living in a Sovereign property is paying something like the first £15 per week in interest on the private money that was borrowed to build the place in the first instance. If they're getting Housing Benefit, that money is going out of the country because most of the private lenders are foreign banks.
So, back to the subject anyone?
With respect, on what evidence do you base your postings? Teenage mums who deliberately go out and get pregnant are a very tiny minority. Girls who get pregnant by having unprotected sex (we are talking accidental pregnancy) are not the only party to blame as Paula rightly said. Even if these girls decide that they shouldn't take the pill or that the guy shouldn't wear a condom, the guy still has a choice. He doesn't have to have sex with her without protection so by my reckoning I would say both parents take a share of the blame. And to suggest all single mothers are sex crazed nymphs is highly amusing.
I agree with you that children need fathers, and that courts should take a more impartial view on custody instead of simply favouring the mother. But fathers for justice does more harm than good. There are much better organisations out there who better represent the views of fathers.
I agree with you that children need fathers, and that courts should take a more impartial view on custody instead of simply favouring the mother. But fathers for justice does more harm than good. There are much better organisations out there who better represent the views of fathers.
If there is, I have never heard of them. FFJ is all about publicity and pressure.
Standing on Buckingham Palace dressed as Superman hardly screams "responsible parent" though does it ?
But that is the problem with FFJ. For all of the responsible fathers in this country that have approached FFJ, you have the odd one who does stunts like this and then it comes out he has a suspect background or the like. Fathers need better representation, and unfortunately politicians are scared of debating it in fear of upsetting women just like the immigration debate which is another hot potato. Let's discuss these issues and debate them to the point that we make a decision in the house. Shying away from them will only make the issues worse. I will wait for everyone to jump on me and say Labour ignored them, but regardless of what has happened in the past, we need to address them now. Just because Labour made the mistake of not discussing it before, that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss them now.
I am sure Paula will agree that she is not slagging off all men and fathers. She is just merely pointing out that not all of these superhero dads are what they say they are and evidence supports that in some cases. Didn't F4J once come up with a plan to kidnap the son of Tony Blair??? We need more action from our elected representatives in London to ensure the sytem is fair, rather than simply scoring PR through unlawful stunts.
The problem with this debate is that I could be perceived as a bitter "man hater" which I am NOT! There are some men on this planet who do not shoulder domestic responsibility well. 1 in 3 women will be subjected to domestic abuse at some stage in their lives.
However, I am totally aware that the same applies to women, indeed I have friends who stop their ex seeing the children because he has "annoyed them". In addition, there are female politicians who do not represent my views AT ALL - Claire Short as an example (sorry Richard) but I find some of her opinions embarassing for womankind!
What this debate needs is understanding and communication between the sexes ! A tall order I know ! I suggest brian and green guerilla take the time to talk to these "floozies", because underneath I am sure they will find a very lonely, immature, insecure (and sometimes frightened) lady who could actually do with some TLC - and NOT a public flogging.
Firstly. I base my statements on actual Housing figures, having worked in all aspects of Social Housing at a very senior level for many years. Anything I say is independantly verifiable, if you choose to do so. I do not expect you to take my word for it, nor do I think that my opinions cannot change or be changed.
Feel free to ring any of the local Housing providers (there are at least a couple of dozen working in Newbury) and ask them what a CORE form is, and where you can get the resulting statistics from.
The pregnancies I describe ARE real, your Midwife friend ought to be old enough to know that 'accidental' and 'he abandoned us' are the two most hackneyed excuses.
I am not concerned here with the excuses given for preganancy. I am a great believer in Personal responsibility, so please allow me this analogy. A person, walking at the side of the road, is struck and killed by a drunk driver. Who is responsible? The person who made the drink, the person who sold it to a bar, the people who built the car, the builder who installed the bar, the person who sold the drink, the person who drank the drink, the person who chose to walk at the side of the road, the person who chose to drive drunk...
Currently, we blame the drunk driver. Currently, I blame the girl who chooses not to protect herself from pregnancy. The pedestrian contributes by being there at the time in much the same way that the 'father' chooses to be there at the same time. 'Joint' responsibility is a red herring, because by allowing girls to have this excuse, you allow them to divest themeselves of their personal responsibility in the matter.
Ask a psychologist about the power of the Sexual Imperative, unless you can recall your own youth.
I have never called them 'floozies' Paula, but I have been speaking with them for years, and I've heard all of the repeats of the same old worn out excuses. I haven't heard a new one in a long time. I DO call them irresponsible. Occasionaly I call them slags, usually the ones who go to work on Oxford Road in Reading, or possibly over the bike shop.
I know of no other group than Fathers For Justice who are trying to highlight an age old problem of injustice.
I cannot count the number of phisically and psychologicaly damaged children I have encountered, and by far the majority DON'T live in families where Mum and Dad are together, though mostly, Mum will be with the latest... DV is more common than you know, and more of a two-way street than you may be prepared to accept. Frightened, lonely and insecure? No. Aquisitive, sly and manipulative? Yes. Do I leave them to it? Mostly.
Moving the debate along then, how do we teach girls to take Personal responsibility, in a society that is ready and willing to give them ways not to? What needs to change?
How do we teach boys not to fall for it, but to use a willy welly?
Interesting reply Green Guerilla, from the coal face as it were. Although I accept part of your post and disagree with part, could you give views as an insider on social housing allocation? Without breaking any confidences obviously. My opinion of social housing being hard to get is based on friends and friends children, who are finding it impossible to get any social housing. Some are single mothers, some are in long term partnerships and have children between them. Other people's opinion is that these girls get pregnant and are automatically given houses. Your view would give a good balance.
For years, the Labour government insisted that, against our experience, immigrants and asylum seekers were only 4% of new allocations. If we questioned that figure, we were called racist.
Last year, they finaly admitted that the figure was more than double the 'official' rate, and that they had all sorts of complex reasons for witholding it. I suspect they didn't want to give ammunition to the anti lobby, especialy BNP or similar. I personaly don't think that there is ever a good excuse for lies, and that honesty in Public Office should be an absolute.
My experience of new allocations is varied, as I have worked in many different areas and all localities have their parochial differences, as you would expect. For instance, Rural poverty in West Berkshire is very real but rarely alluded to.
The allocation of property is mostly done through a 'points' system. However, Homelessness legislation also has a part to play. If we take out allocations that are Exchanges and Transfers ( the most used method by which Residents are able to get a more suitable property for their needs ) and concentrate solely on 'New' allocations (i.e. first-time first-property) we find that for the most part we require 2 bedroom units. This is on the basis that a 'family' gets priority, and a 'family' is defined as 1 parent and 1 child.
People who are prioritised for 'single' units tend to be, post Care in the Community, people with Mental Health issues, certain categories of released Prisoners, Aged, Disabled etc.
In all cases, there is a Vulnerable Person involved.
Housing Associations have no legal requirement to house anyone. Councils are responsible for housing Homeless people. First, they have to decide if someone IS homeless, and then they use a variety of ways to house them, including Private accommodation. In Oxford, for instance, people have been put in Temporary housing and been told to expect to be there for 10 (yes, TEN) years or more...
Let me give you an example of something that I've always found interesting, and is a common experience for anyone involved in Housing Advice. I once had a young couple sitting with me and asking how they could get a place. They both worked, but their incomes were modest enough to mean that hey would not qualify for a mortgage. What they wanted to do was get a house, set it up, and then start a family. I completely understand, I applaud this viewpoint, I celebrate their sensible approach, and I hate the fact that, as a Society, we do nothing to encourage such sensible young couples. They are more common than you'd think.
The current figures get muddled by 'temporary' relationships. That is to say, we often write 2 people in as Tenants who won't be together in 12 months' time, and the Tenancy then usualy devolves to the woman. We get used to Benefit claimants having an undeclared live-in working boyfriend, and the system is easily manipulated. We are supposed to report such things, but we are also aware that any reclaim of Housing Benefit will seriously impact on the Rent Arrears (this has implications too deep to go into here), and we DON'T WANT THAT! So we turn a blind eye...
You may find this hard to believe, given the gist of this thread, but we tend to be very accepting of and non judgemental towards our Residents. Honest!
I feel that the planning department and of course government, laying down rules for a percentage of affordable homes within developments is just a ruse to keep us quiet and to make us believe that we are doing something for the lower paid. Nurses are usually in the listing along with carers. Real tug at the heartstrings there.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the councils and this includes WBC, stuck to their promises and that the houses allocated to affordable status were exactly that. What actually appears to happen is that the planning application is approved and the required percentage are adhered to, then just before the properties are offered for the shared ownership scheme, thus making them affordable, the carpet is pulled from under the feet of the nurses when the houses are taken over as rental properties for the housing register, ie they are to be administered by a housing association.
This little snippet from the NWN October 14th appears to confirm that…..
It was reported that the affordable homes under construction at North Standen Road Hungerford would be available for sale up to a maximum share of 80 percent of the value. Although this was originally the case, the situation has since changed and they will now only be available to rent. Prospective tenants should apply via West Berkshire Council housing register and must have a local connection.
What’s that about then. If they are building for rental then they should make that clear when they, WBC planning Department, approve the planning application. I don’t recall seeing a planning application by a private developer where the council has stipulated a percentage of rental properties along with the affordable properties.
A problem starts when a company (or individuals) buys rentable houses to temporarily home their clients in, or to rent-on, thus removing the home from the 'affordable' open market. Social housing managers (HAs) prevent this from happening.
A problem starts when a company (or individuals) buys rentable houses to temporarily home their clients in, or to rent-on, thus removing the home from the 'affordable' open market. Social housing managers (HAs) prevent this from happening.
I can't quite see how this could happen. If the affordable property is offered on the open market, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that there would be some control of the sale on the premise that the council needs the property within its target percentage and also that it is covered by a shared mortgage. How then can it be sold to a company for its own private rental scheme. To my mind this makes a whole nonsense of the scheme.
It might be a myth, but I heard rumours that Vodafone would 'snap-up' every house going in Newbury at one time. Whether true or not, how can it be guaranteed that a house sold on the private market is sold to 'modestly healed' recipients?
'Shared Ownership' properties are administered by the HA that built them, and can only be resold with their involvement. Thus, the control over who can purchase is maintained. Theoreticaly.
Shared ownership is, however, a very expensive way to get onto the property ladder, though the rented part of the house is eligible for Housing Benefit. This 'nurses' etc thing is also misleading and designed to introduce an emotional element. Most Affordable/Social Housing doesn't go to nurses.
I think that it is very useful to politicians to mix these two separae provisions in together, so let's define the differences as Social Housing for rent, and Affordable housing for Part Ownership/Part Rent. It can be easy to overlook that the part that isn't owned is rented, and it is the rent element, plus the council tax element, that may be eligible for Housing Benefit support.
If you rent, you have no maintainance or buildings insurance responsibility at all. If you part buy, you do NOT share these, they are still the responsibility of the occupier. The Housing Association therefore retains control and ownership, with none of the liabilities apart from overseeing the future purchase, and this makes it a very safe investment option.
On the point of the percentage of new development. Usualy this is done as a three-way thing, although there is also a two-way thing.
The three-way thing is that partnership arises, comprising an HA, a builder and the Local Authority. The LA gives land (it is obliged to do so) for building, to an HA. The HA joins with a builder to put up so many units at cost, with extra units to be retained by the builder and sold on the open market. Thus, the LA discharges its' responsibility to provide FOR new homes, the HA invests its' money by buying their share of the units AT BUILD COST, and the builder gets his profit from the units he sells.
This can be a good use of brownfield sites, and there are other schemes similar in nature.
The two-way thing is, for instance, like Sandleford Rise. You may recall that Sovereign redeveloped there, not before time, but in this case the relationship was only between the HA and the builder appointed who built all units, and sold some for their profit. No LA involvement needed, though as a paper exercise it would be possible for the LA to claim involvement and tick one of its Stautory Duty boxes.
It is correct that Housing is deliberately kept in short supply. One of the reasons is that, internationaly, GB Ltd is a good place to invest in property, but bear in mind that the dictates of good capitalism demand that prices are kept high. You keep prices high where demand is higher than supply...
At the moment, the number of ACCEPTED homeless families in Britain is roughly equal to the known number of empty properties. If you know St Michaels Road, you will know the row of cottages there. They had been empty since the mid 1960s and hidden behind advertising hoardings. The Council Empty Homes Officer identified them, and as a result extensive work was done to refurbish them from dereliction to full use. Not sure that people enjoy living over the railway line, but good to see the old places being properly used.
The three-way thing is that partnership arises, comprising an HA, a builder and the Local Authority. The LA gives land (it is obliged to do so) for building, to an HA. The HA joins with a builder to put up so many units at cost, with extra units to be retained by the builder and sold on the open market. Thus, the LA discharges its' responsibility to provide FOR new homes, the HA invests its' money by buying their share of the units AT BUILD COST, and the builder gets his profit from the units he sells.
There must be another option in which the LA are not giving away the land for building. The Racecourse/Greenham proposed development springs to mind where the land is owned by the racecourse and the building work contracted by them but the end result, if one understands the planning approval correctly, is that a percentage must be affordable housing. What controls are available here then to ensure that all those so designated become affordable houses and in fact what makes them affordable. Who tells the builder/developer what to build on the site and who pays the loss of income to the developer who is forced to build affordable, rather than good quality houses at perhaps a higher market value. Why a builder or developer would want to build at cost I cannot understand but if he has to make his profit from the rest of the estate he is building, then this will inflate those prices. He can only sell at the market value however so the profit margin is reduced or overall, house prices go up.
I agree with you about the nurses thing. Firstly we only have a small hospital and there can't be that many of them looking to buy as most of them, in Newbury anyway, are married with working husbands already in accomodation be it owned or rented.
In the case of the racecourse, slightly different criteria apply.
Any landowner can apply for planning permission to build houses. The caveat in a development of this size is that a proportion of the houses, by law, MUST be affordable. Hoever, 'affordable' has, within government definitions, included rented properties for some time now (hence my title to this thread), and the waters are thus muddied.
In all likelihood, there will be a background agreement somewhere that says some local Housing Providers have already agreed, in principal, as to how many off the peg units they will buy from the developer, what the cost will be, and what the design will be. This is perfectly normal practice. Sovereign will already have a finger in this pie.
Control lies with the Planning Enforcement Officers at the Local Authority. The requirement that a developer has to include 30% 'affordable' units only applies to developments of 15 units or more. How developers get around the 'affordable' requirement is to have a whole development in mind, but to do it piecemeal so that they do not cross the number threshold that requires them to include a percentage of 'affordable' units. It means more planning applications, but they can pass the cost on, of course.
There isn't a loss of income to the builder who is invited to join in a new development. He isn't forced to join in, after all. If the council has given the land, and the builder has some units to sell at a profit, he has a profit. Building houses at cost simply means he keeps his workers employed, and doesn't have to find their wages from other sources (ie, other profits) so it's still worthwhile.
Different public money grants are available for different types of development, so this model doesn't apply, for instance, to provision such as that on the old hospital site. Our discussion is based solely on General Needs units.
There isn't a loss of income to the builder who is invited to join in a new development. He isn't forced to join in, after all. If the council has given the land, and the builder has some units to sell at a profit, he has a profit. Building houses at cost simply means he keeps his workers employed, and doesn't have to find their wages from other sources (ie, other profits) so it's still worthwhile.
quote]
Having worked in the construction industry for many years, I doubt you would find one builder on the planet who would build these homes at cost.
In the case of the racecourse, slightly different criteria apply.
There isn't a loss of income to the builder who is invited to join in a new development. He isn't forced to join in, after all. If the council has given the land, and the builder has some units to sell at a profit, he has a profit. Building houses at cost simply means he keeps his workers employed, and doesn't have to find their wages from other sources (ie, other profits) so it's still worthwhile.
A very altruistic view of the builder/developer and of course with a large proportion of local sites WBC are not donating the land. It is in private hands.
The hospital development and I suspect you mean Carnarvon (whatever it is) was developed by Sovereign as rental space for the old folks although they did get a late change of use for the block across the road to lift the over 55 age requirement so that they could rent out to younger clients. Same development going on across the road. Knock down the old council owned old persons bungalows and stick a whole load of new flats on the site. All of this knock down and rebuild add value to the Housing association portfolio as well as turning 15 or so rentable dwellings into 30 or more.
I agree with you about the nurses thing. Firstly we only have a small hospital and there can't be that many of them looking to buy as most of them, in Newbury anyway, are married with working husbands already in accommodation be it owned or rented.
Nurses work in areas other than the local hospital! As for married; how do you know?
'Cost' is fluid at best - we're not talking 'to the penny' here. We are talking about a contractually agreed cost per unit. If you've been involved in the construction industry, you know how to shave costs just as well as we do.
I'm sorry you have doubts, but I can only state facts - what you do with them is your own concern. As we control the process, builders are much the junior partner in this, and they either want the work or not. We don't care, because there is always another builder.
There have been plenty of examples of this process being used corruptly, and as I speak there are people in prison for doing so. A major local Housing Association has been involved in something similar, but the industry as a whole doesn't usually care to wash its' dirty linen in public, you understand.
'Cost' is fluid at best - we're not talking 'to the penny' here. We are talking about a contractually agreed cost per unit. If you've been involved in the construction industry, you know how to shave costs just as well as we do.
I'm sorry you have doubts, but I can only state facts - what you do with them is your own concern. As we control the process, builders are much the junior partner in this, and they either want the work or not. We don't care, because there is always another builder.
There have been plenty of examples of this process being used corruptly, and as I speak there are people in prison for doing so. A major local Housing Association has been involved in something similar, but the industry as a whole doesn't usually care to wash its' dirty linen in public, you understand.
I suspect most builders could find a place for you on site
I'm sorry you have doubts, but I can only state facts - what you do with them is your own concern. As we control the process, builders are much the junior partner in this, and they either want the work or not. We don't care, because there is always another builder.
May I suggest that your reply smacks of arrogance and if you are of any importance in the system then you may wish to examine your work ethic.
I however take issue with you about choice of builder, if it is a private development then however important you believe the council is, it is the developer who decides who builds his houses, affordable or otherwise.
May I suggest that your reply smacks of arrogance and if you are of any importance in the system then you may wish to examine your work ethic.
I however take issue with you about choice of builder, if it is a private development then however important you believe the council is, it is the developer who decides who builds his houses, affordable or otherwise.
Exactly, and the cost of building the property is NOT relative to its market value anyway !
Brian, there is no need to deliberately missinterpret what I've said. The answer is in my previous replies, but if you require clarification, please feel free to ask for it privately. If you can't see where the missunderstanding arose, there is no purpose in any further posts from me on this issue.
Back tracking just a little here ... I am actually a product of unplanned pregnancy myself. My mother was 15 when she fell pregnant and gave birth to me and she has never claimed a single penny of benefits in her life. Admittedly, 26 years ago there wasn’t as many ‘perks’ to being a single, teenage mother, however there were still schemes in place for assisted living. ‘Living on the social’ as it was commonly known. Still, she never relied on this to get by and she certainly didn’t spend her evenings standing on the Oxford Road!
I had a very interesting conversation just this morning with an acquaintance of mine. She is 21 and has 2 children. Both children have different fathers who are fairly involved, and both children were planned. When I asked her if she ever thought about getting back into work her exact words were ‘Why would I?’ She then went on to explain that the average, or minimum, wage she could earn working would be nowhere near the amount she is ‘entitled’ to from the government. I personally don’t agree with her way of living, but every circumstance is different. And that just doesn’t apply to teenage parents either, single parents in general. And not those who have done everything ‘properly’, 2 point 4 families who have separated, it’s those who have this stereotype of ‘Get pregnant to get housed’.
My point here being that although the amount of single mothers living on benefits has become somewhat of a pandemic across the country, and West Berkshire in particular, Newbury’s numbers are rising, it is still obviously a taboo subject. It seems all too easy to criticize and judge without looking at it on a larger scale. Maybe we can blame the mothers for being careless and getting up the duff, maybe we can blame the fathers who do a runner because they don’t fancy spending their weekends up to their armpits in nappies, but maybe we can also blame the government for making it all too easy to become ‘entitled’ to housing, benefits, rent payments and the likes. There is a very fine line to which side you stand on this subject.
Apologies if my comments belong on a different or new thread, but I'm still quite the novice! Still, just a few thoughts.
Back tracking just a little here ... I am actually a product of unplanned pregnancy myself. My mother was 15 when she fell pregnant and gave birth to me and she has never claimed a single penny of benefits in her life. Admittedly, 26 years ago there wasn’t as many ‘perks’ to being a single, teenage mother, however there were still schemes in place for assisted living. ‘Living on the social’ as it was commonly known. Still, she never relied on this to get by and she certainly didn’t spend her evenings standing on the Oxford Road!
I had a very interesting conversation just this morning with an acquaintance of mine. She is 21 and has 2 children. Both children have different fathers who are fairly involved, and both children were planned. When I asked her if she ever thought about getting back into work her exact words were ‘Why would I?’ She then went on to explain that the average, or minimum, wage she could earn working would be nowhere near the amount she is ‘entitled’ to from the government. I personally don’t agree with her way of living, but every circumstance is different. And that just doesn’t apply to teenage parents either, single parents in general. And not those who have done everything ‘properly’, 2 point 4 families who have separated, it’s those who have this stereotype of ‘Get pregnant to get housed’.
My point here being that although the amount of single mothers living on benefits has become somewhat of a pandemic across the country, and West Berkshire in particular, Newbury’s numbers are rising, it is still obviously a taboo subject. It seems all too easy to criticize and judge without looking at it on a larger scale. Maybe we can blame the mothers for being careless and getting up the duff, maybe we can blame the fathers who do a runner because they don’t fancy spending their weekends up to their armpits in nappies, but maybe we can also blame the government for making it all too easy to become ‘entitled’ to housing, benefits, rent payments and the likes. There is a very fine line to which side you stand on this subject.
Apologies if my comments belong on a different or new thread, but I'm still quite the novice! Still, just a few thoughts.
But surely this is the debate that needs to be taken in Westminster, too. The facts of the matter is that we don't have a massive number of immigrants blocking social housing in West Berkshire, nor do we have thousands of single mother who got pregnant at 15 to get a house. These things do happen in society and when they do, they are often published in the media. But the real tragedy that has caused the lack of social housing was when the Tories sold of a lot of the council housing to start with and never replaced it. Labour also failed for a number of years to deal with the housing crisis, and it's only been in the past few years that the introductial of the spacial plan (which the Tories opposed and have now scrapped) has seen the introduction of new housing stock.
So how would you deal with the various issues? Do we need to be tougher on providing social housing for immigrants? I think we do. Buy them a ticket home if rather than paying benefits. Should there be better education in schools around sex? DEFINATELY!!! I never had any sex education, and some schools just don't do it. And finally, the Government needs to have a cross party debate and agree a solution to the housing shortage. Something needs to be done to ensure that social housing is available, my own idea would be that all social housing becomes part rent, part buy. The longer somebody is in a house, the more equity they raise. They can then use this as a deposit later on, and will help people get on the ladder. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't actually like to own their home at some stage.
A lot of this discussion has been responsible, but some of the comments are very wide of the mark. We need to get away from stereotypes, and the national media definately have a part to play in encouraging this debate.
But surely this is the debate that needs to be taken in Westminster, too. The facts of the matter is that we don't have a massive number of immigrants blocking social housing in West Berkshire, nor do we have thousands of single mother who got pregnant at 15 to get a house. These things do happen in society and when they do, they are often published in the media. But the real tragedy that has caused the lack of social housing was when the Tories sold of a lot of the council housing to start with and never replaced it. Labour also failed for a number of years to deal with the housing crisis, and it's only been in the past few years that the introductial of the spacial plan (which the Tories opposed and have now scrapped) has seen the introduction of new housing stock.
So how would you deal with the various issues? Do we need to be tougher on providing social housing for immigrants? I think we do. Buy them a ticket home if rather than paying benefits. Should there be better education in schools around sex? DEFINATELY!!! I never had any sex education, and some schools just don't do it. And finally, the Government needs to have a cross party debate and agree a solution to the housing shortage. Something needs to be done to ensure that social housing is available, my own idea would be that all social housing becomes part rent, part buy. The longer somebody is in a house, the more equity they raise. They can then use this as a deposit later on, and will help people get on the ladder. I don't think there are many people who wouldn't actually like to own their home at some stage.
A lot of this discussion has been responsible, but some of the comments are very wide of the mark. We need to get away from stereotypes, and the national media definately have a part to play in encouraging this debate.
Some valid points, I understand where you’re coming from and for the most part I agree with what you’re saying. However there is still the shaded area of a solution. Say the entire debate was totally flip reversed and more housing was to become part rent part buy, it runs the risk of those people who really do have limited choices and who don’t have any other means to live becoming totally out casted. But on the other hand, say it stayed the same with no obvious reign, I’d even go as far to say supervision, and people will continue to take advantage and abuse the system.
As for the Medias encouragement, or lack of it in a positive light on the topic, you for one know full well that I'm involved with the media, but it doesn’t mean to say that I condone the way this subject is portrayed. Far from it! In my final year of university I was chosen from 65 graduates to write an article on a subject of my choice that would be published and feature a spread in a national newspaper. My subject of choice was the topic in question right now, and needless to say, they hated it. It was well and truly rejected, and all because it didn’t support the majority view. A fellow student ended up being given the opportunity and wrote an article on tax evasion, which might as well have been printed on gold leaf!! I do believe he is an editor now!
I’ll dig my piece out and send it across to you. You can have a read and see what your opinion is. I'm sure we’ll be in bother shortly as this isn’t entirely a local issue, but still!
Some valid points, I understand where you’re coming from and for the most part I agree with what you’re saying. However there is still the shaded area of a solution. Say the entire debate was totally flip reversed and more housing was to become part rent part buy, it runs the risk of those people who really do have limited choices and who don’t have any other means to live becoming totally out casted. But on the other hand, say it stayed the same with no obvious reign, I’d even go as far to say supervision, and people will continue to take advantage and abuse the system.
As for the Medias encouragement, or lack of it in a positive light on the topic, you for one know full well that I'm involved with the media, but it doesn’t mean to say that I condone the way this subject is portrayed. Far from it! In my final year of university I was chosen from 65 graduates to write an article on a subject of my choice that would be published and feature a spread in a national newspaper. My subject of choice was the topic in question right now, and needless to say, they hated it. It was well and truly rejected, and all because it didn’t support the majority view. A fellow student ended up being given the opportunity and wrote an article on tax evasion, which might as well have been printed on gold leaf!! I do believe he is an editor now!
I’ll dig my piece out and send it across to you. You can have a read and see what your opinion is. I'm sure we’ll be in bother shortly as this isn’t entirely a local issue, but still!
Gemma, the media bit of my post wasn't aimed at you. But with your experience, you can probably relate to what I'm getting at. The Red Tops who expose the very small minority cases that fuel these stereotypes. It's like George Osborne and his plan to ban people from benefits if they get caught of benefit fraud three times. Great story, but it would only be used on EIGHT PEOPLE!!! But now we have loads of misguided Tory voters saying "bloody right, ban those scrounging cheats"!!
As for the part rent - part buy suggestion, the Tories are hiking social rents to more "realistic" levels (whatever that means). Instead of hiking rents, lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property. If they stay there for a number of years, they will have accrued some equity to go towards a mortgage. If they get a mortgage on the social house that they live in, the money the council or housing company recieves can go towards building another social house. Not only are we getting people on the housing ladder, but we will be replacing the housing stock as we go. Just an idea I had, not that it will ever be used. But it's a starting point, maybe someone else on here will read it and then suggest how the idea can be improved. Eventually we might come up with something that is viable.
Couldn't help but notice - some of the latest and most responsible/sensible threads on this post, come from possibly the youngest participants on this forum (one is a journalist and one is a politician !) - fair play to you both - and let that be an example to us all !
Couldn't help but notice - some of the latest and most responsible/sensible threads on this post, come from possibly the youngest participants on this forum (one is a journalist and one is a politician !) - fair play to you both - and let that be an example to us all !
Gemma, the media bit of my post wasn't aimed at you. But with your experience, you can probably relate to what I'm getting at. The Red Tops who expose the very small minority cases that fuel these stereotypes. It's like George Osborne and his plan to ban people from benefits if they get caught of benefit fraud three times. Great story, but it would only be used on EIGHT PEOPLE!!! But now we have loads of misguided Tory voters saying "bloody right, ban those scrounging cheats"!!
As for the part rent - part buy suggestion, the Tories are hiking social rents to more "realistic" levels (whatever that means). Instead of hiking rents, lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property. If they stay there for a number of years, they will have accrued some equity to go towards a mortgage. If they get a mortgage on the social house that they live in, the money the council or housing company recieves can go towards building another social house. Not only are we getting people on the housing ladder, but we will be replacing the housing stock as we go. Just an idea I had, not that it will ever be used. But it's a starting point, maybe someone else on here will read it and then suggest how the idea can be improved. Eventually we might come up with something that is viable.
Why wouldn’t that be used? Put it forward. It can hardly be turned into a career shattering suggestion. And after the things I’ve read here, there have been far more ludicrous ideas as I'm sure you’d agree! I’d fully support that proposal, as I'm sure many people would. Albeit those with the same views! Unfortunately, as hard as one tries to change it, there will always be some form of narrow mindedness on every debate in the world. But you know this, you’re a politician!
This would probably be a pivotal moment for me to take the opportunity to offer a slight apology for the way I judged your ‘motives’ when I began my reading on the forum. When I may be wrong, I can admit so. But you understand, Journalists .. always looking for a reaction!!
As for the part rent - part buy suggestion, the Tories are hiking social rents to more "realistic" levels (whatever that means). Instead of hiking rents, lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property. If they stay there for a number of years, they will have accrued some equity to go towards a mortgage. If they get a mortgage on the social house that they live in, the money the council or housing company recieves can go towards building another social house. Not only are we getting people on the housing ladder, but we will be replacing the housing stock as we go. Just an idea I had, not that it will ever be used. But it's a starting point, maybe someone else on here will read it and then suggest how the idea can be improved. Eventually we might come up with something that is viable.
Thats not a bad idea Richard, infact my parents did something similar for me when I started work - I paid my "keep" but they put some aside for my future.
Why wouldn’t that be used? Put it forward. It can hardly be turned into a career shattering suggestion. And after the things I’ve read here, there have been far more ludicrous ideas as I'm sure you’d agree! I’d fully support that proposal, as I'm sure many people would. Albeit those with the same views! Unfortunately, as hard as one tries to change it, there will always be some form of narrow mindedness on every debate in the world. But you know this, you’re a politician!
This would probably be a pivotal moment for me to take the opportunity to offer a slight apology for the way I judged your ‘motives’ when I began my reading on the forum. When I may be wrong, I can admit so. But you understand, Journalists .. always looking for a reaction!!
I don't think you need to apologise, you haven't done anything to offend me and you helped me sort something out in my personal life, so you actually helped me out. I have suggested it to the party today, and although I accept it would need a lot more thought as to how it could work, I feel there is something there that could address the housing shortage as the housing stock will be replacing itself.
I'm not actually a politician... well, not yet anyway!!! I just have an interest in improving our local area.
Thats not a bad idea Richard, infact my parents did something similar for me when I started work - I paid my "keep" but they put some aside for my future.
That's family values for you, something that is desperately lacking now.
That's family values for you, something that is desperately lacking now.
I am not sure that family values are lacking nowadays. I stand in the playground daily with hoards of like minded parents. I think those lacking these values are just more "extreme" these days and attract more attention ! Children out alone after dark/thieving/drinking/swearing/vandalism/smoking etc etc are not a modern phenomenom. Maybe the internet makes these stories more widely read ?
I know growing up I was left to my own devices, and a lot of kids in my town were the same. I think things are finally rebalancing, but from personal experience, Corby in the 1990's was not a great place to grow up, mainly because these kids that were just left to their own devices. I was lucky that to escape my family, I became a bit geeky and volunteered at the local football club and campaigned on local issues (sometimes against the Labour party). I know a few who ended up on the wrong tracks, some of whom ended up in prison for various different offences.
I don't think we have it too bad in West Berks. But there are examples in some areas where kids are out drinking and getting upto no good. Someone on the newburytoday.co.uk forum seems to think that it is "normal" for teenagers to do this. I would disagree.
I know growing up I was left to my own devices, and a lot of kids in my town were the same. I think things are finally rebalancing, but from personal experience, Corby in the 1990's was not a great place to grow up, mainly because these kids that were just left to their own devices. I was lucky that to escape my family, I became a bit geeky and volunteered at the local football club and campaigned on local issues (sometimes against the Labour party). I know a few who ended up on the wrong tracks, some of whom ended up in prison for various different offences.
I don't think we have it too bad in West Berks. But there are examples in some areas where kids are out drinking and getting upto no good. Someone on the newburytoday.co.uk forum seems to think that it is "normal" for teenagers to do this. I would disagree.
Interesting you should say that . . . I used to hang out in parks, and have a swig of woodpecker now and again ! I think most teenagers do ... then you grow up and it can go one way or the other - you either stick with the drinking etc ..... or become "respectable". I don't know what makes you go one way or the other ??
As for the part rent - part buy suggestion, the Tories are hiking social rents to more "realistic" levels (whatever that means). Instead of hiking rents, lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property. If they stay there for a number of years, they will have accrued some equity to go towards a mortgage. If they get a mortgage on the social house that they live in, the money the council or housing company recieves can go towards building another social house. Not only are we getting people on the housing ladder, but we will be replacing the housing stock as we go. Just an idea I had, not that it will ever be used. But it's a starting point, maybe someone else on here will read it and then suggest how the idea can be improved. Eventually we might come up with something that is viable..
That's more or less what happened when the Conservatives decided to sell off the council houses to the tenants. There wasn't an accrual of points or equity gained but depending how long the council tenant had been in the property, paying rent at the normal rate without arrears, then the house was offered to the tenant at a reduced rate, reflecting the equity they had built up by their tenancy. There was also a caviat which said that if the purchase went ahead then the owners to be couldn't sell for a couple of years. Where it may have gone wrong was the money that went to the council, didn't get re-invested in new housing.
I don't think about what has happened in the past, I just try to focus on getting to "respectability"!!! But if you develop a sense of right and wrong growing up, there may just be hope for you. I'd like to think everyone makes mistakes as teenagers. But it's how you come back from those errors is the main thing in my opinion.
That's more or less what happened when the Conservatives decided to sell off the council houses to the tenants. There wasn't an accrual of points or equity gained but depending how long the council tenant had been in the property, paying rent at the normal rate without arrears, then the house was offered to the tenant at a reduced rate, reflecting the equity they had built up by their tenancy. There was also a caviat which said that if the purchase went ahead then the owners to be couldn't sell for a couple of years. Where it may have gone wrong was the money that went to the council, didn't get re-invested in new housing.
And hence we have the housing shortages now (in part anyway). If Thatcher had replaced the housing stock, it would have been genius. The fact is, Labour are partly to blame too, it's only in the past few years that we brought in legislation to improve the situation. Why didn't they do it sooner? The first thing the Tories did was axe it, but I look on with interest to find out the proposals for these 150,000 affordable houses suggested today.
lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property
And who pays them this equity when they decide to move to a new, non social home?
I would surmise that the equity is only good against the value of their existing social house, that's the point of the scheme. Move out and lose your points.
lets get tenants to pay the inflated rents BUT give them some equity during the course of their stay in a property
And who pays them this equity when they decide to move to a new, non social home?
Social rents are going to be hiked to closer market rates, so it some cases they will go up for £80 a week to £250 a week. (Disclaimer: The Tories are saying this only applies to those who enter social housing from this point forward). I would take £50 a week (example) of that money to accrue some equity for the tenant to be used either to pay down a deposit on the existing social house and get a mortgage once they qualify for a mortgage or use the equity as a deposit on another property, freeing up the existing property for another tenant. Should the tenant get a mortgage for the social house, the money raised will go into a house building scheme to build more social housing. If a tenant is in a social house for ten years (part buy / part rent), they would have £6,000 equity at that stage which would be 5% deposit on a £120,000 value social house. The mortgage payment on a mortgage like that would be around £650 a month, which would be cheaper than social renting (again, if they were a new tenant after this new CSR related policy is implemented).
Social rents are going to be hiked to closer market rates, so it some cases they will go up for £80 a week to £250 a week. quote]
Unsure where this £80 rent is coming from. Have asked around friends and Sovereign rents for a two bedroom house or flat are in the region of £120 - £140 a week (have been tenants ranging from 2 years to 17 years). Housing Association rent for two bedroom in W. Yorks is £90 a week. This equats to around £520 a month, not much less than private housing in Newbury and on a par with private housing in Yorkshire. If this was to increase to £250 a week, this would be over £1,000 a month and far in excess of private sector housing. As these houses are, generally, for the low earning employed, such as minumum wage, weekly earnings would not even cover the rent.
In most cases HA housing is covented because of the security. One example I was given this morning is, having carpeted and decorated, being given one months notice and having to start over again. The second example I found truly shocking. Working but on top-up benefits, the private tenants was encouraged by the landlord to apply for a new boiler and central heating through the Stay Warm scheme. All the work was done and the tenants was then giving notice. Meaning the landlord was then free to sell the property for more money due to his nice, new free heating system.
This is the problem when the HA's rely on private landlords to supply them with property. I think my own idea would only work if the property was owned by the Local Authority. The £250 a week figure was in today's paper in an article about the CSR. I just hope it's not as bad as the papers are making out, the CSR document is spun in a positive way but the lack of detail is alarming.
In most cases HA housing is covented because of the security. One example I was given this morning is, having carpeted and decorated, being given one months notice and having to start over again. The second example I found truly shocking. Working but on top-up benefits, the private tenants was encouraged by the landlord to apply for a new boiler and central heating through the Stay Warm scheme. All the work was done and the tenants was then giving notice. Meaning the landlord was then free to sell the property for more money due to his nice, new free heating system.
Were these two instances private landlords or were they Housing Association properties.
In some cases, private landlords sign over their property to HA's. They have the right to take them back when they choose in some cases, so quite a little scam if you think about it!!!
In some cases, private landlords sign over their property to HA's. They have the right to take them back when they choose in some cases, so quite a little scam if you think about it!!!
If that is the case then that is a scam and I would suggest might need some investigation. Getting a grant through the warm front scheme depends on the benefits status of the tenant but if private landlords can get the work done on the back of his tenants circumstances, I'm surprised there are no strings attached.
A friend of mine signed his over to the HA not too long ago in Northamptonshire. They pay for all of the upgrades etc. and apparently he can call it back with a certain amount of notice. I thought he was making it up!!!
Logged
Male
