How to find out if a property is ex-council?

alexakasloth · 2 Feb 2007 at 17:22

I know what you mean Rich_L it really seems heartless.

A[L]C · 2 Feb 2007 at 17:47

Just wondered what people think of my situation. Am I a leecher?

Im 21, left school at 16 and have worked full time since then. Ive never been out of a job. Same with my other half.

I have a little girl of 16 months old and live in a 2 bedroom council flat in Cox Green, Maidenhead.

We pay £87 a week for our rent to the council (well district housing association). We get only the standard benefit that everyone else does - about 70 quid a month or something, no other benefits.

The reason we had a child - well the other half has problems with her ovaries and we were told by the doctor that we would need to have a baby sooner than later, or run the risk of not being able to have one.

Do you guys think we should have waited until we had our own place and possibly not be able to have a child, rather than try for a baby?

Kingy · 2 Feb 2007 at 18:07

CF93 said:
Why is the point they're fully owned by the council irrelevant?

The point I was making is that it's the fact they're fully owned that makes them extremely cheap. If the council was still paying for them then I'd bet they'd charge more for them, and we wouldn't have this thread.....

Plus the fact that people were commenting on maintenance being included. But the rent ( as I said) covers the maintenance because there's no "capital" element to cover. People seemed to forget that.

The fact that the asset doesn't carry a debt doesn't affect it's market value.

Last year ex-local authority houses worth ~£90-£100k on the Braunstone (Leicester, the country's 'second poorest') estate were being privately advertised for rent at ~£450pcm. I know nothing about Scottish house prices, and the subsequent rental market, but I would guess that the difference in price isn't almost half.

Rich_L said:
I love it, people would seriously consider forcing women to have abortions just so they can have a few extra £££s in their pocket to blow on trivialities. Nice, real nice.

My issue is not with wanting to cut my outgoings, just a general dislike for seeing things wasted.

Walking through the estate at the end of my road will see a plethora of sky dishes and cars worth a substansial amount. These are not people who need subsidised housing.

It shouldn't be a case of forcing women to have an abortion. What the hell happened to wanting your kids to have it better than you did? I couldn't bring a child into the world knowing that I couldn't provide for them. If your ambition is to have kids, earn the right.

Kingy · 2 Feb 2007 at 18:24

A[L]C said:
Do you guys think we should have waited until we had our own place and possibly not be able to have a child, rather than try for a baby?

Certainly thought provoking.

Life can be cruel. If I cannot have kids naturally when the time is right, I'd have to look into other means, adoption etc.

I can't blame people for exploiting a flaw/loophole in the system, it'd be very hypocritical of me to do so. It dosen't mean the system is right though.

sunama · 2 Feb 2007 at 19:35

Rich_L said:
I love it, people would seriously consider forcing women to have abortions just so they can have a few extra £££s in their pocket to blow on trivialities. Nice, real nice.

Yep.

CF93 · 6 Feb 2007 at 10:10

Kingy said:
The fact that the asset doesn't carry a debt doesn't affect it's market value.

True, but the point I'm making is that the council isn't concerned with market value at all - only how much it costs them to provide the housing. Which is only the ongoing maintenace costs.

jpmonkey69 · 6 Feb 2007 at 11:39

CF93 said:
True, but the point I'm making is that the council isn't concerned with market value at all - only how much it costs them to provide the housing. Which is only the ongoing maintenace costs.

The flip side is that if they had non council tenants in those houses, they would be able to charge more rent (maybe an extra 75%+) and put the extra money into improving the area or something equally as deserving.

Bobcat · 6 Feb 2007 at 14:40

Von Luck said:
It is slightly nauseating how people fortunate enough to be reasonably well paid actually begrudge others the opportunity to have affordable housing. You can really spot Thatcher's children.

Thankfully we still live in a welfare state where the taxes that we pay are used to support those with less, long may it continue.

Agreed, i am shocked at some of the responses in this thread, talk about kicking people in the gut !

If your able to afford a 100k+ house / flat / etc then good on you, but Please dont diss people that are less fortunate than you and expect them to be able to afford the same as you, just because you can, its a horrible attatude to have.

Morba · 6 Feb 2007 at 16:33

Bobcat said:
Agreed, i am shocked at some of the responses in this thread, talk about kicking people in the gut !

If your able to afford a 100k+ house / flat / etc then good on you, but Please dont diss people that are less fortunate than you and expect them to be able to afford the same as you, just because you can, its a horrible attatude to have.

Ive not seen many people 'dissing' others that genuinely need it, just those who have been working for many years along with their partner yet still do not purchase a property of their own, leaving another property for someone who needs it more.

also, its quite clear that people do not agree with the idea 'if you want a baby, sell your house and move into council housing, then you can afford a child'.

CF93 · 6 Feb 2007 at 18:16

jpmonkey69 said:
The flip side is that if they had non council tenants in those houses, they would be able to charge more rent (maybe an extra 75%+) and put the extra money into improving the area or something equally as deserving.

Not sure I get where you're coming from on that one. Where would the people that genuinely can't afford more expensive housing live? (ignoring the reasons why they can't afford it for a moment.)

dirtydog · 6 Feb 2007 at 18:21

CF93 said:
Not sure I get where you're coming from on that one. Where would the people that genuinely can't afford more expensive housing live? (ignoring the reasons why they can't afford it for a moment.)

The same place they have to live now; private rented accommodation, with the help of housing benefit if their income is low.

CF93 · 6 Feb 2007 at 19:25

But as I said before, not everyone can get benefit just because they're on a low income...
Like I said before, my wife and I wouldn't be entitled to it, even though she's disabled and cant work, purely because I work more than 28 hours a week, regardless of my income.

Morba · 6 Feb 2007 at 19:28

CF93 said:
But as I said before, not everyone can get benefit just because they're on a low income...
Like I said before, my wife and I wouldn't be entitled to it, even though she's disabled and cant work, purely because I work more than 28 hours a week, regardless of my income.

From what I know of your instances im truely shocked that you are treated in such a way, have you been down every avenue to make sure that you are not getting something?

I am confident that I could find 100 houses in less than a week that should not be lived in by the current council tennants that would suit you perfectly (if i actually had the power to do it) :/

CF93 · 6 Feb 2007 at 19:43

Morba said:
From what I know of your instances im truely shocked that you are treated in such a way, have you been down every avenue to make sure that you are not getting something?

I am confident that I could find 100 houses in less than a week that should not be lived in by the current council tennants that would suit you perfectly (if i actually had the power to do it) :/

My wife's been disabled since she was 16 - she's had a long and vey hard time fighting for every benefit she's entitled to (trust me, they don't like giving out even the money you are entitled to.) So she's had many years of going through the system. We have a friend who's a solicitor turned Citizens Advice bod that's helped out a lot as well.

So yup, we've been down every avenue.

Thanks for the sentiment though - now if we could just get the British Government to think along the same lines......

dirtydog · 6 Feb 2007 at 19:47

CF93 said:
But as I said before, not everyone can get benefit just because they're on a low income...
Like I said before, my wife and I wouldn't be entitled to it, even though she's disabled and cant work, purely because I work more than 28 hours a week, regardless of my income.

Eh? Housing benefit is entirely assessed on the basis of income (and savings). You don't seem to understand how it works?

People who work 40 hours a week can get it mate.

CF93 · 6 Feb 2007 at 20:46

dirtydog said:
Eh? Housing benefit is entirely assessed on the basis of income (and savings). You don't seem to understand how it works?

People who work 40 hours a week can get it mate.

I very much understand how it works.

The benefits for disabled people are slightly different, as there are different benefits. For the few that are means tested, I earn too much anyway (ie over 14k) and for the others I work too many hours (ie over 28)

A[L]C · 7 Feb 2007 at 09:07

It's funny how, if I gave up work, Id be better off (ie get more in benefits) but I continue to work yet am still classed as a leecher by people on this thread :confused:

Dave M · 7 Feb 2007 at 09:36

Where has the idea that people who have jobs and money should not live in a council house? It's not a refuge or shelter and if there is too little housing to go around that is purely because the government banned councils from building any new housing and put in generous incentives to get existing housing stock sold off.

I do not know the ins and outs but suspect this is why councils are transferring all their housing to these new housing associations - so they don't have the same restrictions on new housing.

dirtydog · 7 Feb 2007 at 09:40

CF93 said:
I very much understand how it works.

The benefits for disabled people are slightly different, as there are different benefits. For the few that are means tested, I earn too much anyway (ie over 14k) and for the others I work too many hours (ie over 28)

Funny, you just said you can't get housing benefit "purely because I work 28 hours, regardless of my income" and now you admit that you don't get it because of your income, and not your hours :confused:

You might or might not understand how it works, but you've contradicted yourself entirely in the space of two posts.

CF93 · 8 Feb 2007 at 12:18

dirtydog said:
Funny, you just said you can't get housing benefit "purely because I work 28 hours, regardless of my income" and now you admit that you don't get it because of your income, and not your hours You might or might not understand how it works, but you've contradicted yourself entirely in the space of two posts.

Errr...no.

What I said was that that the benefits where a person is disabled are different.

Some are means tested, others are done by working hours. I never said I was referring to housing benefits specifically when I said "because of my income." And I did say that some are done by one method and some by the other - and we don't qualify for any regardless of the method.

Not that it's really relevant as we don't rent any more anyway.....