No DSS!

[Rroff]

Who's willing to bet she'd smoke in the property too regardless of any no smoking rules (if that's possible) I hope she finds a place, but the struggle is for the most part her own fault

I've a couple of relatives and a friend who rent out houses and this kind of stuff is more their reasoning than the financial side as such - far higher chance the place ends up trashed, rules ignored, etc.

 

[itchy]

But are such rules not discriminative.

 

[dowie]

But are such rules not discriminative.

Depends what you mean - if you're not automatically giving the property to the first tenant to respond then you're going to be "discriminating" in some sense regardless, if you want to see the tenants first then that criteria is perhaps subjective and rather ad-hoc. Fact is if you've got more than one tenant interested in the property then you're going to need a way to discriminate between them. On what basis would you prioritise prospective tenants? Or would you just blindly accept the first to respond meeting the asking price subject to standard background checks/references?

If you mean to question whether it is illegal discrimination then that isn't too clear from the article in the OP - Shelter seems to think it might contravene the equality act.

 

[itchy]

Never judge a book by its cover.

 

[D.P.]

Depends what you mean - if you're not automatically giving the property to the first tenant to respond then you're going to be "discriminating" in some sense regardless, if you want to see the tenants first then that criteria is perhaps subjective and rather ad-hoc. Fact is if you've got more than one tenant interested in the property then you're going to need a way to discriminate between them. On what basis would you prioritise prospective tenants? Or would you just blindly accept the first to respond meeting the asking price subject to standard background checks/references?

If you mean to question whether it is illegal discrimination then that isn't too clear from the article in the OP - Shelter seems to think it might contravene the equality act.

This tends to be how it works in countries with stronger protections for renters. The first person who passes the background checks/references gets the rental, with sometimes priorities given to families with children, but that is about it.

 

[FTM]

It came about when local authorities who provide the funds were directed to pay the tenant rsther than the landlord. This has resulted in a huge increase in unpaid rent to landlords.
We were advised many years ago not to take on subsidised tenants.
I have no idea why this was done or why it hssn't been reversed.
Andi.

pretty much this..it was a great old scam when the money was going straight to the landlord

now you rely on you tenant being able to financially manage themselves...and its becoming increasingly difficult to do so with the change to universal credit and your circumstances can change month to month along with your income

 

[Caracus2k]

Disgusting. The banks are driving the homeless crisis with this stupid rule.

Banks assess objective risk and act accordingly.

The credit crunch of 2008 started primarily in America.

A major issue in the credit crunch was the reselling of collatarised debt that was given a high rating but was actually often largely comprised of 'sub prime' mortgages.

Such mortgages where often given to people in the US who were very unlikely to be able to pay them as a result of the government forcing financial institutions to lend to risky clients for 'social' reasons.

Spoiler: How US goverment policy caused the credit crunch

The Government Did It

The financial peril of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –the government-sponsored, government-regulated mortgage giants regarded as instrumental in solving the nation’s mortgage market problems–has one benefit. It should help expose the lie that today’s financial problems are the result of an insufficiently regulated market.

For too long, the refrain has gone, Congress and the administration have been asleep at the wheel when they should have been steering the economy by expanding government control over the housing and financial markets. Economist Paul Krugman slams the administration’s “free-market ideology”; he urges Bush to “reverse course now” and “seek expanded regulation.”

All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets–including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)–leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.

Consider the low lending standards that were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Lenders made millions of loans to borrowers who, under normal market conditions, weren’t able to pay them off. These decisions have cost lenders, especially leading financial institutions, tens of billions of dollars.

It is popular to take low lending standards as proof that the free market has failed, that the system that is supposed to reward productive behavior and punish unproductive behavior has failed to do so. Yet this claim ignores that for years irrational lending standards have been forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and rewarded (at taxpayers’ expense) by multiple government bodies.

The CRA forces banks to make loans in poor communities, loans that banks may otherwise reject as financially unsound. Under the CRA, banks must convince a set of bureaucracies that they are not engaging in discrimination, a charge that the act encourages any CRA-recognized community group to bring forward. Otherwise, any merger or expansion the banks attempt will likely be denied. But what counts as discrimination?

According to one enforcement agency, “discrimination exists when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.” Note that these “arbitrary or outdated criteria” include most of the essentials of responsible lending: income level, income verification, credit history and savings history–the very factors lenders are now being criticized for ignoring.

Be very careful about thinking its a good idea to force financial institutions to a abandon their lending rules for 'social' reasons.

 

[dowie]

Yup, Bill Clinton/African Americans and David Bowie all have some blame for the financial crisis.

 

[Efour]

Build a ton of basic social housing, and I do mean basic mod cons.
1 room bedsit types.
If you need it you can pay basic prices for it.
Doesn't need to be profitable, break even costs.
People need houses and UK market must change.

 

[Semple]

Build a ton of basic social housing, and I do mean basic mod cons.
1 room bedsit types.
If you need it you can pay basic prices for it.
Doesn't need to be profitable, break even costs.
People need houses and UK market must change.

I've always said that, you don't really need a tower block of 20 floors as they tend to just attract trouble. You could build a series of 4 story blocks of studio apartments, all it needs is a kitchen/diner, and then next room has a bedroom/en-suite. You've got so many single or couples that these types of accommodation would be perfect for. At least then they can free up 2 bed flats or 2/3 bed houses that can then be used for families.

 

[dowie]

I think selling off council houses was a big mistake, I also think the idea of lifetime tenancies regardless of income and the right to pass them on is silly too.

council housing should be means tested, people should be moved (forget the bedroom tax and an encouragement just move them) if they have more bedrooms than required (of course this also means the responsibility is on the local authority so in a situation where there aren't sufficient suitable properties the tenant isn't penalised as they are with the bedroom tax)

In large urban areas, especially London, housing should be managed regionally instead of each local authority having to make provisions - there really isn't much point in giving people free accommodation in say Westminster, it is a massively inefficient use of resources to have council flats that are technically valued at close to £1 million. Most zone 1 accommodation should be sold off and more accommodation can be built elsewhere. Waiting lists can also be reduced by simply getting rid of people who don't have any hope of qualifying - currently there are plenty of chancers who already work and there is still a mentality that anyone and everyone regardless of income should have a council house if they want - that needs to stop.

Housing in Central London ought to go as a priority to key workers who can't otherwise afford to live there. The long term unemployed and the elderly should be moved further out.

I've got no sympathy whatsoever for the people who moan about social cleansing if they can't live in a very specific area of London, plenty of working people who have moved for work haven't got that luxury and it isn't feasible long term anyway as more and more people want to live in certain areas - if you're being subsidised by the rest of us then you should be happy that you're being housed in the general London area and likely still living in a flat that is more valuable than plenty of detached houses up north.

 

[robfosters]

I think selling off council houses was a big mistake, I also think the idea of lifetime tenancies regardless of income and the right to pass them on is silly too.

council housing should be means tested, people should be moved (forget the bedroom tax and an encouragement just move them) if they have more bedrooms than required (of course this also means the responsibility is on the local authority so in a situation where there aren't sufficient suitable properties the tenant isn't penalised as they are with the bedroom tax)

In large urban areas, especially London, housing should be managed regionally instead of each local authority having to make provisions - there really isn't much point in giving people free accommodation in say Westminster, it is a massively inefficient use of resources to have council flats that are technically valued at close to £1 million. Most zone 1 accommodation should be sold off and more accommodation can be built elsewhere. Waiting lists can also be reduced by simply getting rid of people who don't have any hope of qualifying - currently there are plenty of chancers who already work and there is still a mentality that anyone and everyone regardless of income should have a council house if they want - that needs to stop.

Housing in Central London ought to go as a priority to key workers who can't otherwise afford to live there. The long term unemployed and the elderly should be moved further out.

I've got no sympathy whatsoever for the people who moan about social cleansing if they can't live in a very specific area of London, plenty of working people who have moved for work haven't got that luxury and it isn't feasible long term anyway as more and more people want to live in certain areas - if you're being subsidised by the rest of us then you should be happy that you're being housed in the general London area and likely still living in a flat that is more valuable than plenty of detached houses up north.

What’s your definition of Central London?

 

[dowie]

What’s your definition of Central London?

Camden, Islington, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Lambeth, the City.

Or at least the innermost parts of those boroughs surrounding Westminster and the City. So the innermost bits of Hackney and TowerHamlets too.

 

[robfosters]

Camden, Islington, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Southwark, Lambeth, the City.

Or at least the innermost parts of those boroughs surrounding Westminster and the City. So the innermost bits of Hackney and TowerHamlets too.

Problem is, once you get into certain parts, Tower Hamlets particularly, you’ll start running into accusations of racism of ethnic cleansing. Also, there’s still people living there who lived through the blitz, coming through massive loss and raising families there. It’s wrong to just uproot and move them on because we ‘need the space’. At least let em die off in peace and undisturbed. The shock of the forced move could kill them as it is.

 

[Orionaut]

Pay rent directly to landlords, LA assumes responsibility for any unrecoverable damage or theft to property.

Landlords would be queuing up to let DSS tenants rent their properties.

 

[dowie]

Problem is, once you get into certain parts, Tower Hamlets particularly, you’ll start running into accusations of racism of ethnic cleansing. Also, there’s still people living there who lived through the blitz, coming through massive loss and raising families there. It’s wrong to just uproot and move them on because we ‘need the space’. At least let em die off in peace and undisturbed. The shock of the forced move could kill them as it is.

Well obviously it would need to be phased in, but I don't see the issue with someone in their 50s being told that if they still require free housing once they hit retirement then they'll need to move out of Central London.

As for racism, that's just silly given the inclusion of Kensington, Westminster etc.. people cry racism for all sorts of things these days, it isn't particularly relevant.

 

[robfosters]

Well obviously it would need to be phased in, but I don't see the issue with someone in their 50s being told that if they still require free housing once they hit retirement then they'll need to move out of Central London.

As for racism, that's just silly given the inclusion of Kensington, Westminster etc.. people cry racism for all sorts of things these days, it isn't particularly relevant.

You would be amazed at the backlash it would receive from the left. You’d probably end up fighting it in the ECHR or something.

 

[dowie]

You would be amazed at the backlash it would receive from the left. You’d probably end up fighting it in the ECHR or something.

I wouldn't be amazed. I'd expect there would likely be backlash form the left to anything along these lines and relating about "social cleansing". Reality is going to get in the way regardless, we've got an ever growing population and plenty more people who will find it desirable to live in the most centrally located areas of our Capital. It makes very little sense for more social housing to be built in areas where land is super expensive and there is a big incentive available to local authorities and housing associations who are willing to sell off property in these areas.

 

[robfosters]

I wouldn't be amazed. I'd expect there would likely be backlash form the left to anything along these lines and relating about "social cleansing". Reality is going to get in the way regardless, we've got an ever growing population and plenty more people who will find it desirable to live in the most centrally located areas of our Capital. It makes very little sense for more social housing to be built in areas where land is super expensive and there is a big incentive available to local authorities and housing associations who are willing to sell off property in these areas.

If I am ever reliant on social housing, it would devastate me to have to move from the area I grew up in and live now. Anyway, I don’t think I’d have to. It’s likely my medical conditions would make me a priority.

 

[Semple]

As for racism, that's just silly given the inclusion of Kensington, Westminster etc.. people cry racism for all sorts of things these days, it isn't particularly relevant.

It is ridiculous to play the racism card, it doesn't matter what colour your skin is.

The fact of the matter is that there is a physical limitation at play. Unless we start killing people off ( ) the population growth means that not everyone can live where they want to. For those that aren't paying for it, then of course they're going to be the first to go.