Jump to content

Public Sector Rents to Rise


Recommended Posts

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There is so much bullshit thrown round regarding social housing and their tenants.   Some people will not be happy until all social housing tenants are squeezed so tight that they need to use food b

Of that £43k per house it's probably; £5,000 of actual materials and £38,000 of tradesmans 'time' per job. Half of the problems they have with the housing upgrades is the totally crooked contracts tha

This is the case with many people EORH, I know people who have lived in Willaston since 1971, Exactly the same story, nothing done for years, no central heating, just a back boiler for hot water. Anyt

Posted Images

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

 

 

a bit of money ??? how much? if it isn't enough to move on, it isn't enough. when those 2 blokes split a lottery win a few years back, one bought themselves a house and moved on. don't know if the other was in social housing or not as I cant remember. coming into say 50k in you 50's isn't going to get you moved to a house and paying a mortgage, you'd be lucky to afford one of the shittest flats out there and have nothing left for a coat of paint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might enable them to pay a more realistic PS rent though?

 

Let's not forget, PS housing still runs at a deficit of millions p.a., rental income vs expenditure.

Edited by Non-Believer
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might enable them to pay a more realistic PS rent though?

Let's not forget, PS housing still runs at a deficit of millions p.a., rental income vs expenditure.

I take it this is coming from someone who rents privately, well if so , you have my sympathies, because Private Rents on the Island are ridiculously high, but don't blame those in Council Housing, which has risen way above inflation over the past few years, to levels comparable to most areas of UK ( not including London ) house prices over here are also way above what they should be, witness all the properties not selling because the asking prices are stupid. Housing on the island is way to high , mabye it's the result of 30 years of ' Growth ' . It's not the fault of those living in Council Housing. who also pay Rates and Tax like the rest of you

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

 

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

a bit of money ??? how much? if it isn't enough to move on, it isn't enough. when those 2 blokes split a lottery win a few years back, one bought themselves a house and moved on. don't know if the other was in social housing or not as I cant remember. coming into say 50k in you 50's isn't going to get you moved to a house and paying a mortgage, you'd be lucky to afford one of the shittest flats out there and have nothing left for a coat of paint.

Well that's my point really. I am not an expert on money matters, like many others money is what you live on, ie Rent, food etc but if a couple of say 55 years of age come into £ 50,000 from a share in a house that belonged to a parent, are you suggesting they should buy a house,? what with? They would need at least another £150,000 to buy anything worth having, and contrary to what some of the contributors on here seem to think, there are not many with that sort of money in Council Housing. If there are , as you seem to suggest then , yes , they shouldn't be in such housing, but if they were forced to leave, I doubt more than a handful of houses would become vacant. There are also many other things that should be liable to ' Means Testing ' so if we are to have it , and be fair to all, let it be for everyone and everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might enable them to pay a more realistic PS rent though?

 

Let's not forget, PS housing still runs at a deficit of millions p.a., rental income vs expenditure.

 

That's not entirely true......

 

Most local authority housing units now generate a surplus, and this includes the governments own housing unit that generates a surplus of around £1.5 to £2 million each year.

 

85% of the current deficiency payments made to Local Authorities relate to the new housing estates in Ramsey and Douglas.

 

Central Government & Local Authorities have a long term obligation to ensure that the island has affordable housing in the future.

Edited by Rob Callister
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It might enable them to pay a more realistic PS rent though?

Let's not forget, PS housing still runs at a deficit of millions p.a., rental income vs expenditure.

I take it this is coming from someone who rents privately, well if so , you have my sympathies, because Private Rents on the Island are ridiculously high, but don't blame those in Council Housing, which has risen way above inflation over the past few years, to levels comparable to most areas of UK ( not including London ) house prices over here are also way above what they should be, witness all the properties not selling because the asking prices are stupid. Housing on the island is way to high , mabye it's the result of 30 years of ' Growth ' . It's not the fault of those living in Council Housing. who also pay Rates and Tax like the rest of you

No. It comes from someone who pays a mortgage and well over £1000 pa in rates. On less income than some I know in PS housing.

 

I believe that the rates "contribution" for a PS 3 bed is in the region of £11 a week. I wish mine was. And for somebody to come round and fix and decorate FOC if I let it go to ratshit or kick a door in one day.

 

Means test now. And enforce some basic tenancy standards. To give the private ratepayers a break.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Most local authority housing units now generate a surplus,

Would love to see the figures that support that assertion and what was/was not factored in to arrive at such a positive bottom line.

This information relates to 2012/13, and LA rents have increased by 35% or 40% since then. I think most local authorities will now be being making a surplus.

 

To be fair, I think Douglas is also very close to making a surplus, despite the costs associated with new Pulrose estate.

 

Deficiency claims paid for 2012/13, by Authority are listed below;

 

Onchan District Commissioners 0.00

Braddan Parish Commissioners 191,473.00

Castletown Commissioners 0.00

Douglas Town Corporation 813,312.77

Peel Town Commissioners 231,480.00

Port Erin Village Commissioners 212,569.00

PSM Village Commissioners 0.00

Ramsey Town Commissioners 1,466,553.70

Rushen Parish Commissioners 8,179.50

 

Total General Housing 2,711,087.90

 

Castletown & Malew EPHC 219,375.00

Cooil Roi EPHC 74,596.99

Marashen Crescent EPHC 513,624.00

Peel & Western EPHC 306,240.00

Ramsey & Northern EPHC 0.00

Royal British Legion 25,142.42

Onchan EPHC 357,903.00

 

Total EPHC: 1,496,881.30

 

Douglas and Ramsey together claim 85% of the General Housing deficiency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

a bit of money ??? how much? if it isn't enough to move on, it isn't enough. when those 2 blokes split a lottery win a few years back, one bought themselves a house and moved on. don't know if the other was in social housing or not as I cant remember. coming into say 50k in you 50's isn't going to get you moved to a house and paying a mortgage, you'd be lucky to afford one of the shittest flats out there and have nothing left for a coat of paint.

Well that's my point really. I am not an expert on money matters, like many others money is what you live on, ie Rent, food etc but if a couple of say 55 years of age come into £ 50,000 from a share in a house that belonged to a parent, are you suggesting they should buy a house,? what with? They would need at least another £150,000 to buy anything worth having, and contrary to what some of the contributors on here seem to think, there are not many with that sort of money in Council Housing. If there are , as you seem to suggest then , yes , they shouldn't be in such housing, but if they were forced to leave, I doubt more than a handful of houses would become vacant. There are also many other things that should be liable to ' Means Testing ' so if we are to have it , and be fair to all, let it be for everyone and everything.

 

I would say that in your example the rent of that persons rent should be increased if they wish to remain in LA housing. Or go private and give the house to someone that genuinely needs it.

 

Also, the idea is that people shouldn't be in them for life. Many are.

 

And as for means testing - it is hard to dispute that means testing needs to be brought in when the tax payer is subsidising something like housing.

 

And means testing is already in to some degree. Hence people have lost Child Benefit, which in itself isn't really fair given that the people that lost it are actually those that pay the most in taxes and the ones that keep it are those with probably as much disposable income because they are sat in LA housing earning £45k a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

 

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

a bit of money ??? how much? if it isn't enough to move on, it isn't enough. when those 2 blokes split a lottery win a few years back, one bought themselves a house and moved on. don't know if the other was in social housing or not as I cant remember. coming into say 50k in you 50's isn't going to get you moved to a house and paying a mortgage, you'd be lucky to afford one of the shittest flats out there and have nothing left for a coat of paint.

Well that's my point really. I am not an expert on money matters, like many others money is what you live on, ie Rent, food etc but if a couple of say 55 years of age come into £ 50,000 from a share in a house that belonged to a parent, are you suggesting they should buy a house,? what with? They would need at least another £150,000 to buy anything worth having, and contrary to what some of the contributors on here seem to think, there are not many with that sort of money in Council Housing. If there are , as you seem to suggest then , yes , they shouldn't be in such housing, but if they were forced to leave, I doubt more than a handful of houses would become vacant. There are also many other things that should be liable to ' Means Testing ' so if we are to have it , and be fair to all, let it be for everyone and everything.

I would say that in your example the rent of that persons rent should be increased if they wish to remain in LA housing. Or go private and give the house to someone that genuinely needs it.

 

Also, the idea is that people shouldn't be in them for life. Many are.

 

And as for means testing - it is hard to dispute that means testing needs to be brought in when the tax payer is subsidising something like housing.

 

And means testing is already in to some degree. Hence people have lost Child Benefit, which in itself isn't really fair given that the people that lost it are actually those that pay the most in taxes and the ones that keep it are those with probably as much disposable income because they are sat in LA housing earning £45k a year.

And just why should they not be in them for life ? I know many many people who have been in Council Housing all their lives, whose houses are immaculate because of the money they have spent , and the way they have looked after the properties. For many years a lot of the Local Authorities spent very little on their housing, it has only been in recent years that they have been upgraded, mainly via a Government initiative , because many of them were falling apart. Witness Willaston. There is a ' Private ' development not far from where I live, with a ' Public Housing ' estate next to it. For the most part the Council proprieties are tidy, well looked after gardens, and clean. The ' Private estate is a Dump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

 

 

>Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money.

 

Set the rent at a rate that is sustainable for the landlord and reflects costs throughout the overall housing market i.e. rental and buy. And £250ish/week for 4 bed house wouldn't be too far away from a sensible figure.

 

Tenants apply for housing and are allocated according to need.

 

Discounts are applied according to the income of the occupants. On a sliding scale up to 100%, e.g. a disabled pensioner, adult unable to work, unemployed, carer, low earners, single income families etc.

 

If tenants circumstances change e.g. successful business venture, divorce, kids leave home, more kids on the way, death of partner, promotion, inheritence, lottery win, adult offspring start work etc. then the discount is revised - up or down - according to the tenants new circumstances.

 

TBT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It might enable them to pay a more realistic PS rent though?

Let's not forget, PS housing still runs at a deficit of millions p.a., rental income vs expenditure.

I take it this is coming from someone who rents privately, well if so , you have my sympathies, because Private Rents on the Island are ridiculously high, but don't blame those in Council Housing, which has risen way above inflation over the past few years, to levels comparable to most areas of UK ( not including London ) house prices over here are also way above what they should be, witness all the properties not selling because the asking prices are stupid. Housing on the island is way to high , mabye it's the result of 30 years of ' Growth ' . It's not the fault of those living in Council Housing. who also pay Rates and Tax like the rest of you

No. It comes from someone who pays a mortgage and well over £1000 pa in rates. On less income than some I know in PS housing.

 

I believe that the rates "contribution" for a PS 3 bed is in the region of £11 a week. I wish mine was. And for somebody to come round and fix and decorate FOC if I let it go to ratshit or kick a door in one day.

 

Means test now. And enforce some basic tenancy standards. To give the private ratepayers a break.

 

Hope Rob C. will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is LA house rates are the same as they would be if the property were privately owned.

 

Rob?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

My view is that irrespective of income, everyone living on the Isle of Man is entitled to an annual holiday, a car, Christmas presents, a mobile phone etc. Social housing is specifically there to give people on lower incomes the opportunity to do that. No one is griping that people shouldn't have disposable income to spend on a few treats. I support it 100%. Long may it continue.

 

The irritation comes from the presumption that once a person is in possession of a council property, it is theirs for life and can be passed on to future generations, irrespective of future household income. You must be able to reconcile that if a person having their living expenses heavily subsidised by the tax payer becomes wealthy, the house should be given to someone who has a greater need.

 

If you don't require benefits then you shouldn't receive benefits. Periodic means testing is the only fair way to proceed.

Where does this leave someone who has been in a Council House for many years and comes into a bit of money. Anyone say over 50 would find it pretty difficult getting a first time buyer property and borrowing the money to do so. I don't know what levels you would put on Means Testing, although I agree there are some that should not be in such housing.

a bit of money ??? how much? if it isn't enough to move on, it isn't enough. when those 2 blokes split a lottery win a few years back, one bought themselves a house and moved on. don't know if the other was in social housing or not as I cant remember. coming into say 50k in you 50's isn't going to get you moved to a house and paying a mortgage, you'd be lucky to afford one of the shittest flats out there and have nothing left for a coat of paint.

Well that's my point really. I am not an expert on money matters, like many others money is what you live on, ie Rent, food etc but if a couple of say 55 years of age come into £ 50,000 from a share in a house that belonged to a parent, are you suggesting they should buy a house,? what with? They would need at least another £150,000 to buy anything worth having, and contrary to what some of the contributors on here seem to think, there are not many with that sort of money in Council Housing. If there are , as you seem to suggest then , yes , they shouldn't be in such housing, but if they were forced to leave, I doubt more than a handful of houses would become vacant. There are also many other things that should be liable to ' Means Testing ' so if we are to have it , and be fair to all, let it be for everyone and everything.

I would say that in your example the rent of that persons rent should be increased if they wish to remain in LA housing. Or go private and give the house to someone that genuinely needs it.

 

Also, the idea is that people shouldn't be in them for life. Many are.

 

And as for means testing - it is hard to dispute that means testing needs to be brought in when the tax payer is subsidising something like housing.

 

And means testing is already in to some degree. Hence people have lost Child Benefit, which in itself isn't really fair given that the people that lost it are actually those that pay the most in taxes and the ones that keep it are those with probably as much disposable income because they are sat in LA housing earning £45k a year.

And just why should they not be in them for life ? I know many many people who have been in Council Housing all their lives, whose houses are immaculate because of the money they have spent , and the way they have looked after the properties. For many years a lot of the Local Authorities spent very little on their housing, it has only been in recent years that they have been upgraded, mainly via a Government initiative , because many of them were falling apart. Witness Willaston. There is a ' Private ' development not far from where I live, with a ' Public Housing ' estate next to it. For the most part the Council proprieties are tidy, well looked after gardens, and clean. The ' Private estate is a Dump.

 

 

>And just why should they not be in them for life ?

 

Be cause they may have been allocated a 4-bed, initially due to the size of their family.

 

Subsequently the kids leave home, father gets salary increase via promotiom, mother goes out to work as she now has the time; this scenario cries out for a reschedule.

 

But as you say, they've spent money on 'their' property. Get on with their neighbours. The extra beds come in handy when grandkids come to visit/TT Homestay and quite frankly, due to the low rents, they can easily afford it.

 

Meanwhile our intrepid bin man on sub £20k has 6 mouths to feed and needs somewhere to live.

 

That's why they shouldn't be in them for life.

 

TBT.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...