How many council houses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How many council houses

    A report dated 2 Aug 2021 lodged in House of Commons Library stated the leasehold properties in England include :

    Private sector ( Houses and flats ) = 4,378,000
    Social sector = 269,000
    Total = 4, 647,000

    Social Sector = Local authority 43,000 + Housing Associations 226,000 = 269,000.

    Local authority = 5000 Houses and 38 000 flats.

    I would have expected the stock of council units to be greater than housing associations


    #2
    Nope, local authorities have realised they cant make money off housing with the poor LHA rates they'd pay themselves.

    Add the quality of tenant at that end of the market and the LAs reluctance (inability) to evict and the proposition worsens further.

    Its a good job they appreciate the PRS isn't it.
    My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

    Comment


      #3
      Housing Associations have been allowed to build for the last 30 years when councils have been subdued. However as we are talking about leasehold it may also include the part ownership model that some Housing Associations build to.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post
        stated the leasehold properties in England include
        I wonder if these figures are gathered to try and get a feel for who holds the leaseholds and who is in a position to pay for the insulation work or repairs as they prepare some legislation to sort out the fallout following Grenfell? I understand that Housing Associations are in a better financial position than Local Councils to deal with leasehold liabilities but such expenditure comes at a cost of building new houses. There are regular news items detailing how the social housing sector are struggling to maintain decent housing

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
          Nope, local authorities have realised they cant make money off housing with the poor LHA rates they'd pay themselves.
          Social (council) housing is not subject to LHA rates.

          Social tenants are subject to the under occupancy rules instead.

          PRS - LHA
          SRS - Bedroom Tax

          Comment


            #6
            Is there any link to that report?

            Not doubting it, just like to be looking at the.same things.

            PS. I've got a Social Rental now after 20 years of renting privately in 2 different places for 10 years each with no issues in either.

            So I object to that 'quality of tenant' generalisation above.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by nukecad View Post

              SRS - Bedroom Tax
              It is not a tax - the tenant is required to pay for a bedroom they are not entitled to instead of the tax payer.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Gordon999 View Post

                I would have expected the stock of council units to be greater than housing associations
                Maybe the Council stock is more freehold units. LA Housing tended to be estates of houses maybe Social Housing has more flats?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
                  It is not a tax
                  Yes I know, I was just using shorthand because surprisingly many think it is actually called that.

                  I did say above that "Social tenants are subject to the under occupancy rules instead"

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                    Is there any link to that report?

                    Not doubting it, just like to be looking at the.same things.

                    PS. I've got a Social Rental now after 20 years of renting privately in 2 different places for 10 years each with no issues in either.

                    So I object to that 'quality of tenant' generalisation above.
                    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-8047/

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Cheers, I'll have a read.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                        So I object to that 'quality of tenant' generalisation above.
                        So you're saying the quality of tenant is not worse in social housing compared to the PRS?

                        Of course I'm generalising as we all have to - it would be impossible to post anything if we had to explain everything minutely.

                        A bit like saying transvestites look like men - not all of them do but the majority definitely do lol

                        My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                          So you're saying the quality of tenant is not worse in social housing compared to the PRS?
                          That's a misleading statement - no one on this forum would be able to put together an agreed list of what constitutes "quality" in a tenant, and so the idea that you can compare two populations (which would probably require asking illegal questions) to assess their relative characteristics is odd.

                          And there are substantial differences in age profile (I would imagine) as social housing includes a lot of older people.
                          A bit like saying transvestites look like men - not all of them do but the majority definitely do lol
                          I imagine that that would be terrible news for most of them, there aren't any reliable figures, but people born male who identify as women are generally accepted to be more numerous then birth sex females who identify as male.
                          Probably about 2:1.
                          So the news that the majority still look male would be unwelcome.

                          And I'd guess if you restrict the definition of transvestite to people who simply dress occasionally or permanently as the opposite sex, it's massively more skewed towards men dressing as women.

                          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            I imagine that that would be terrible news for most of them, there aren't any reliable figures, but people born male who identify as women are generally accepted to be more numerous then birth sex females who identify as male.
                            Probably about 2:1.
                            So the news that the majority still look male would be unwelcome.

                            And I'd guess if you restrict the definition of transvestite to people who simply dress occasionally or permanently as the opposite sex, it's massively more skewed towards men dressing as women.
                            OMG not every comment has to be taken so seriously - chill !!

                            My views are my own - you may not agree with them. I tend say things as I see them and I don't do "political correctness". Just because we may not agree you can still buy me a pint lol

                            Comment


                              #15
                              In yesterday,s, budget speech , the Chancellor is providing £ 11.5 Billion for building 180,000 affordable houses. This sum works out to £64,000 per house which Iooks impossible to achieve .

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X