Swindon tenants consulted over rent (From Swindon Advertiser)

SpeakUp says...
3:38pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Great idea. What if everyone votes for £1? Must have a word and see if my landlord is up for me deciding how much I should pay too.

Report this post »

salt and vinegar says...
4:38pm Fri 4 Jan 13

I have heard it all now, what a useless exercise and total waste of money, the mind boggles.

Report this post »

SpeakUp says...
4:50pm Fri 4 Jan 13

I guess the cost of this pointless waste of resources gets added to the rents? No, probably not, pretty sure the rest of us will end up paying through the poll tax. Nice.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
6:59pm Fri 4 Jan 13

The money paid in Council tax is put into the general fund. Rental income is paid through the housing revenue account. The two are kept are seperate.

The purpose of the consultation exercise is to present the options to tenants before making a decision.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
7:10pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Same comment as I posted yesterday when the story was published. Why does the adver insist on this multiple posting of stories!
==========
Surely its as simple as finding out he market rate for a particular property!

Can I be consulted on how much council tax I pay? I don't think I get enough value for money so it should be at least 50% less....!
==========

@Russell

If options are being presented then why were the options not part of the article. Given one of the meetings is next week; surely the options are known by now?

What difference does it make where the money goes; it will still be wasted and spent poorly. Your comment on the separation of the monies; suggests that there is no money from the "general" fund that goes towards the housing revenue account! Is that correct?

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
7:29pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Ash - There is a detailed powerpoint presentation that gives the potential options - it is too detailed to neatly condense for an article. This has already been used at presentations for tenants and I have posted it on the Swindon Housing facebook page. Basically we can do anything between a rent freeze and a rent increase of varying amounts (RPI increase, RPI plus 0.5% or above that)- it is balancing a rent increase with investment and debt repayment which gives rise to options.

Council house rent is generally about 50% of market rent.

It is broadly correct that no money general fund goes into the housing revenue account and vice versa. Some general fund money is used for homelessness functions and some housing revenue account money is given to the Council to reflect the services that the housing department uses from the Council. But overall they are seperate.

I disagree with comments about wasteful spending. I am not saying everything is perfect or that we can be complacent but I do think overall we provide good services.

On Council tax - we are consulting on the budget and there are elections most years where people get to have a vote.

Report this post »

TinkeyWinkey says...
7:34pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Don't clown school just love wasting money??

Bet most don't give a monkey's as they are on benefits

Report this post »

salt and vinegar says...
7:39pm Fri 4 Jan 13

It is a wasteful spending because if any one thinks the council will take a blind bit of notice of what the tenants say with regards to how much they would like to pay in rent, they have got to be deluded, just another useless exercise by some jobsworth me thinks.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
7:42pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Seems to me that a lot of money can be found by making the rates for council housing nearer the market rates. What extra would 75% generate?

50% of market is a disgrace; especially where people are fully employed etc etc.

I wonder how many will want a freeze! All of them perhaps.

If the main points of the presentation cannot be summarised into a few paragraphs then the presentation is a fail.

Presumably the presentation is available on the web; please post a link.

Quote "It is broadly correct that no money general fund goes into the housing revenue account and vice versa."

Broadly correct.... You mean that its incorrect as some money does swap between accounts. Why not tell it like it is....

The council does not provide good service and I know of no one who would argue differently.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
7:45pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Tinkeywinkey - if you think all tenants are on benefits and don't bother to get involved, then I think you must be getting your facts from clown school.

Many tenants work and are not on benefits at all.

Many people on benefits work but are on low incomes.

Many people on benefits can't work because of health issues or they struggle to find work.

Many tenants get involved through participating in meetings and consultations. Many more get involved in various ways in their communities. On the estates there is a good community spirit which sits aside social problems.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
7:52pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Ash the issue is keeping rents affordable while continuing to invest and pay off the debt. In terms of the detailed figures that can't be neatly summarised. We have an income of about £46million and we have to invest in stock and pay off the debt. That is the issue.

Setting rents at 75% of market rents would raise more money but it may not be affordable. Keep in mind there are many people in private accomodation who have housing benefit. If you would like the full presentation I have posted on the Swindon facebook page or it can be e-mailed to you. We are looking at doing a summary to go on the website.

We have done a consultation at what is called the "pay to stay" policy whereby people of a particular income could be required to pay more rent. This is something that is being looked at.

Housing revenue account and general fund are covered by specific accounting rules. The full rules are detailed and complex but as a general statement it is correct to say that the two are separate.

Salt - we consider the consultation results as part of the decision making policy. From the feedback I have had already some tenants are already supportive of a rent increase because they want to invest in the stock.

Report this post »

TinkeyWinkey says...
8:01pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Mr Holland I am sure there are many that don't claim benefits or those that are genuinely entitled to them. But alot of scroungers who know how to milk the system.

It has always puzzled me as to those that get evicted for rent arrears end up back at the council to house them, after all human rights could not see these people out on the streets!!

Who ends up paying for those that don't give a **** - the tax payer!!

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:06pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Quote "Setting rents at 75% of market rents would raise more money but it may not be affordable. Keep in mind there are many people in private accomodation who have housing benefit."

Your going to need to explain this!

If there are many people in private accomodation who are claiming housing benefit; What does that have to do with affordability by using 75% of market rate for council tenants?

Quote "Many tenants work and are not on benefits at all."

In which case they should not be eligiabl for subsidised housing.

Quote "Many people on benefits work but are on low incomes."

In which case they are getting subsided twice as the working tax credits are supposed to act as a top up.

What does "invest in stock" mean? I find it difficult to believe that existing tenants would vote for a rise in rents simply out of their generosity for the council to accumulate more social housing to the benefit of others. Does it really mean that it will be "invested" back into their own homes as the council does them up at a lower cost.

Couldn't find the presentation on the facebook page; can you post the link to the facebook page.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:06pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Tinkey Winkey - it's true some people take advantage of the system but I think they are a minority. But it's not fair or accurate to make generalisations about everyone who is on benefits. So if you want to make points about people you think are abusing the system then it's only fair to point out that there are a lot of people who need help.

I agree that the welfare state needs reform but when we debate the need for reform it's important to make unfair generalisations.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:18pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Ash - those are good points. I will try to answer. Council house rent is lower than market rent. So the cost of housing benefit to private landlords can be more than the cost of housing benefit for Councils. At the moment anyone can register for Council housing but the demand for housing significantly exceeds the supply - we have a waiting list of 14,000 compared to 13,000 present tenants. So in reality only people in need are likely to get a Council house. At the moment a Council house tenancy is for life - subject to paying rent. The government is looking at having fixed term tenancies - so someone would get a Council house for say 5 years and also if your income goes up then you pay more rent. The idea being to consider having a Council house as comparable to a means tested benefit. I think Council housing should be mainly needs based but housing is more complex because a house is not like other benefits. Some disagree with this approach.

The basic issue though that left entirely to the market house prices can price most people out of buying which means they rent privately. So the advantage of Council housing is that it provides affordable rents - but there are other issues around it - such as being fair in allocations and making it financially sustainable.

So overall when considering how to reduce public expenditure - consideration has to be given to private renting as well as not for profit housing.

Investing in stock means things like new kitchens and bathrooms and acquiring or building new houses. Swindon has a disproportionately large number of pre-fab houses and sheltered housing schemes which can have higher maintenance costs - so keeping them at a good standard can cost more.

Any increase in rent gives us more money to spend on investing in housing. But we also have the £140million to pay off - to some extent we can choose how quickly we pay it off - but the longer we take then this can mean we pay more in interest. So it is a balancing act. Some tenants are willing to pay more rent because they do want to see more investment in the stock.

Link to Swindon Housing page is here http://www.facebook.
com/groups/103290326
395869/?bookmark_t=g
roup

Ash - those are good points. I will try to answer. Council house rent is lower than market rent. So the cost of housing benefit to private landlords can be more than the cost of housing benefit for Councils. At the moment anyone can register for Council housing but the demand for housing significantly exceeds the supply - we have a waiting list of 14,000 compared to 13,000 present tenants. So in reality only people in need are likely to get a Council house. At the moment a Council house tenancy is for life - subject to paying rent. The government is looking at having fixed term tenancies - so someone would get a Council house for say 5 years and also if your income goes up then you pay more rent. The idea being to consider having a Council house as comparable to a means tested benefit. I think Council housing should be mainly needs based but housing is more complex because a house is not like other benefits. Some disagree with this approach. The basic issue though that left entirely to the market house prices can price most people out of buying which means they rent privately. So the advantage of Council housing is that it provides affordable rents - but there are other issues around it - such as being fair in allocations and making it financially sustainable. So overall when considering how to reduce public expenditure - consideration has to be given to private renting as well as not for profit housing. Investing in stock means things like new kitchens and bathrooms and acquiring or building new houses. Swindon has a disproportionately large number of pre-fab houses and sheltered housing schemes which can have higher maintenance costs - so keeping them at a good standard can cost more. Any increase in rent gives us more money to spend on investing in housing. But we also have the £140million to pay off - to some extent we can choose how quickly we pay it off - but the longer we take then this can mean we pay more in interest. So it is a balancing act. Some tenants are willing to pay more rent because they do want to see more investment in the stock. Link to Swindon Housing page is here http://www.facebook. com/groups/103290326 395869/?bookmark_t=g roup Russell Holland

Report this post »

MrAngry says...
8:24pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Russell, whilst it is unfair to make generalisations about those on benefits, perhaps there should be tougher punishments for those caught abusing the system including the three Swindon councillors who were ordered to appear in court for failing to pay council tax on time after warning letters went unanswered.

They should be named and shamed so that the public can vote them out at the next election.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:29pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Angry - I don't know who the Cllrs are and personally I think they should be treated the same as anyone else. I don't know anything about their circumstances. I think the article said the letters sent out over the last 2 financial years - so given we had elections in May 2012 - they may not be cllrs anymore - as I say - i don't know.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:42pm Fri 4 Jan 13

For anyone interested this is a really informative documentary on the history of Council housing https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=WVGMyo40
SyE

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:50pm Fri 4 Jan 13

@Russell

Found the page, will take a look later.

With regards to the article on the councillors, it can be found at this link.
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
local/10132017.Counc
il_trio_didn_t_pay_c
ouncil_tax/

These councillors should be subjected to an independent investigation and if they are still councillors subject to a vote of no confidence. Will you put forward such a motion?

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:59pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Ash - personally I am of the view that they should be treated the same as anyone else so given that they have paid - while it was late I don't think personal information of this nature should be disclosed. So while I think it is regrettable, I don't think an independent investigation would add anything. I don't know who this applied to or what issues they were facing.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
9:15pm Fri 4 Jan 13

I didn't ask for personal details to be disclosed. I said it should be subject to independent investigation. Based on the result of that it may then be disclosed and a subsequent motion of no confidence in those coucillors (assuming they still are) if there was no good reason for it.

Report this post »

adsinibiza says...
10:37pm Fri 4 Jan 13

hmmm - wish my landlord would only charge me 50% of the going market rate - but I can't see that happening somehow.

Whilst I appreciate that some people are unable to work through ill health or ahve maybe retired and therefore cannot afford full market rent, the rest of them should be paying it......

This is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country and why debt and tax rates are so high - we persist in giving benefits (in a wide sense) to those that simply do not need them, often at the expense of those that do and just about always at the expense of the taxpayer.....

Report this post »

Spurs Fan says...
9:12am Sat 5 Jan 13

I am surprised by the general level of ignorance in this debate. Can anyone who has commented on the above tell me how council rents are subsidised? Council rents are about 50% of market rent because market rents are based on the law of supply and demand. Would contributors not see that private rent control is probably better way of controlling spiraling rent in that sector not calling for price hikes in council housing? Because there is a shortage of all types of housing it does not mean that council house rents should cost more. After all using the logic of the contributors above higher rents would mean more Housing benefit. Furthermore, if tenants want rents pegged at say the rate of inflation it means that there will be less money to do modernaisation programmes etc than if the rent went up by say inflation plus a percentage of say 1%. I would therefore argue that a consultation exercise with tenants is a valuable exercise and a cost effective one.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
9:34am Sat 5 Jan 13

ads - with things like education there is a universal entitlement for a set period of time. With healthcare you get it when you are ill. With housing it's different because people want to build links in their communities, may have children at school or someone can't just easily move because circumstances change. I support the principle of increasing the rent based on income. Fixed term tenancies are more difficult because someone may get a Council house, then find work but have children at a local school so would it be fair to require them to move? Different people have different views on this. I think increasing rent would be fair above a certain income. So when it comes to the principle of reform - I recognise some reform is justified - it's how we go about it that generates debate.

Spursfan - I agree with the principle of what you are saying - there are advantages and disadvantages to private and public provision of housing. It's important that government policy looks at both otherwise there is a risk of taking away the advantages of council housing but not really getting to grips with some of the disadvantages of private housing. It is very difficult because of the complex nature of housing but the debate does need to be a balanced. If it is argued that Council housing is subsidised by housing benefit then you could say the same thing about private housing.

To me consultation is worthwhile because we want tenants to be able to participate in decision making. Many tenants are involved in various Council working groups and their input is extremely helpful. We also have lots of discussion on the Swindon Housing facebook page.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
10:25am Sat 5 Jan 13

@Spurs Fan,

You make the comment about supply and demand and then expect that council housing should use a different criteria. No it shouldn't.

The council should be capitalising on their assets in this case the housing. Especially in these austere times.

The council increasing the rents will not mean a greater amount of housing benefit as it is essentially paying itself. It does mean that those having "an easy ride with a 50% discount" where it is inappropriate no longer do.

@Russell

I made the mistake of looking through some of the comments on the web site. Oh dear..... The likes of Derek Fry are really living on another planet.

I looked through the presentation. Some of the slides look a bit dubious to me, but then I maybe missing something. For example all the options P10-13 show no debt repayment. The interest repayments seem fixed across the 5 years, so the conclusion has to be no debt is going to be paid back in the first 5 years under any option. If you have a surplus of 20m in the first year, surely at least 25% of that should be earmarked for loan repayment; thus reducing the interest.

Report this post »

Spurs Fan says...
10:37am Sat 5 Jan 13

Lordashofthebrake, please explain to me how you think Housing Benefit pays for itself? If rents go up by 50% then HB would go up accordingly, seeing as HB is funded by our taxes through central government then surely that means taxes would need to rise? More rental income would be raised but this can only be used on council housing under the present rules.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
11:00am Sat 5 Jan 13

Ash - we have to assume £5million per year in interest - we have some flexibility how quickly we pay off the capital. So it's all a question of trade offs - the slides illustrate that. The £20million is not a surplus in the usual sense, it represents the money available for investment or debt repayment. The big issue we have relates to the large number of pre-fab and sheltered housing units that we have.

I'd prefer you didn't name individuals from the facebook page - it's fair to say we have a range of different opinions and some good discussions. I want everyone to be able to post without there being personal comments.

I take your point that because of the benefits of a Council house that supports the case for things like increasing rent for people on higher incomes. However, I don't think you can just ignore the issues in the private sector - otherwise you end up losing the advantages of one without tackling the disadvantages of the other.

Housing benefit does pay for itself in the sense that it comes from the central government and is therefore funded by taxpayers nationally rather than locally but it still represents a cost. But again - keep in mind that housing benefit pays for higher rents in the private sector. So if the goal is to reduce public expenditure you can't just ignore the issues that arise out of private housing.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
12:08pm Sat 5 Jan 13

@Russell

Why is their an assumption of interest. The level of debt is X and the rate of interest is Y; therefore the actual debt amount you be known not assumed. Is the interest rate variable?

I understand what the surplus represents which is why I said that 25% should be used to repay capital on the loans; rather than all of it thus allowing a significant sum for reinvestment. The fact that not one of the slides shows a repayment plan suggests how little interest in actually paying back the debt their is.

None of the slides show the real term benefits of each option. There is nothing that states, if we pay back the loan sooner, we can do this with the additional monies being saved from interest payments etc etc etc.

All the slides are doing is presenting some options without saying what each option in real terms is offering. Its just numbers.

Unless I missed it somewhere there is no statement to the existing running costs of "investment" i.e. repairs and upgrades. If that figure currently runs at £25m, then absolutely none of the options would allow for any debt repayment.

The facebook page is open for reading and therefore anyone can look up the details. I didn't join it. If someone posts such a comment on it then it is fair game to refer to it; even more so when they decide to go to the adver with their own little stories.

http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
9979278.Swindon_s_ho
using_boss_aims_to_c
ushion_needy/

So what are you doing about tacking the private sector renting issues? You've made several comments about their being issues in this area!

Incidentally what was the result of your letter to the housing minister?

Do you support the licensing of private landlords? Do you think it would be beneficial?

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
2:12pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Ash - on the slides we are trying to summarise a complex situation - when we took on the loan of £140million to pay the government - we took out a mix of loans - so as part of that we are assuming £5million for budgeting purposes - we are also looking at potential options over a long period of time which means there are more variables. There are any number of things that can be done in terms of investment - it could mean a number of new kitchens/bathrooms, it could mean building new houses - that's why consultation is important to get people discussing the issues.

On my plan for a back up fund, I am awaiting some more advice on the legal implications of it. I have not written to the Minsiter yet.

On private sector renting issues - the Council has limited powers but the point I am making is that it's not fair to suggest Council house tenants are costing the public purse because the ignores the higher cost of housing benefit paid to private landlords.

This Shelter report is really good on these points http://england.shelt
er.org.uk/__data/****
ets/pdf_file/0009/43
6275/Bricksorbenefit
sfullreport.pdf

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
2:35pm Sat 5 Jan 13

There are so many issues here it is hard to know where to start. Around 65% of tenants receive either full or part housing benefit and if rents go up those on full will have it increased and those on part will have the increase added to their benefit as they are assessed on the amount they can pay not what the rent is. So the rent increase wont acutally affect how much they pay just how much rent is received and spent on them, so that makes it pretty stupid really as of course they will want the maximum and they are in the majority. In reality very few actually get involved or bother to vote, its just the same old "busybodiesR us" brigade who chop and change at the top of the tenant groups and have done for many years. As others have said the more it goes up the more tax payers money is used for housing benefit, but i dont see tax payers getting a vote on what happens to their money, just those who are already benefitting from the welfare state at others expense it really is a wierd world. they want jam with it and cream on top of the jam.

They talk about those who qualify for it, but how many no longer do? we have thousands who qualify for housing still on the waiting list and thousands who no longer need it and if they appllied today wouldnt qualify anyway still in houses, again what a wierd way to carrry on. There are tens of thousands on over £100k incomes in social housing around the country and we wonder why there arent enough to go around. Everyone bleats on about the moraility of these big corporations avoiding paying tax (completely legal) but i dont see housing tenants who can afford to move out doing so, typical hypocricy of todays society one rule for them and one for everyone else.

Swindon does have a particularly high number of council properites in need of major repair or updates which doesnt help. The tenants decided to take on the debt and the interest payments rather than branch away so they cant complain when things arent done for them.

There is also talk of those unable to work. How many of those are unable to work because of their own fault? I know more than a few tenants (and yes a lot of other people too before you start accusing me of discrimination) who cant work because they are obese through no medical reason, just that they chose to adopt that lifestyle and now we have to pick up the tab! At least one council has the right idea on this and if they dont try and lose weight and become able to work they stop their benefits and quite right too.

The welfare state need a major reform. Only those who really need it should receive it but there should also be an element of responsibility by individuals to do they best they can to ensure they dont need it. People are very quick to stand up for their rights but equally as quick to forget that with rights go responsibilites. I have absolutely no problem with helping people who genuinely need help but there are far too many who think the world owes them a living and and pension for doing absolutely nothing in return and that has to stop, not just because the country cant afford it and will collapse if we continue to be a soft as we are now, but also to make it a fair society that eveyone seems to want. But too many dont really want that, they want something for nothing no questions asked and that has to stop. Tenants should start being grateful that they live in a country that provides so much for them and stop moaning. And tax payers should have more say in how their money is spent, did anyone say democracy? yeah right!

There are so many issues here it is hard to know where to start. Around 65% of tenants receive either full or part housing benefit and if rents go up those on full will have it increased and those on part will have the increase added to their benefit as they are assessed on the amount they can pay not what the rent is. So the rent increase wont acutally affect how much they pay just how much rent is received and spent on them, so that makes it pretty stupid really as of course they will want the maximum and they are in the majority. In reality very few actually get involved or bother to vote, its just the same old "busybodiesR us" brigade who chop and change at the top of the tenant groups and have done for many years. As others have said the more it goes up the more tax payers money is used for housing benefit, but i dont see tax payers getting a vote on what happens to their money, just those who are already benefitting from the welfare state at others expense it really is a wierd world. they want jam with it and cream on top of the jam. They talk about those who qualify for it, but how many no longer do? we have thousands who qualify for housing still on the waiting list and thousands who no longer need it and if they appllied today wouldnt qualify anyway still in houses, again what a wierd way to carrry on. There are tens of thousands on over £100k incomes in social housing around the country and we wonder why there arent enough to go around. Everyone bleats on about the moraility of these big corporations avoiding paying tax (completely legal) but i dont see housing tenants who can afford to move out doing so, typical hypocricy of todays society one rule for them and one for everyone else. Swindon does have a particularly high number of council properites in need of major repair or updates which doesnt help. The tenants decided to take on the debt and the interest payments rather than branch away so they cant complain when things arent done for them. There is also talk of those unable to work. How many of those are unable to work because of their own fault? I know more than a few tenants (and yes a lot of other people too before you start accusing me of discrimination) who cant work because they are obese through no medical reason, just that they chose to adopt that lifestyle and now we have to pick up the tab! At least one council has the right idea on this and if they dont try and lose weight and become able to work they stop their benefits and quite right too. The welfare state need a major reform. Only those who really need it should receive it but there should also be an element of responsibility by individuals to do they best they can to ensure they dont need it. People are very quick to stand up for their rights but equally as quick to forget that with rights go responsibilites. I have absolutely no problem with helping people who genuinely need help but there are far too many who think the world owes them a living and and pension for doing absolutely nothing in return and that has to stop, not just because the country cant afford it and will collapse if we continue to be a soft as we are now, but also to make it a fair society that eveyone seems to want. But too many dont really want that, they want something for nothing no questions asked and that has to stop. Tenants should start being grateful that they live in a country that provides so much for them and stop moaning. And tax payers should have more say in how their money is spent, did anyone say democracy? yeah right! house on the hill

Report this post »

Tim Newroman says...
10:23am Sun 6 Jan 13

Maybe something should be done about union leaders where both husband and wife are working and also receiving an income from their union members and who still continue to live in Council Housing in order to have the taxpapayer fund a large percentage of their accommodation costs.

Very few people object to housing the truly needy and unfortunate. However, at every turn there are smug chancers who we all know are there for an easy ride and because they realise they can exploit the system, and the rest of the population, far too easily.

Sadly, they are not a small minority, whatever the mendacious political parties may tell you. They know that the balance of power in this country is now held entirely by the 53% of the electorate which is takes more from the state than they contribute. Behind closed doors, the politicians know better than anyone what's going on, but in public they have to continue the party line untruths. As ever, it's all about votes and they have no choice but to continue spending our money in order to buy them.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
10:52am Sun 6 Jan 13

Tim/House I agree with the need for benefit reform but how the reform is debated is important so that people in need do not feel alienated. The benefit cap is coming in April, tenants of working age with a spare room will have their benefit reduced and things like increasing the rent based on ability to pay and the idea of fixed term tenancies are also being looked at. There are pros and cons to any reform so this all needs to be discussed.

Report this post »

Empty Car Park says...
5:43pm Sun 6 Jan 13

13 years of Labour eh? Tim

Report this post »

itsamess3 says...
6:09pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Technically it is a simple matter to get the information on anyone summoned to court as to a council tax liability--that is despite the councils continuous abuse of the rules by summoning defaulters to court who find there is no court in session to hear the cases-just council officers redirecting attendees to the council offices to make a payment plan--inclusive of the summons costs.
Thus there has to be a public record via a list of summoned persons.

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
7:38pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Russell I guess it all depends on your definition of the words "in need". There are thousands of council tenants who earn more than I do and are no more "in need" of a subsidised council house that you are. As others have said, pretty much no one is againt the idea of those who do really need it having our help. For some that may sadly last a lifetime but for most they may only need the welfare state for a period of time, but they are still allowed to stay in subsidsed social housing despite the ever increasing waiting lists. Benefits are assessed on need and so should social housing be too.

But as Tim has said, the number who "play the game" is nothing like as small as politicians would have us believe. More and more are realising it actually does pay not to work and once there and once on benefit there is almost no incentive to work. If you are on benefits in a council house and continue to breed you just get given a bigger house and more benefits thank you very much! And what of those who had good jobs in their working life but instead of saving for their retirement they spent it all and are now totally dependent on the tax payer to support them. Why should the responsible subsidse the irresponsible?

The additional room reduction is well overdue, but if you feel that those who have more than they need should be penalised what about those who earn good money but are still allowed to pay £75 a week for a 3 bed semi at about half the rate the rest of us have to pay on similar incomes? and that only applies to those on benefits, those who pay their own rent but have more rooms than they need are still allowed to carry on as before. Crazy!

Means testing benefits is all very well in theory but in reality you already receive more in taxes from the better off and now you want to take away their child benefit and cold winter payments. If you feel those who can afford it have some sort of moral responsibilty to do more why are those on good incomes allowed to stay in council houses, its the same principals. Where is their moral obligation to help those less fortunate, they just stick 2 fingers up at them.

Yes we need to reform the welfare state and fast but we also need to teach responsibilty and not reward irresponsibility. And if people wont be responsible then sadly we will have to penalise them. The country is going broke and we cant afford freeloaders anymore. Living on benefits/social housing must never pay or be a lifestyle choice it should be a safety net for those in real need only and if those who can work choose not to then they should not receive tax payers money its an insult to those of us who are responsible and do work hard.

Getting back on topic as I said earlier, two thirds of tenants are on full or part housing benefit so any rent increases dont affect their wallets, but they do have a vested interest in voting for the higest rise as this will geve them the largest increase in the service they receive. What a completely ludicrous system, whats next council staff voting on thier own pay rises? The council should decide the rent rise and no one else not least because responsibility lies with the councillors to do it. But of course if they let others vote they cant be accused of making bad decisions as they just blame the tenants. Easy life!!!!!

Russell I guess it all depends on your definition of the words "in need". There are thousands of council tenants who earn more than I do and are no more "in need" of a subsidised council house that you are. As others have said, pretty much no one is againt the idea of those who do really need it having our help. For some that may sadly last a lifetime but for most they may only need the welfare state for a period of time, but they are still allowed to stay in subsidsed social housing despite the ever increasing waiting lists. Benefits are assessed on need and so should social housing be too. But as Tim has said, the number who "play the game" is nothing like as small as politicians would have us believe. More and more are realising it actually does pay not to work and once there and once on benefit there is almost no incentive to work. If you are on benefits in a council house and continue to breed you just get given a bigger house and more benefits thank you very much! And what of those who had good jobs in their working life but instead of saving for their retirement they spent it all and are now totally dependent on the tax payer to support them. Why should the responsible subsidse the irresponsible? The additional room reduction is well overdue, but if you feel that those who have more than they need should be penalised what about those who earn good money but are still allowed to pay £75 a week for a 3 bed semi at about half the rate the rest of us have to pay on similar incomes? and that only applies to those on benefits, those who pay their own rent but have more rooms than they need are still allowed to carry on as before. Crazy! Means testing benefits is all very well in theory but in reality you already receive more in taxes from the better off and now you want to take away their child benefit and cold winter payments. If you feel those who can afford it have some sort of moral responsibilty to do more why are those on good incomes allowed to stay in council houses, its the same principals. Where is their moral obligation to help those less fortunate, they just stick 2 fingers up at them. Yes we need to reform the welfare state and fast but we also need to teach responsibilty and not reward irresponsibility. And if people wont be responsible then sadly we will have to penalise them. The country is going broke and we cant afford freeloaders anymore. Living on benefits/social housing must never pay or be a lifestyle choice it should be a safety net for those in real need only and if those who can work choose not to then they should not receive tax payers money its an insult to those of us who are responsible and do work hard. Getting back on topic as I said earlier, two thirds of tenants are on full or part housing benefit so any rent increases dont affect their wallets, but they do have a vested interest in voting for the higest rise as this will geve them the largest increase in the service they receive. What a completely ludicrous system, whats next council staff voting on thier own pay rises? The council should decide the rent rise and no one else not least because responsibility lies with the councillors to do it. But of course if they let others vote they cant be accused of making bad decisions as they just blame the tenants. Easy life!!!!! house on the hill

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
8:15pm Sun 6 Jan 13

House - I see where you are coming from I think we agree on the need for form.

Councillors will decide the rent rise - this is a consultation. The final decision will be made by Council. I think consultation is appropriate.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:25pm Sun 6 Jan 13

@House on the hill

You are spot on.

@Russell

You keep talking about a need for reform, but what are you actually doing about it? Personally, at the council level, and nationally at the party political level.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
10:26pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Ash - we have consulted on the "pay to stay" proposal and fixed term tenancies. We will await further info from the government on pay to stay and debate fixed term tenancies in due course.

The Council voted on the reform to the Council tax benefit before Christmas.

As a local Councillor we are fairly limited in our powers so far as benefits reform is concerned. I try to encourage balanced debate on the topic by posting on sites like this, discussing on the housing facebook page and when I do media interviews.

Report this post »

LordAshOfTheBrake says...
8:46am Mon 7 Jan 13

@Russell

So really all your actually doing is talking and debating....

From reading through the information, it would seem that if Swindon council increase rents then since housing benefit (which seems to be a sticking point) is paid from central government it could be used as a vehicle to increase monies from central government by the back door. Agreed it increases the tax liability on central government and the money has to be used on housing etc, but thats where creative accounting comes in!

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
1:32pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Ash, the main problem is that the welfare state is so vast and complex, not many really understand it. It would also not be a vote winner if politicians were seen to be too heavy handed, but I think the fact that we were running out of money to fund it in its present state will necesitate the need for change sooner rather than later.

Russell, I dont think I have ever been on the same page as a politician before, its quite a change!

Report this post »

itsamess3 says...
6:00pm Mon 7 Jan 13

I believe some on here have lost sight of the issue of the discussion and are trying to play at politics.
Councillor Holland after all is an elected councillor and has the remit of housing issues--not party politics.
However - as he is also a well respected barrister with a vast knowledge of public law--he is a great asset to our council-despite being unable to give legal advice.
Few if any of our councillors take time to face the public on this forum as he has.
It is to my knowledge that he has when asked to resolve some complex issues for tenants he did so and very quickly and to both tenants and officers satisfaction.
This consultation is for the tenants to raise any issues and ultimately to ensure the funding meets the needs of those tenants which is a standalone account where no council tax is used to support it.
Several options are open to you-if you believe any councillor is not giving their best--vote them out-if you believe govt has got it wrong--contact your MP and present a case. If you believe govt has set an unfair budget for a council via grants etc as the more information that supports that notion could be looked into.
If you think you can do better than any councillor--put yourself up for election.

Report this post »

Russell Holland says...
12:15am Tue 8 Jan 13

Ash - at this stage we are talking and debating. We don't have powers to change the law. However, I am trying to publicise the debate in as balanced a way possible. About 40% of our housing income comes from the housing benefit which you are right is centrally funded. But again - I come back to the point that private housing can be more expensive than public.

House - I think we have agreed on broad principles before - our differences of opinion seem to be more about the extent. Freezing rents may be popular with tenants this year - but we have to balance (1) keepin rents affordable (2) investment (3) debt repayment - taking into account both present and future tenants. Given that tenants who are not eligible for benefits - have the benefit of significantly cheaper than market rents - I don't think a modest increase is unreasonable. Even at our top increase it would be about £3 per week.

I agree that the scale and complexity of the welfare state makes any wholesale reform difficult. I know there is a lot of concern about universal credit -but it may simplify things - awaiting with interest the outcome of the pilot areas.

itsamess - thank you. The nice thing about housing - is that it is not (or should not be) that political. We have a budget to spend and we want to do our best for tenants. The officer team really are committed to doing their best and we do get good feedback from tenants.

Any tenants who are interested can join the facebook page.

For general info - the Housing Matters magazine is online as well for anyone to have a look at http://www.swindon.g
ov.uk/hs/hs-councilh
ousing/hs-getinvolve
d/Pages/hs-getinvolv
ed-housingmattersmag
azine.aspx

Report this post »

house on the hill says...
2:29pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Russell, my point all along has been over the issue that 2/3rds of tenants will not be affected in their pockets by any rent rise as their housing benefit will increase to cover it. Having a vote where that many people have a clear interest in raising rents as much as possible as it will increase the service they receive (at tax payers expense) just doesnt make any sense to me. I am not against a rise just the principal of the vote and consultation with such a conflict of interest

Report this post »

MrAngry says...
5:20pm Tue 8 Jan 13

HOTH. I made a similar point on a previous housing thread. A consultation should involve everyone who is affected by the decision, ie, tenants, potential tenants and tax payers who will pick up the housing benefit bill.

For example, the 'pay to stay' or fixed term tenancy issues effect those on the waiting list as much as those already housed. The wealthy union leader living in a cheap house gets a say but not the poor family stuck in a B&B.

Housing benefit is another issue that needs looking at.

When I was at university on a student grant (that ages me), I rented a cheap room in a grotty shared house at the cost of approx £30/week. I couldn't understand how some of my friends could afford to pay £60/week for much nicer accommodation. Then at the end of the year we were advised to claim housing benefit.

Anything over £25/week was handed back as benefit. There was no incentive to find an affordable room (quite the opposite). The irony was that more benefit actually went to students with wealthier parents as they could subsidise there kids until the benefit came through. Those from poorer backgrounds couldn't afford to pay up front.

Also private landlords had little incentive to reduce rent as the housing benefit covered any increase.

This was in the early 1990's, so the system may have changed, but it is an example of how benefits get manipulated by those who know how to play the game.

Report this post »

Swindon tenants consulted over rent (From Swindon Advertiser)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

Swindon Council consults tenants over rent

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies