Thanks, thats very interesting. The whole system is a joke, social housing is meant to be affordable, properly affordable. In an area where the average wage is high, it means that those on low wages because they are cleaners and shop assistants or carers, where are they meant to live?
It just puts pressure on the public purse in terms of HB and WTC and risks evictions and homelessness.
More social housing to be built by government is the only answer as far as I can see.
Absolutely.
There is apparently real concern about that, especially in London. There is a form of social cleansing going on, much of it under the radar. Local councils in some parts of London are actually paying for their tenants to move to cheaper areas in the Midlands and North as London becomes more and more unaffordable for example. But many of these people are the ones who work in the low paid sectors, street cleaners, waiting staff, cleaners, retail workers and the like. As more and more move out, if it continues, it's going to become more difficult for companies to find staff to do those jobs. The slack will, in all likelihood, be taken up by that subset of immigrants who sometimes live in appalling conditions, or 10 or 20 to a house. That in turn will possibly lead to more and more complaints from the right wingers in those areas, without any hint of irony that it is their policies that are causing it.
So basically, the argument for segregation is borne through envy, jealousy and the perceived injustice that the poor have the nerve to live in a home you cannot afford and that the housing they have should go to better deserving people like the middle and upper class - or more likely, yourself. Plus that the poor deserve every bit of punishment they get just to make yourself feel better and develop some type of vengeance for a perceived injustice. Am I in the ball park there with supporters of segregation and social cleansing?
I see a lot of condemnation and sheer anger at people who have the audacity and gall to be poor, but no solutions to the core problems as to why there is poverty, inequality and the housing crisis in this country.
That's rather a lot of projection there. I am merely suggesting that if tenants don't like the fact that they don't get glitzy lobbies with their masssively subsidised housing, there are masses of people who will accept it. There are people who don't get the luxury of being given subsidised housing who have to accept far worse and pay far more for it.
Calling it segregation and "social cleansing" is rather idiotic. Are you taking your talking points from the Guardian?
If a tenant wants to use the glitzy lobbies, they can pay the enormous service fees that come with it.
No-one gains from creating ghettos for the poor and separating them from everyone else. That's why the council house building in this country was one of the better ideas ever thought of. Estates sprang up all over, mixing people of different backgrounds. It's just a shame that the policy of being allowed to buy them was brought in.
Council houses of old weren't exactly mansions on country piles though, which is what the Guardian is suggesting should happen - that tenants in subsidised housing should somehow get the same mod cons as private tenants who pay enormous fees for it.
Never having right to buy wouldn't really have fixed the situation, there's still way more demand.
A lot of people are missing the point here - its the HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS WHO WANT THE SEPARATE ENTRANCES.
There is also a practical reason for two different entrances. There may be one block, but it will likely be split into two different 'cores', completely separated from each other, with their own fire exits and lifts. The Housing Association core will be fitted out using a spec aimed at keeping maintenance costs low, and being easy to clean.
I work in work in housing so know what I am talking about. A lot of what has been posted on here is complete nonsense. To clear things up:
Service charges are covered by housing benefit
It is not easy to evict a social housing tenant for anti social behaviour, its actually extremely difficult and time consuming
Flats for housing association tenants are often larger than the private sale flats in the same building
Even at shared ownership schemes, many associations will separate the shared owners from the tenants. Unfortunately a minority of tenants do tend to spoil things for everyone else. A big issue is badly behaved kids using communal areas as a play area.
The Tories are not to blame for separate entrances. This has been going on for years as it just common sense property and tenancy management.
I know lots of council housing tenants who don't drink or smoke, let alone take other drugs. You appear to be taring everyone with the same bruth.
And of course no private tenants ever caused any trouble.
No I am talking about my experience of living in my part owned flat, when we had no council tenanted flats we all managed to get alone nicely cared for the environment (we had to pay for it's upkeep) and tried not to be a nuisance to each other. Not so the new wave of council tenants.
And BTW I was brought up in a council house from the age of 5 until I married at 21 so I have nothing against council tenants at all, we should have more council houses built IMO.
Just shows the conservatives think they can treat the poor how they like.
Tower Hamlets is the council, a Directly Elected Mayor , no overall control with Labour having the most seats and Tower Hamlets First coming in second the Conservatives only have four seats on this council so I fail to see what they have to do with it. And when the local council gave permission and negotiated the development it was Labour controlled and the government in power nationally was Labour.
All this to one side surely rather than trying to claim social cleansing/segregation by the government who have nothing to do with this address why not ask the Housing Association who asked for this in the negotiations for the building.
That's rather a lot of projection there. I am merely suggesting that if tenants don't like the fact that they don't get glitzy lobbies with their masssively subsidised housing, there are masses of people who will accept it. There are people who don't get the luxury of being given subsidised housing who have to accept far worse and pay far more for it.
Calling it segregation and "social cleansing" is rather idiotic. Are you taking your talking points from the Guardian?
If a tenant wants to use the glitzy lobbies, they can pay the enormous service fees that come with it.
What would you call it, justifiable, justice? And I ask you the same question, what would you do with the poor?
That's rather a lot of projection there. I am merely suggesting that if tenants don't like the fact that they don't get glitzy lobbies with their masssively subsidised housing, there are masses of people who will accept it. There are people who don't get the luxury of being given subsidised housing who have to accept far worse and pay far more for it.
You do realise that private housing is massively subsidised by the government in its artificially propping up of prices?
What would you call it, justifiable, justice? And I ask you the same question, what would you do with the poor?
So do you want every building to be the same and those who pay more for something better with extra services cannot have it ? I wonder if the Housing Association residents of this particular building feel hard done by ?
Let the government pull the plug on the private housing market, stop subsidising it with tax payers money. Instead spend the money on council stock with a nice lobby for the council tenants and let the now pot less private tenants who's house prices have fallen through the floor use the back. See if they think its okay then.
Let the government pull the plug on the private housing market, stop subsidising it, instead spend the money on a nice lobby for the tenants and let the now pot less private tenants who's house prices have fallen through the floor use the back. See if they think its okay then.
That just comes across as bitter rather than anything practical , are you aware that the majority of us who buy our own homes have worked bloody hard for them and haven't been handed them on a plate.
Basically, what is behind the anger in the below statement?
Anger? There is no anger, its a factual statement. We are all lucky that there is a system in place for social housing. The concept of it has been undermined by successive governments, no one wants to take responsibility for affordable housing (and by that I mean privately owned housing as well as social housing).
What then undermines the arguments against the dismantling of the welfare state are statements that the 'poor' are being punished by having to use a different entrance to their housing in a dual purpose block. This is laughable and does a lot of damage to the valid and genuine concerns about welfare/housing/services aimed for the vulnerable.
Firstly, to have a large spacious, cheap (by local definition) property, for life in an expensive city is a valuable situation to be in.
Secondly, I work at the coal face of this every day, trying to obtain accommodation and services for those in need. I can tell you that when property is allocated providing security of tenure, the idea that tenants are further disadvantaged because they have to use a different door is a joke.
There is apparently real concern about that, especially in London. There is a form of social cleansing going on, much of it under the radar. Local councils in some parts of London are actually paying for their tenants to move to cheaper areas in the Midlands and North as London becomes more and more unaffordable for example. But many of these people are the ones who work in the low paid sectors, street cleaners, waiting staff, cleaners, retail workers and the like. As more and more move out, if it continues, it's going to become more difficult for companies to find staff to do those jobs. The slack will, in all likelihood, be taken up by that subset of immigrants who sometimes live in appalling conditions, or 10 or 20 to a house. That in turn will possibly lead to more and more complaints from the right wingers in those areas, without any hint of irony that it is their policies that are causing it.
My OH is a housing officer in one of the few LB that still own a huge amount of their own housing stock, not sure how long that will continue.
If I bought an apartment in this building I would feel uncomfortable about the 2 entrances.
In fact I would possibly be thinking about Karma. It would be clear to me that I am enjoying the good entrance and the fact that I do not have to tolerate using the poor entrance. But then....... a plane hits the fire escape and lands in a burning heap right on top of the posh entrance.
I have to confess to you that in these few seconds I would now be having tiny doubts about the wonderful decision to enclose me in a gated community with no access to the poor entrance/exit.
That's rather a lot of projection there. I am merely suggesting that if tenants don't like the fact that they don't get glitzy lobbies with their masssively subsidised housing, there are masses of people who will accept it. There are people who don't get the luxury of being given subsidised housing who have to accept far worse and pay far more for it.
Calling it segregation and "social cleansing" is rather idiotic. Are you taking your talking points from the Guardian?
If a tenant wants to use the glitzy lobbies, they can pay the enormous service fees that come with it.
Yes totally, the real issue with housing and the welfare state gets swept under the carpet by an argument about doors! Its unbelievable. People are missing the bigger picture.
A lot of people are missing the point here - its the HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS WHO WANT THE SEPARATE ENTRANCES.
There is also a practical reason for two different entrances. There may be one block, but it will likely be split into two different 'cores', completely separated from each other, with their own fire exits and lifts. The Housing Association core will be fitted out using a spec aimed at keeping maintenance costs low, and being easy to clean.
I work in work in housing so know what I am talking about. A lot of what has been posted on here is complete nonsense. To clear things up:
Service charges are covered by housing benefit
It is not easy to evict a social housing tenant for anti social behaviour, its actually extremely difficult and time consuming
Flats for housing association tenants are often larger than the private sale flats in the same building
Even at shared ownership schemes, many associations will separate the shared owners from the tenants. Unfortunately a minority of tenants do tend to spoil things for everyone else. A big issue is badly behaved kids using communal areas as a play area.
The Tories are not to blame for separate entrances. This has been going on for years as it just common sense property and tenancy management.
Very few service charges are covered by HB, something like communal cleaning is or communal heating but not gyms, concierge, pools etc. They also have to be reasonable and not excessive.
A lot of people are missing the point here - its the HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS WHO WANT THE SEPARATE ENTRANCES.
There is also a practical reason for two different entrances. There may be one block, but it will likely be split into two different 'cores', completely separated from each other, with their own fire exits and lifts. The Housing Association core will be fitted out using a spec aimed at keeping maintenance costs low, and being easy to clean.
I work in work in housing so know what I am talking about. A lot of what has been posted on here is complete nonsense. To clear things up:
Service charges are covered by housing benefit
It is not easy to evict a social housing tenant for anti social behaviour, its actually extremely difficult and time consuming
Flats for housing association tenants are often larger than the private sale flats in the same building
Even at shared ownership schemes, many associations will separate the shared owners from the tenants. Unfortunately a minority of tenants do tend to spoil things for everyone else. A big issue is badly behaved kids using communal areas as a play area.
The Tories are not to blame for separate entrances. This has been going on for years as it just common sense property and tenancy management.
I was quite clearly told when I enquired that service charges are not included in housing benefit, at least not in this area. I was considering renting a flat in a block that had modest service charge, but didn't bother when told that.
I would guess then that the rules vary around the country.
Very few service charges are covered by HB, something like communal cleaning is or communal heating but not gyms, concierge, pools etc. They also have to be reasonable and not excessive.
Well of course gyms and pools are not covered but cleaning, pest control, bulk refuse collection etc are. Repairs and building insurance is not paid by tenants via service charge as it would be illegal to charge them for these.
Very few service charges are covered by HB, something like communal cleaning is or communal heating but not gyms, concierge, pools etc. They also have to be reasonable and not excessive.
As far as I am aware they are not covered at all. Although if the council own the building they can waive the charges which is what they do here for the council tenants.
I was quite clearly told when I enquired that service charges are not included in housing benefit, at least not in this area. I was considering renting a flat in a block that had modest service charge, but didn't bother when told that.
I would guess then that the rules vary around the country.
No the rules are the same across England, you were misinformed.
As far as I am aware they are not covered at all. Although if the council own the building they can waive the charges which is what they do here for the council tenants.
Which council is that? I'd be amazed if any council can afford to wave service charges.
If I bought an apartment in this building I would feel uncomfortable about the 2 entrances.
In fact I would possibly be thinking about Karma. It would be clear to me that I am enjoying the good entrance and the fact that I do not have to tolerate using the poor entrance. But then....... a plane hits the fire escape and lands in a burning heap right on top of the posh entrance.
I have to confess to you that in these few seconds I would now be having tiny doubts about the wonderful decision to enclose me in a gated community with no access to the poor entrance/exit.
Not to worry Eh?
The 'poor' entrances are generally smart and well built. Housing Associations are often a lot tougher during snagging than the developers are.
As far as I am aware they are not covered at all. Although if the council own the building they can waive the charges which is what they do here for the council tenants.
They mostly arent but if a block of flats has some communal heating that the tenant has no control over is provided, say for £1.50 a week or something, then if it is integral to the accommodation provision then it can be included. It is as you say subject to some discretion at times but the less council owned property there is nowadays, the less these charges are being eligible for HB. But, the complication in cases like this story is that the HA has to tender out and go through a million processes for the service provision, the private block may have a share of freehold situation or LTD company who use particular companies to provide these services which means that if the HA didnt want to use that company but the private owners block did, what happens then?
So do you want every building to be the same and those who pay more for something better with extra services cannot have it ? I wonder if the Housing Association residents of this particular building feel hard done by ?
Plus people paying for extra services such as pools, gyms and concierge are paying for more local jobs and more VAT and income tax receipts.
Comments
Absolutely.
There is apparently real concern about that, especially in London. There is a form of social cleansing going on, much of it under the radar. Local councils in some parts of London are actually paying for their tenants to move to cheaper areas in the Midlands and North as London becomes more and more unaffordable for example. But many of these people are the ones who work in the low paid sectors, street cleaners, waiting staff, cleaners, retail workers and the like. As more and more move out, if it continues, it's going to become more difficult for companies to find staff to do those jobs. The slack will, in all likelihood, be taken up by that subset of immigrants who sometimes live in appalling conditions, or 10 or 20 to a house. That in turn will possibly lead to more and more complaints from the right wingers in those areas, without any hint of irony that it is their policies that are causing it.
That's rather a lot of projection there. I am merely suggesting that if tenants don't like the fact that they don't get glitzy lobbies with their masssively subsidised housing, there are masses of people who will accept it. There are people who don't get the luxury of being given subsidised housing who have to accept far worse and pay far more for it.
Calling it segregation and "social cleansing" is rather idiotic. Are you taking your talking points from the Guardian?
If a tenant wants to use the glitzy lobbies, they can pay the enormous service fees that come with it.
Council houses of old weren't exactly mansions on country piles though, which is what the Guardian is suggesting should happen - that tenants in subsidised housing should somehow get the same mod cons as private tenants who pay enormous fees for it.
Never having right to buy wouldn't really have fixed the situation, there's still way more demand.
There is also a practical reason for two different entrances. There may be one block, but it will likely be split into two different 'cores', completely separated from each other, with their own fire exits and lifts. The Housing Association core will be fitted out using a spec aimed at keeping maintenance costs low, and being easy to clean.
I work in work in housing so know what I am talking about. A lot of what has been posted on here is complete nonsense. To clear things up:
Service charges are covered by housing benefit
It is not easy to evict a social housing tenant for anti social behaviour, its actually extremely difficult and time consuming
Flats for housing association tenants are often larger than the private sale flats in the same building
Even at shared ownership schemes, many associations will separate the shared owners from the tenants. Unfortunately a minority of tenants do tend to spoil things for everyone else. A big issue is badly behaved kids using communal areas as a play area.
The Tories are not to blame for separate entrances. This has been going on for years as it just common sense property and tenancy management.
No I am talking about my experience of living in my part owned flat, when we had no council tenanted flats we all managed to get alone nicely cared for the environment (we had to pay for it's upkeep) and tried not to be a nuisance to each other. Not so the new wave of council tenants.
And BTW I was brought up in a council house from the age of 5 until I married at 21 so I have nothing against council tenants at all, we should have more council houses built IMO.
Tower Hamlets is the council, a Directly Elected Mayor , no overall control with Labour having the most seats and Tower Hamlets First coming in second the Conservatives only have four seats on this council so I fail to see what they have to do with it. And when the local council gave permission and negotiated the development it was Labour controlled and the government in power nationally was Labour.
All this to one side surely rather than trying to claim social cleansing/segregation by the government who have nothing to do with this address why not ask the Housing Association who asked for this in the negotiations for the building.
You do realise that private housing is massively subsidised by the government in its artificially propping up of prices?
So do you want every building to be the same and those who pay more for something better with extra services cannot have it ? I wonder if the Housing Association residents of this particular building feel hard done by ?
That just comes across as bitter rather than anything practical , are you aware that the majority of us who buy our own homes have worked bloody hard for them and haven't been handed them on a plate.
Anger? There is no anger, its a factual statement. We are all lucky that there is a system in place for social housing. The concept of it has been undermined by successive governments, no one wants to take responsibility for affordable housing (and by that I mean privately owned housing as well as social housing).
What then undermines the arguments against the dismantling of the welfare state are statements that the 'poor' are being punished by having to use a different entrance to their housing in a dual purpose block. This is laughable and does a lot of damage to the valid and genuine concerns about welfare/housing/services aimed for the vulnerable.
Firstly, to have a large spacious, cheap (by local definition) property, for life in an expensive city is a valuable situation to be in.
Secondly, I work at the coal face of this every day, trying to obtain accommodation and services for those in need. I can tell you that when property is allocated providing security of tenure, the idea that tenants are further disadvantaged because they have to use a different door is a joke.
My OH is a housing officer in one of the few LB that still own a huge amount of their own housing stock, not sure how long that will continue.
In fact I would possibly be thinking about Karma. It would be clear to me that I am enjoying the good entrance and the fact that I do not have to tolerate using the poor entrance. But then....... a plane hits the fire escape and lands in a burning heap right on top of the posh entrance.
I have to confess to you that in these few seconds I would now be having tiny doubts about the wonderful decision to enclose me in a gated community with no access to the poor entrance/exit.
Not to worry Eh?
Yes totally, the real issue with housing and the welfare state gets swept under the carpet by an argument about doors! Its unbelievable. People are missing the bigger picture.
Very few service charges are covered by HB, something like communal cleaning is or communal heating but not gyms, concierge, pools etc. They also have to be reasonable and not excessive.
I was quite clearly told when I enquired that service charges are not included in housing benefit, at least not in this area. I was considering renting a flat in a block that had modest service charge, but didn't bother when told that.
I would guess then that the rules vary around the country.
Well of course gyms and pools are not covered but cleaning, pest control, bulk refuse collection etc are. Repairs and building insurance is not paid by tenants via service charge as it would be illegal to charge them for these.
As far as I am aware they are not covered at all. Although if the council own the building they can waive the charges which is what they do here for the council tenants.
No the rules are the same across England, you were misinformed.
Which council is that? I'd be amazed if any council can afford to wave service charges.
The 'poor' entrances are generally smart and well built. Housing Associations are often a lot tougher during snagging than the developers are.
How is the government massively subsidising private housing?
They mostly arent but if a block of flats has some communal heating that the tenant has no control over is provided, say for £1.50 a week or something, then if it is integral to the accommodation provision then it can be included. It is as you say subject to some discretion at times but the less council owned property there is nowadays, the less these charges are being eligible for HB. But, the complication in cases like this story is that the HA has to tender out and go through a million processes for the service provision, the private block may have a share of freehold situation or LTD company who use particular companies to provide these services which means that if the HA didnt want to use that company but the private owners block did, what happens then?
Plus people paying for extra services such as pools, gyms and concierge are paying for more local jobs and more VAT and income tax receipts.