£1,500 incentive to move to a smaller council home (From Basildon Recorder)

what is going on on this site today?
All the latest stories are initially appearing in full on the front page - this is the third (one seems to have been truncuated into a synopsis)


s the person who knows how to do the job off on holiday today?

This fifty thousand pound scheme will only facilitate 33.33 instances of fifteen hundred pounds...


here's a radical idea for Basildon Council, how about including a few thousand Council houses in the grand total of new housing units you're planning in the area?

I think a better scheme would be that each household is assessed every five or ten years. If your needs are not as great then you MUST move to a smaller property offered by the council (also moving expenses paid) or, if it is found you are on a high income, you must give up your right to social housing altogether. All council property should be allocated on a "need" basis.

The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:
what is going on on this site today?
All the latest stories are initially appearing in full on the front page - this is the third (one seems to have been truncuated into a synopsis)


s the person who knows how to do the job off on holiday today?

It's got to be a trainee - there's no web formating either. Every journalist knows when writing for the web, each paragraph has to have a line break between it. Makes it easier to read on a screen.

What is going on today Echo?

emcee wrote:
I think a better scheme would be that each household is assessed every five or ten years. If your needs are not as great then you MUST move to a smaller property offered by the council (also moving expenses paid) or, if it is found you are on a high income, you must give up your right to social housing altogether. All council property should be allocated on a "need" basis.

I don't agree.

People should not be compulsorily uprooted and moved around will-nilly at the whim of the Council without being adequately compensated.

In other words, pensioners give up your homes so teenage families who dont bother with using protection can have them

SpiffSpaff84 wrote:
In other words, pensioners give up your homes so teenage families who dont bother with using protection can have them

go for it dishdash. this scheme sounds perfect for you

There has been talk that this is going to be brought in next year, and NOT just in Basildon, but all over the UK.

I live alone in a 2-bedroom Senior Citizen bungalow, and if I have company come to stay, I have a spare room for them to sleep in, and been assured IF the changes do come in, I will be able to stay where I am.

Asbo what are you doing indoors? Its school kicking out time, or "flash hour" as your sort call it.

throw the larger house two family out or pensioner, and move in some more undesirables from the east end with 10 kids more like

Stop giving the immigrants houses. Theres a foreign family just been given one in Wickford its a 4 bedroom house off swan lane. 4 Kids and the mum cant speak a word of English. What do they want to give the 3 4 and 5 bedroom houses to these immigrants who have paid nothing into the system.

Immigrant families should never have been given council homes if they cant affort to buy a home or pay a mortgage they have no reason to be here

SpiffSpaff84 wrote:
Immigrant families should never have been given council homes if they cant affort to buy a home or pay a mortgage they have no reason to be here

We agree 100 percent with your statement. But many dogooders will disagree

SpiffSpaff84 wrote:
Asbo what are you doing indoors? Its school kicking out time, or "flash hour" as your sort call it.

????? haven't you got some showers to mop gym boy?

richcarol wrote:

SpiffSpaff84 wrote:
Immigrant families should never have been given council homes if they cant affort to buy a home or pay a mortgage they have no reason to be here

We agree 100 percent with your statement. But many dogooders will disagree

for do gooders should read people with a brain. so that rules you and dishdash out

emcee I was gonna say agree with you entirely, soothchurch59, dont agre with you, was gonna say are you a council tenant? Then i read SpiffSpaff84, yes i see your point about the teenagers, fully agree, and they should have to live overcrowed with their parents!! Pensioners should only need a one bed place.richcarol fully agree. This has to be loked at sensible the council own the properties so they should decide sensibly who lives there, 1person 1 bed, maybe the same for two persons . English Familes taking the larger properties. Others as mentioned by richcarol to join the list right at the bottom -Sorry and all that. If the council needs someone to allocate with an unbiased view :0) I am your man(woman)!!

The Cater Wood Creeper wrote:
This fifty thousand pound scheme will only facilitate 33.33 instances of fifteen hundred pounds...


here's a radical idea for Basildon Council, how about including a few thousand Council houses in the grand total of new housing units you're planning in the area?

Oh, Cater, I sat there with my counting beads and worked that out, then went to post about that ,and the lack of council houses amongst these "Affordable" new builds and you've done it all, and at lunchtime. I might just as well go down the pub then!

naughtyladyofshadyla
ne wrote:
emcee I was gonna say agree with you entirely, soothchurch59, dont agre with you, was gonna say are you a council tenant? Then i read SpiffSpaff84, yes i see your point about the teenagers, fully agree, and they should have to live overcrowed with their parents!! Pensioners should only need a one bed place.richcarol fully agree. This has to be loked at sensible the council own the properties so they should decide sensibly who lives there, 1person 1 bed, maybe the same for two persons . English Familes taking the larger properties. Others as mentioned by richcarol to join the list right at the bottom -Sorry and all that. If the council needs someone to allocate with an unbiased view :0) I am your man(woman)!!

'soothchurch59, dont agre with you, was gonna say are you a council tenant?'

On a scale of Streisand to Manilow, how nosy are you?

Surely this is a bit unfair on the likes of me and thousands of others who work hard, pay private rent, council tax etc. Will the council give me £1500 towards the cost of moving house? As usual the people on benefits, living in cheap council houses get the better hand in life.

Lets get this right.
They get free home,free council tax,DLA,JSL,child support ,housing support,free school dinners,free taxis,free car if sick,free travel to hospital and in return just lay there watching Jeremy Kyle on their enormous TV's , eating family chicken buckets,staring at their iPhone 4 in one hand with an Xbox in the other waiting for a stomach band.
Now they will get even more money for doing nothing..or should i say KFC and iphone vouchers...shocking!
!!!!!!!!!!!!

emcee wrote:
I think a better scheme would be that each household is assessed every five or ten years. If your needs are not as great then you MUST move to a smaller property offered by the council (also moving expenses paid) or, if it is found you are on a high income, you must give up your right to social housing altogether. All council property should be allocated on a "need" basis.

They don't need to force anyone to move. Give them the option to stay if they will take in lodgers to make use of the unused bedrooms.

lost_scotsman wrote:
Surely this is a bit unfair on the likes of me and thousands of others who work hard, pay private rent, council tax etc. Will the council give me £1500 towards the cost of moving house? As usual the people on benefits, living in cheap council houses get the better hand in life.

What a sad case then. So you think people in council houses don't work? don't pay council tax? You do not live in a council house? well that's a shame for you. When I started work, back in 1764, the hardest working sector of this country had little or no chance of living in anything BUT a council house. The chance of a working class man earning enough to raise a deposit for a mortgage was very remote. However, they paid their taxes and their rates, under a fairer rating sytem and did not receive income tax relief against their mortgage. Life was tough, most workers had to pay for their last weeks food on Friday, and that took a large chunck of their money. As the unions worked to better the lot of those workers willing to fight the imbalance they got a little better off and many, via the right to buy scheme stepped up a notch. However, many many of those in Council houses are now old and alone and live in a house that is now too big for them. These are the main target of the incentive. I know down sizing in Southend a year ago worked out at £500 a bedroom. the dining room was counted as a bedroom for this purpose, hence the £1500 for a 3 bedroom plus dining rooom down to a one bedroom. Now you say that is unfair? Tell me how.

I really cannot understand the viewpoint of some on here. V. Rand points to the shameless families but, despite what the Sun has led him to believe, if they get a spare room they will not receive this incentive. Rather, their benefit will match the number of claimants that qualify for housing benefit, and, if there are more bedrooms than they need, they will be forced to move as their income will not cover the rent for the number of bedrooms.

Social Housing may be what they want you to call it now, but it is not the same as that kind of housing in North America. The anomaly of a woman popping out children and being kept by the rest of society is the issue that should be dealt with. I think that, if a woman has a baby, born out-of-wedlock and cared for by the state, then she should not be allowed to have any more unless she and her husband are able to care for the first child. Then if they require another or subsequent children, they must be able to prove they have the means to provide. The site of a woman waving her family allowance book in the air and celebrating that she no longer need work is sick. But Why is that now found acceptable in our society? Why isn't this issue being looked at, as it creates the situation so poetically described by V. Rand.

Problem is with this is the most vulnerable and easy to intimedate are being targetted the most by these councils/housing associations ie the elderly living on their own. My mum and other old people in the blocks in Southend are being picked on by South East Essex Homes wanting them out and into sheltered housing when i know none of them need it they are fine to live on their own. What is disgusting is these people are the last remaining with any bloody community spirit and inform the police when anti social things are going on. But of course much easier for the housing association if they are all booted out and they can sit in their offices in ignorance thinking everything in the block is fine when really all that are left is the non english speaking immigrants and the criminal!!!!

Southendman wrote:
Problem is with this is the most vulnerable and easy to intimedate are being targetted the most by these councils/housing associations ie the elderly living on their own. My mum and other old people in the blocks in Southend are being picked on by South East Essex Homes wanting them out and into sheltered housing when i know none of them need it they are fine to live on their own. What is disgusting is these people are the last remaining with any bloody community spirit and inform the police when anti social things are going on. But of course much easier for the housing association if they are all booted out and they can sit in their offices in ignorance thinking everything in the block is fine when really all that are left is the non english speaking immigrants and the criminal!!!!

You are totally correct Southendman and sadly, that is the current state of things in Southend. But, some commenters here appear to take more notice of the supposed unfairness than the facts of the situation. Of course, they have not mentioned the bit yet about the incomers being given a few bob if the house needs redecorating. My my, can you imagine the reaction if they found out about that?

My daughter has just been given a council property in Langdon hills after privately renting for eight years. The council will not give her the four hundred pund deposit money from her last house for another eight weeks. The house she has had to move in to (with four young children) has nails sticking up from the floorboards, the windows do not close securely and she has been told there is an asbestos issue under the floors which they will 'get round to'
If they can afford to give these incentives then why can't they get a house into a habitable and safe condition before tenants are told to move in.

I have a slightly differing view of the situation.

Firstly, on-one really these days has a right to a "home for life", Even if you work every day, long hours to pay a mortgage, it can still be taken away to pay for your elder years care. Or you lose your job and the bank repossess it from you (amusingly leaving you requiring an urgent home, but unable to get a council one, as they are all full up lol).

So whether you rent, have council allocated or your own mortgaged property, everyone can and sometimes will have to move on.

Sadly, I read a few stories recently of very young children falling dozens of floors from high-rise flats, surely they warrant being in a place with some sort of garden facility? (even if it were shared between a few houses).

I've read of elderly trapped 20 floors up, as lifts are vandalised, surely they should be in some sort of retirement style bungalows, small living room (with guest bed facility), kitchenette, bedroom and bathroom - all set with grab handles and suitable fittings (maybe even a buzzer system for any falls or help needed).

There could be a communal area so they can pop over to meet up for chats, coffee mornings and even organise day trips? That would end the lonely elder's left to fend for themselves and only seeing a postie or random carer every now and again for company.

I do think it's horses for courses. When you take out the overseas arrivals and I have an idea for this too, the everyday folk who reside here should all be cared for comfortably.

Many elders are trapped in 3/4 bed places, large gardens and they cannot cope with the cleaning, the gardening or the stairs involved. Some sleep on the sofa, use a bucket for the loo, as the bathroom is also upstairs. Sometimes stairlifts are fitted, costing a fortune.

A small juggle would help everyone at some point. Dignity, safety and feeling at peace in their beds at night is all that should matter really.

johnshoobert wrote:
My daughter has just been given a council property in Langdon hills after privately renting for eight years. The council will not give her the four hundred pund deposit money from her last house for another eight weeks. The house she has had to move in to (with four young children) has nails sticking up from the floorboards, the windows do not close securely and she has been told there is an asbestos issue under the floors which they will 'get round to'
If they can afford to give these incentives then why can't they get a house into a habitable and safe condition before tenants are told to move in.

That just about figures. When I returned my mother-in-laws house to Southend Council, I had to ensure it met a good state of repair. They would not disclose what was or was not acceptable so we had to do everything plus, including scrapping a very good greenhouse that the new people would certainly have made use of. But of course, whilst we guessed and did what we believed made it ready for the council, we had to pay another month's rent!

Dual standards reign?

My idea for the new arrivals from overseas... there are many towns which no longer have employment and therefore have dozens (if not at times, hundreds) of boarded up lovely homes.

Rows and rows lay decaying and empty. So how about if the new arrivals were allocated these areas, (as frankly a roof over your head is all that's needed at that point).

This would bring some employment back to those areas. Dr's surgeries, schools, an office to deal with paperwork and assistance, to name a few.

As those people become more stable, they could then apply for jobs in other parts of the country and move around.

Meantime, that stops the unfairness of someone who has never paid or worked for the country being given a priority housing in an area where a local family are already settled with family roots. (who then have to move away).

It also would stop ridiculous rentals like in London, where rents of £4k a month are being paid out. It would be cheaper to knock a couple of the other houses together for larger families.

Last Poster wrote:

lost_scotsman wrote:
Surely this is a bit unfair on the likes of me and thousands of others who work hard, pay private rent, council tax etc. Will the council give me £1500 towards the cost of moving house? As usual the people on benefits, living in cheap council houses get the better hand in life.

What a sad case then. So you think people in council houses don't work? don't pay council tax? You do not live in a council house? well that's a shame for you. When I started work, back in 1764, the hardest working sector of this country had little or no chance of living in anything BUT a council house. The chance of a working class man earning enough to raise a deposit for a mortgage was very remote. However, they paid their taxes and their rates, under a fairer rating sytem and did not receive income tax relief against their mortgage. Life was tough, most workers had to pay for their last weeks food on Friday, and that took a large chunck of their money. As the unions worked to better the lot of those workers willing to fight the imbalance they got a little better off and many, via the right to buy scheme stepped up a notch. However, many many of those in Council houses are now old and alone and live in a house that is now too big for them. These are the main target of the incentive. I know down sizing in Southend a year ago worked out at £500 a bedroom. the dining room was counted as a bedroom for this purpose, hence the £1500 for a 3 bedroom plus dining rooom down to a one bedroom. Now you say that is unfair? Tell me how.

I have to travel to medway in Kent as its the only place i could find work, I would love to move closer but after paying my rent (private) bills, council tax, food, petrol, etc etc etc. I simply can not afford to move closer to work. The council are not offering me £1500 towards the cost. So how is it fair to offer those in council houses who pay minimal rent as it is. Surely the offer should be made to all who pay their council tax? whether renting through the council or privatly?

lost_scotsman wrote:

Last Poster wrote:

lost_scotsman wrote:
Surely this is a bit unfair on the likes of me and thousands of others who work hard, pay private rent, council tax etc. Will the council give me £1500 towards the cost of moving house? As usual the people on benefits, living in cheap council houses get the better hand in life.

What a sad case then. So you think people in council houses don't work? don't pay council tax? You do not live in a council house? well that's a shame for you. When I started work, back in 1764, the hardest working sector of this country had little or no chance of living in anything BUT a council house. The chance of a working class man earning enough to raise a deposit for a mortgage was very remote. However, they paid their taxes and their rates, under a fairer rating sytem and did not receive income tax relief against their mortgage. Life was tough, most workers had to pay for their last weeks food on Friday, and that took a large chunck of their money. As the unions worked to better the lot of those workers willing to fight the imbalance they got a little better off and many, via the right to buy scheme stepped up a notch. However, many many of those in Council houses are now old and alone and live in a house that is now too big for them. These are the main target of the incentive. I know down sizing in Southend a year ago worked out at £500 a bedroom. the dining room was counted as a bedroom for this purpose, hence the £1500 for a 3 bedroom plus dining rooom down to a one bedroom. Now you say that is unfair? Tell me how.

I have to travel to medway in Kent as its the only place i could find work, I would love to move closer but after paying my rent (private) bills, council tax, food, petrol, etc etc etc. I simply can not afford to move closer to work. The council are not offering me £1500 towards the cost. So how is it fair to offer those in council houses who pay minimal rent as it is. Surely the offer should be made to all who pay their council tax? whether renting through the council or privatly?

The council is doing this in an attempt to regain some of the larger properties to enable the housing of larger families.In what way does that reflect your plight?
You do not have a large house to return to the council, so, on this issue, allowing you that money is not relevant.
As for the council rents being cheap, I would think there are large numbers of residents in council properties who would take you to task on that. I think, more to the point, is the wholesale selling off of the council properties to sitting tenants. Apart from reducing the numbers of these properties which obviously would have been of use to you (Especially with the council's exchange system, which could well have found you housing close to where you work,) many of the people who bought their council houses failed the repayments, forgetting how insecure the less well paid work is that they depended on, and their houses, often in a state of poor repair, were sold to unscrupulous landlords, who then charged far higher rents for the properties than was justified, and further pushed up the rents in the private sector.

Whether you could persuade the private sector that you live in, to give you some relief for moving away is another issue. But please remember that when there were tied houses, when the man who was let the house to enable him to live close to his job, if he had an accident at work that resulted in his death, this resulted in the family that remained, as well as finding the money for the funeral, being unceremoniously dumped on the street. Allowing the family to remain in the council house removed this problem, and that is really only right, so the council really need a carrot to dangle in front of widows, etc. who remain when the breadwinner dies, usually in a two or three bedroom house.

Lets sort out a few things here. The old folk of today began working life in an era where it was normal to rent not buy. They worked all their life and paid their rent. Social housing was the norm. Their children grew up and moved away. Where do those children stay when visiting ? especially if they are trying to buy . The elderly are the butt from every direction - not entitled to the ssame health care, housing, or respect.

Secondly the most people on housing benefit are the single mothers (who we know are probably co-habiting anyway because you hear them on the bus talking about how they are going to complete the census without showing it). Youngsters unless they are moving to get a job should continue to live with their parents. Where it all went wrong was when Mrs Thatcher allowed the purchase of council houses without them being replaced. The new system of not a house for life is going to go wrong because when folk are expected to move to a smaller place there will be none and despite that they will have to pay a greater rent for not moving.
the whole system stinks.
In europe it is more the norm to rent and this is the direction england will drift into as the young will be unable to buy because of the greedy bankers. the young in council houses will be able to blackmail their parents with 'do as i say or i will move out and you will have to go and live in one room'. When their parents are old they will also be expected to contribute to their care in a home. Youngsters today are in a no win situation.
Noone wins.