Gli affittuari falliscono nel tentativo di impedire al Consiglio di renderli senzatetto per ospitare le persone già senzatetto

> It is right that we are taking back former council homes that were lost through Right to Buy

I can’t believe Right to Buy is still in operation. What a mess.

If they’re abusing Right to Buy, then they get no sympathy. That’s literally just exploitation of a system and those who can’t afford a house.

Wait.

So, they’re reclaiming the homes but making the people who were _renting_ at market rate, not the home owner, homeless? Why not just reclaim the property and allow the sitting tenant to remain?

If you evict them, you’re just housing one homeless person and making another person homeless.

Or have I misunderstood?

>“It is right that we are taking back former council homes that were lost through Right to Buy. We need to use these properties to provide safe, secure homes for our most vulnerable residents in urgent need of housing, rather than leaving them to be rented on the private market to those who have the means and resources to pay market rent.

One thing that the council doesn’t seem to grasp is that being able to rent in the private sector isn’t solely a matter of financial means. 

I know this from bitter personal experience because following a series of unexpected events, I inherited a dog while private renting. He’s not the sort of dog that could readily be rehomed, before anyone comes up with that ‘helpful’ comment. 

So I was thrust into the problem of finding rented accommodation with a dog. 

I had the means to pay for private rented accommodation, I was earning above the national average, but 99% of landlords just wouldn’t touch me with a bargepole. 

In the end it took me over 3 months to find somewhere, I had to leave London, it was more than I wanted to pay and it was absolutely riddled with both penetrating and rising damp, but I had to stay there because I didn’t really have any alternative. 4 years later, the landlord evicted me so she could turn into an Airbnb.

Councils won’t take people with pets into temporary accommodation. So with a dog that is unrehomable, I very nearly ended up in a situation where I had to choose between street homelessness and killing my dog. 

Variations on this situation happen with lots of different people – people who are working full-time and can pay, but landlords won’t touch them because they’re self-employed. People who are disabled and need minor adaptations, or properties with certain features like being on the ground floor. People with kids. People are working full time but get universal credit on top. People with kids. 

If you are anything other than a full-time working professional with no kids and no pets, renting in the private sector is borderline impossible in the midst of a housing crisis where landlords can take their pick. 

I would hazard a guess that some of these tenants have lucked out and found the 1% of private landlords that are willing to take them, but they know full well that they will have great difficulty finding a new property to rent.

And for absolutely every one of them, there will be great upheaval and expense associated with moving.

1. Right to buy should not be a thing. At least not until the government actually start building replacements.
2. The right to remain housed in council housing should be means tested. If you earn enough to pay the average local rent for an equivalent property you should be given 6 months to save for a deposit and then moved on. Council support should just be for when you need it not forever. We don’t have enough homes as it is.

And I say this as someone who lives on a housing estate where most of the properties are council. Many of the people renting their council home really need it because they are disabled, mentally unwell etc. but I do know some that earn more than my husband and I combined but pay a third of the rent. They could afford to move on but won’t while they have a sweet deal and are even hoping to be able to do the right to buy soon.

Lambeth apparently has a population of 318,000 people. 4700 homeless families seems like a lot, that’s presumably about 15000 people if the average family is 2 parents and 1 kid.

My understanding is the council are asking tenants with the means to pay private rent to move on from council property so it can be used by tenants who are in urgent need and can not pay market rent. this is what the council stock is for. supporting the most vulnerable. if you can pay private rent costs, you should move into the private rental market to make way for the more vulnerable, surely? Obviously the best answer would be to build more housing stock, but that takes years and these vulnerable families are in need now.

Am I misinterpreting here?