Council to raise rents by £150 a year (From Echo)

Oh dear - they'll have to cut down on the Sky subscription to cover that increase!

perini wrote:
Oh dear - they'll have to cut down on the Sky subscription to cover that increase!

lol or maybe cut out the take-away here and there

And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

LESS THAN 3 QUID A WEEK - WHATS THE PROBLEM ????????

Why talk about Castle Point and South Essex Homes in the same breathe ?
To put into decent homes state = twice as long as they say. half the quality and you have no rights as to when and who can come to your house. Different from renting privately - at least you get privacy.

I bet an increase in housing benefit will cover the rise, that's if they pay rent at all.

What!! no descenting voice from the INDIES, does that mean they agree?

emcee wrote:
And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

That is a very good point. The only thing wrong is that most people that could afford to pay the private rent would have bought their council property because of the right to buy. What would be interesting is if the most benefit you would receive in a private rental the landlord only received the equivalent amount of council rent. What you have now is because of the right to buy and no council housing built there is not enough council property to meet demand so councils are forced to pay, until recently, an unlimited amount equivalent to what the landlord could rent the property for on the open market. That is how you have people in London living in million pound houses and councils paying huge rents. Cap the rent and now London councils are looking to shift the people to cheaper rental places like Southend. That in turn will push up the rents locally and more pressure on services. The cry then goes up build more properties, but of course we know we cannot find easily places to build homes for our current residents.
How you solve this mess I don't have a clue.

John T Pharro wrote:

emcee wrote:
And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

That is a very good point. The only thing wrong is that most people that could afford to pay the private rent would have bought their council property because of the right to buy. What would be interesting is if the most benefit you would receive in a private rental the landlord only received the equivalent amount of council rent. What you have now is because of the right to buy and no council housing built there is not enough council property to meet demand so councils are forced to pay, until recently, an unlimited amount equivalent to what the landlord could rent the property for on the open market. That is how you have people in London living in million pound houses and councils paying huge rents. Cap the rent and now London councils are looking to shift the people to cheaper rental places like Southend. That in turn will push up the rents locally and more pressure on services. The cry then goes up build more properties, but of course we know we cannot find easily places to build homes for our current residents.
How you solve this mess I don't have a clue.

John when you are going to say things like, I don't have a clue, can you give us advanced warning, I was standing up when I started to read this, but I ended up falling over.

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

emcee wrote:
And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

That is a very good point. The only thing wrong is that most people that could afford to pay the private rent would have bought their council property because of the right to buy. What would be interesting is if the most benefit you would receive in a private rental the landlord only received the equivalent amount of council rent. What you have now is because of the right to buy and no council housing built there is not enough council property to meet demand so councils are forced to pay, until recently, an unlimited amount equivalent to what the landlord could rent the property for on the open market. That is how you have people in London living in million pound houses and councils paying huge rents. Cap the rent and now London councils are looking to shift the people to cheaper rental places like Southend. That in turn will push up the rents locally and more pressure on services. The cry then goes up build more properties, but of course we know we cannot find easily places to build homes for our current residents.
How you solve this mess I don't have a clue.

John when you are going to say things like, I don't have a clue, can you give us advanced warning, I was standing up when I started to read this, but I ended up falling over.

PS I am joking John.

Those on housing benefit,single mothers,gays, mr and mrs bi-Polar all exempt I suppose. Thought so just those that pay there way pay as always, will have to try and find the money..

upset wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

emcee wrote:
And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

That is a very good point. The only thing wrong is that most people that could afford to pay the private rent would have bought their council property because of the right to buy. What would be interesting is if the most benefit you would receive in a private rental the landlord only received the equivalent amount of council rent. What you have now is because of the right to buy and no council housing built there is not enough council property to meet demand so councils are forced to pay, until recently, an unlimited amount equivalent to what the landlord could rent the property for on the open market. That is how you have people in London living in million pound houses and councils paying huge rents. Cap the rent and now London councils are looking to shift the people to cheaper rental places like Southend. That in turn will push up the rents locally and more pressure on services. The cry then goes up build more properties, but of course we know we cannot find easily places to build homes for our current residents.
How you solve this mess I don't have a clue.

John when you are going to say things like, I don't have a clue, can you give us advanced warning, I was standing up when I started to read this, but I ended up falling over.

PS I am joking John.

I gathered that. Do you have a clue how to solve the mess?

For a start (solving the mess), someone can articulate what council/housing is REALLY for - a lifestyle choice or a stock of resources to meet needs as they arise? If the latter, how do we make what is effectively a fixed pool of properties more fluid? That must involve kicking some out into the private sector if they can stand on their own feet (and if we are told that will give them no incentive....how could we tell the difference?)

The vast majority of Castle Point council houses are occupied by the elderly, mostly the low paid people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. Most of these have small pensions (small being the operative word) so they are the ones who will have to cough up, not the small minority of scroungers and layabouts on benefits. Once again the nasty party lives up to it's name by making war on the poor. The arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk strike again. Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for.

Local yachtsman wrote:
The vast majority of Castle Point council houses are occupied by the elderly, mostly the low paid people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. Most of these have small pensions (small being the operative word) so they are the ones who will have to cough up, not the small minority of scroungers and layabouts on benefits. Once again the nasty party lives up to it's name by making war on the poor. The arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk strike again. Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for.

My, My, what short and selective memories we have. Cameron and Osbourne may have a bit to answer for, but consider why the country is in the position it is, not because of Cameron and Osbourne, but because of an unelected Prime minister and a bunch of sidekicks who knew very little about economics or of running of a country.
Without going into all of the whys and wherefores(which would take far too long and bore everyone) Brown and his mob very nearly bankrupted this country and to retrieve the situation Cameron and his party are trying to put things back together and as the old saying goes you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Unfortunately people see only what is happening now and how it affects them and not the reason why it is happening, short memories I think. Hopefully in the future matters will stabilise and things be a bit easier, but again as another saying goes, things will get worse before the get better.

I don't disagree Mr Hugh Janus, and it's worse than that because Brown was warned the recession was coming and told what to do to minimise the damage but he chose to ignore the advice. But, that does not excuse Cameron and Osborne's war on the poor, whenever cuts have to be made it's always the poor who get hit first. Shame on them.

Yeh the poor are really suffering, like the woman withh 11 kids by multiple fathers on £30k tax free a year, £40k council house and a horse.
.
She is really suffering !!!!!!

No, she is milking the system unlike most of Castle Points tenants who are elderly people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc.

Hugh.Janus wrote:

Local yachtsman wrote:
The vast majority of Castle Point council houses are occupied by the elderly, mostly the low paid people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. Most of these have small pensions (small being the operative word) so they are the ones who will have to cough up, not the small minority of scroungers and layabouts on benefits. Once again the nasty party lives up to it's name by making war on the poor. The arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk strike again. Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for.

My, My, what short and selective memories we have. Cameron and Osbourne may have a bit to answer for, but consider why the country is in the position it is, not because of Cameron and Osbourne, but because of an unelected Prime minister and a bunch of sidekicks who knew very little about economics or of running of a country.
Without going into all of the whys and wherefores(which would take far too long and bore everyone) Brown and his mob very nearly bankrupted this country and to retrieve the situation Cameron and his party are trying to put things back together and as the old saying goes you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Unfortunately people see only what is happening now and how it affects them and not the reason why it is happening, short memories I think. Hopefully in the future matters will stabilise and things be a bit easier, but again as another saying goes, things will get worse before the get better.

Short memories indeed!! Wasnt it Thatcher that sold off most of the countries assets including the majority of council housing stock to dig the country out of a hole back in the 80's and 90's .

iknowbetter wrote:

Hugh.Janus wrote:

Local yachtsman wrote:
The vast majority of Castle Point council houses are occupied by the elderly, mostly the low paid people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. Most of these have small pensions (small being the operative word) so they are the ones who will have to cough up, not the small minority of scroungers and layabouts on benefits. Once again the nasty party lives up to it's name by making war on the poor. The arrogant posh boys who don't know the price of milk strike again. Cameron and Osborne have a lot to answer for.

My, My, what short and selective memories we have. Cameron and Osbourne may have a bit to answer for, but consider why the country is in the position it is, not because of Cameron and Osbourne, but because of an unelected Prime minister and a bunch of sidekicks who knew very little about economics or of running of a country.
Without going into all of the whys and wherefores(which would take far too long and bore everyone) Brown and his mob very nearly bankrupted this country and to retrieve the situation Cameron and his party are trying to put things back together and as the old saying goes you cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Unfortunately people see only what is happening now and how it affects them and not the reason why it is happening, short memories I think. Hopefully in the future matters will stabilise and things be a bit easier, but again as another saying goes, things will get worse before the get better.

Short memories indeed!! Wasnt it Thatcher that sold off most of the countries assets including the majority of council housing stock to dig the country out of a hole back in the 80's and 90's .

Similar black hole left by Labour then!!
What was wrong was some of that money should have been ploughed into new council homes.

John T Pharro wrote:

upset wrote:

upset wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:

emcee wrote:
And the problem is?
The majority of Southend tenants will rent privately and their rents normally start at nearly double this "average" council rent, and that is for only a half decent one bedroomed flat. A £3 a week increase is miniscule in comparison to scandalous rents and increases private landlords make their tenants pay. There is no control over rents charged in the private sector and, as private tenants are not very well looked after by the laws of this land, council tenants really do need to understand that they are in a very favouable situation, especially in this financial climate.

That is a very good point. The only thing wrong is that most people that could afford to pay the private rent would have bought their council property because of the right to buy. What would be interesting is if the most benefit you would receive in a private rental the landlord only received the equivalent amount of council rent. What you have now is because of the right to buy and no council housing built there is not enough council property to meet demand so councils are forced to pay, until recently, an unlimited amount equivalent to what the landlord could rent the property for on the open market. That is how you have people in London living in million pound houses and councils paying huge rents. Cap the rent and now London councils are looking to shift the people to cheaper rental places like Southend. That in turn will push up the rents locally and more pressure on services. The cry then goes up build more properties, but of course we know we cannot find easily places to build homes for our current residents.
How you solve this mess I don't have a clue.

John when you are going to say things like, I don't have a clue, can you give us advanced warning, I was standing up when I started to read this, but I ended up falling over.

PS I am joking John.

I gathered that. Do you have a clue how to solve the mess?

No, but what my wife and I and some friends were discussing last night was.
"Statistics suggest that the 17 to 45's dont bother to vote by enlarge and the majority that do vote are pensioners, because that's how we were brought up, to cherish our vote.
Therefore why do the pensions get hit financially so often and now further cut backs are threatened. If a party could capture the grey vote, with brides, like the never ending child allowance, homes and cash for single mums Etc. They could almost guarantee winning the next election.
They could promise to remove the right to home single mums make them stay at home with their parents, only pay child allowance for first two kids and with the money they save increase tax credits for pensioner, winter fuel allowance and start government backed investment account again for pensioners only, with fixed high interest payments.
How about Upset for PM and John Pharro for Chancellor? LOL

Local yachtsman wrote:
No, she is milking the system unlike most of Castle Points tenants who are elderly people who swept your streets, collected your bins and delivered your post in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc.

Local yachtsman says...
The vast majority of Castle Point council houses are occupied by the elderly,
.
Do you have any evidence that the "vast majority" of tenants are pensioners or is that just your opinion?