21,000 Tennants In Council Housing Earn £60,000 +

17th February 2014

That's quite a lot - should you have to leave once you earn £50,000+?

Union boss Bob Crow is just one of thousands of tenants still living in a council house despite having a six-figure income, figures show.

Up to 5,000 taxpayer-subsidised tenants cannot be kicked out despite having a household income that tops £100,000 a year - because there are no rules allowing councils to do so.

The figures were released by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Bob Crow, the general secretary of the RMT union behind London's tube strikes, infamously said he had 'no moral duty' to leave his council house despite now earning £145,000 a year.

'I was born in a council house, as far as I’m concerned I will die in one,' he told a radio interview in November.

‘Yes I could buy my own place but why don’t you ask the rest of my family who live at home with me whether they should have to move as well?’ he said.

‘Why is it just down to me to buy a house? Why should my family who have lived there for 30 years, with all the friends they’ve got, have to move because of the job I’ve got?

‘If I moved out of my house tomorrow the first thing you’d say is Comrade Crow leaves his roots.’

The data - reported today in the Sunday Telegraph and seen by MailOnline - also shows up to 8,000 council or housing association households earn more than £80,000 a year, and up to 21,000 earn more than £60,000.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560722/Thousands-wealthy-professionals-living-council-homes-despite-earning-six-figure-salaries-rules-mean-CANT-thrown-out.html#ixzz2tZs5gT2V

My solution would be to have them buy a house for the council to rent out to a family on minimum wage who cannot afford to buy.

it does seem crazy when people are crying out for council homes.

what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

Maine coon lover wrote:what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

On £150,000 a year?

This is simply not on. Social housing is in short enough supply and there is no need for anyone on these salaries to deny someone a home.

I think means testing should be introduced or increase rents as an additional tax. You can stay but it will hurt if you do.

Phoenix wrote:This is simply not on. Social housing is in short enough supply and there is no need for anyone on these salaries to deny someone a home.

I think means testing should be introduced or increase rents as an additional tax. You can stay but it will hurt if you do.

Let them keep the same rent, let them live in the same house if they want to - just require that over a certain income they are legally obligated to buy a house which the council can rent out instead of the one they are living it.

sphinx wrote:

Phoenix wrote:This is simply not on. Social housing is in short enough supply and there is no need for anyone on these salaries to deny someone a home.

I think means testing should be introduced or increase rents as an additional tax. You can stay but it will hurt if you do.

Let them keep the same rent, let them live in the same house if they want to - just require that over a certain income they are legally obligated to buy a house which the council can rent out instead of the one they are living it.

Yes that seems equitable.

sphinx wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

On £150,000 a year?

it depends on their disposable income, even high wage earners can get in to trouble.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

On £150,000 a year?

it depends on their disposable income, even high wage earners can get in to trouble.. :D 

Yeah and they can get out of it as well.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

it depends on their disposable income, even high wage earners can get in to trouble.. :D 

Yeah and they can get out of it as well.

not necessarily if famous people can go bankrupt anyone can.. 

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yeah and they can get out of it as well.

not necessarily if famous people can go bankrupt anyone can.. 

Oh they can mismanage money alright - but a legal attachment of earnings to cover the mortgage on a property for the council to rent out in lieu of the council house occupied would be taken from earnings at source - what they do with the money left is up to them.

As with tax you have to set a trigger point. That's why I think that a wealth tax would be appropriate on social housing. My wealth tax is similar to Sphinxs suggestion. Remember social housing is subsidised housing why should the relatively rich be subsidised.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

not necessarily if famous people can go bankrupt anyone can.. 

Oh they can mismanage money alright - but a legal attachment of earnings to cover the mortgage on a property for the council to rent out in lieu of the council house occupied would be taken from earnings at source - what they do with the money left is up to them.

but if there were an attachment of earnings because of non payment of rents and or bills they would have no chance of getting a mortgage..

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Oh they can mismanage money alright - but a legal attachment of earnings to cover the mortgage on a property for the council to rent out in lieu of the council house occupied would be taken from earnings at source - what they do with the money left is up to them.

but if there were an attachment of earnings because of non payment of rents and or bills they would have no chance of getting a mortgage..

They would not get the mortgage - the council whose house they were renting would get an attachment of earnings to cover the mortgage of a property to be rented out by the council to replace the property occupied by the people who could afford private rent or mortgage.

Maine coon lover wrote:what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

We had this problem. Not because of bad credit, but some other reason.
My hubby can earn within that wage-range in a year, but yet we couldn't get a mortgage, banks were just saying no.

eddie wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

We had this problem. Not because of bad credit, but some other reason.
My hubby can earn within that wage-range in a year, but yet we couldn't get a mortgage, banks were just saying no.

I watched a program a few weeks back helping people to get mortgages and because one couple had paid one late credit card payment they would have got a rate over 1% higher, so they said wait six moths and it will come down to normal..

This is what happens when they let people stay in council housing for life.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is what happens when they let people stay in council housing for life.

as the housing is supplied for your benefit, i don't see why they cannot ask for it back when required, they must have terms of lease..

eddie wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:what if they can't get mortgages because of bad credit ?

We had this problem. Not because of bad credit, but some other reason.
My hubby can earn within that wage-range in a year, but yet we couldn't get a mortgage, banks were just saying no.

That'll be because he's self employed and says he only earns £10,000 - the rest goes under the bed so you keep getting a ton of benefits.

Tell him to start telling the truth and begin paying taxes - you dirty little scallies!

Andy, too much of your time is taken up hating other people, you could be investing that time by being with your wee lass more, that's your choice though.

But folk on here only see the ugly in you chief, a real shame that as is I bet you have a bit more to offer than just hate Andy?

Your my age chief, and near 40, you're missing out so much, just like that lot in the EDL and BNP, hating non stop.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is what happens when they let people stay in council housing for life.

As long as they pay the rent i can't see a problem the council are getting their fair share of repayment

BigAndy9 wrote:

eddie wrote:

We had this problem. Not because of bad credit, but some other reason.
My hubby can earn within that wage-range in a year, but yet we couldn't get a mortgage, banks were just saying no.

That'll be because he's self employed and says he only earns £10,000 - the rest goes under the bed so you keep getting a ton of benefits.

Tell him to start telling the truth and begin paying taxes - you dirty little scallies!

why are you so hateful towards people, how do you know eddie's partner claims benefits ,and even if he did what's it got to do with you ?
let people live their lives and you live yours, if your that jealous about people on benefits give up your job and claim them too then you might be happier instead of full of bitterness .

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

but if there were an attachment of earnings because of non payment of rents and or bills they would have no chance of getting a mortgage..

They would not get the mortgage - the council whose house they were renting would get an attachment of earnings to cover the mortgage of a property to be rented out by the council to replace the property occupied by the people who could afford private rent or mortgage.

confused.com

Joy Division wrote:Andy, too much of your time is taken up hating other people, you could be investing that time by being with your wee lass more, that's your choice though.

But folk on here only see the ugly in you chief, a real shame that as is I bet you have a bit more to offer than just hate Andy?

Your my age chief, and near 40, you're  missing out so much, just like that lot in the EDL and BNP, hating non stop.

Sorry JD, I forgot you too had a little "business" going.

Maine coon lover wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is what happens when they let people stay in council housing for life.

As long as they pay the rent i can't see a problem the council are getting their fair share of repayment

No they are not. Social housing is subsidized by the tax payer to provide affordable homes for the low paid. We have families with one bread winner on minimum wage who cannot afford private rents or to buy - their only hope is social housing because the rents are low. When you have people on £150,000 taking up the housing it means the tax payer is subsidizing people who could afford to pay private or buy.

The demand on social housing is too great to allow high earners to retain their council houses.

The data - reported today in the Sunday Telegraph and seen by MailOnline - also shows up to 8,000 council or housing association households earn more than £80,000 a year, and up to 21,000 earn more than £60,000.

That's 21,000 homes too many