Soaring bill for housing benefit in York revealed

York council leader James Alexander

York council leader James Alexander

First published in News
Last updated
by

THE amount of housing benefits paid out by City of York Council has almost doubled in less than a decade, new figures have revealed.

The authority's total spend on the benefit rose from £23.43 million in 2003/04 to £45.29 million in 2012/13, according to statistics compiled by York council leader James Alexander.

A significant part of the increase is accounted for by the amount paid to registered social landlords, which increased from £7.20 million to £13.17 million.

But by far the biggest increase was in the amount paid towards private tenants' rents, which soared by 135 per cent from £5.66 million in 2005/06 to £13.34 million in 2012/13.

The figures reflect the position across the region, which saw a 47 per cent increase in benefit payments over the last five years and an 85 per cent leap in payments to private landlords to help tenants pay their rent.

In Ryedale, the total amount paid out rose from £7.34 million in 2006/07 to £11.98 million in 2012/13, while in Hambleton, the figure jumped from £9.25 million in 2006/07 to £18.29 million in 2012/13.

East Riding of Yorkshire saw an increase from £35.57 million in 2003/04 to £59.89 million in 2012/13

Cllr Alexander said the fastest growing component of the rise in welfare spending was the increase in the number and cost of families living in privately rented accommodation, which was because of rising rents due to a lack of new homes being built.

He claimed there should be a rent cap, which he believed could save approximately £4 billion a year without having any adverse affect on poorer people, with the cap decided by an independent body on the basis of median income and cost of housing regionally.

"The vast majority of those receiving housing benefit in York are in work and are not the scroungers some would like to assume," he said.

"There is an argument a cap should be a temporary measure throughout the course of the next parliament whilst the housing market repairs itself with increased supply."

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:13am Thu 21 Aug 14

eeoodares says...

Most landlords will not take social housing, if you put a rent cap in place nobody will take social tenants.

Perhaps you should start having a rethink of the way you build houses.
Most landlords will not take social housing, if you put a rent cap in place nobody will take social tenants. Perhaps you should start having a rethink of the way you build houses. eeoodares
  • Score: 17

8:30am Thu 21 Aug 14

chelk says...

If Universities were required to provide enough accommodation for all their students on the campus there would be plenty of housing in York available so by Alexander's logic rents would be more competitive. No one will want to upset the Universities though
If Universities were required to provide enough accommodation for all their students on the campus there would be plenty of housing in York available so by Alexander's logic rents would be more competitive. No one will want to upset the Universities though chelk
  • Score: -25

8:31am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments.
One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments. York2000
  • Score: 17

8:52am Thu 21 Aug 14

Micklegate says...

It says 'statistics compiled by James Alexander', when it surely means 'public statistics sent out by James Alexander to get another photo in the paper'. He's not known for his great handling of numbers given the huge debts he rolled up for the council and the fact he once had to beg the council for a loan as he'd spent all his own money.
It says 'statistics compiled by James Alexander', when it surely means 'public statistics sent out by James Alexander to get another photo in the paper'. He's not known for his great handling of numbers given the huge debts he rolled up for the council and the fact he once had to beg the council for a loan as he'd spent all his own money. Micklegate
  • Score: -16

8:59am Thu 21 Aug 14

York expat says...

So my wife and I , both in our 60's, have to work over 25 hours just to pay the council tax that goes on housing benefit. That's ok then.
So my wife and I , both in our 60's, have to work over 25 hours just to pay the council tax that goes on housing benefit. That's ok then. York expat
  • Score: -4

9:03am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Here is an odd statistic.

100% of comments on all council press releases and letters that don't suck up to and agree with the council are subsequently marked negative in the score.

Take a look at yesterdays letters and press reports.
Here is an odd statistic. 100% of comments on all council press releases and letters that don't suck up to and agree with the council are subsequently marked negative in the score. Take a look at yesterdays letters and press reports. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -24

9:07am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up.,

BTW did you get more Marmite?
Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up., BTW did you get more Marmite? York2000
  • Score: 11

9:09am Thu 21 Aug 14

Oaklands Resident says...

Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years???

This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price).

More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property.

The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term.

Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.
Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years??? This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price). More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property. The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term. Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: 17

9:18am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up.,

BTW did you get more Marmite?
You may be right on the hacker, still pointless.

The Marmite situation, well 500g jars in Sainsburys £4.00, 500g Jars in ASDA £3.84. Do you think there is a case to have the cost of Marmite capped, the convenience of ignoring purchase, distribution and other diverse business cost why can't we just dictate the market.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up., BTW did you get more Marmite?[/p][/quote]You may be right on the hacker, still pointless. The Marmite situation, well 500g jars in Sainsburys £4.00, 500g Jars in ASDA £3.84. Do you think there is a case to have the cost of Marmite capped, the convenience of ignoring purchase, distribution and other diverse business cost why can't we just dictate the market. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -32

9:26am Thu 21 Aug 14

York2000 says...

Fanny Free House - I think you could make a case for a Marmite price cap. Also, there should be a guarantee to provide more affordable jars of 'yeast extract' with every Marmite display.
Fanny Free House - I think you could make a case for a Marmite price cap. Also, there should be a guarantee to provide more affordable jars of 'yeast extract' with every Marmite display. York2000
  • Score: 6

9:32am Thu 21 Aug 14

old_geezer says...

York2000 wrote:
One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments.
Yes, along with a post-Big Bang financial system with countless mis-selling scandals that eventually collapsed because of deregulated greed, working tax credits that subsidise low-wage employers, demutualised institutions that fell by the wayside (Northern Rock, B&B, Halifax, Leeds Perm ...), selling off council housing and forbidding the proceeds being used for replacement, privatised utilities that export profits to foreign owners, etc etc. It all goes back to Maggie, even when it was done by the Blair mob.
[quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments.[/p][/quote]Yes, along with a post-Big Bang financial system with countless mis-selling scandals that eventually collapsed because of deregulated greed, working tax credits that subsidise low-wage employers, demutualised institutions that fell by the wayside (Northern Rock, B&B, Halifax, Leeds Perm ...), selling off council housing and forbidding the proceeds being used for replacement, privatised utilities that export profits to foreign owners, etc etc. It all goes back to Maggie, even when it was done by the Blair mob. old_geezer
  • Score: 21

9:33am Thu 21 Aug 14

Fanny Free House says...

Alexander should show us how this works.

Take the median income of Semlyen's tenants and cap the rents she's charging based on that income.

Should be interesting to see how she squeals.
Alexander should show us how this works. Take the median income of Semlyen's tenants and cap the rents she's charging based on that income. Should be interesting to see how she squeals. Fanny Free House
  • Score: -12

10:02am Thu 21 Aug 14

deckhanddave says...

Fanny Free House wrote:
York2000 wrote:
Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up.,

BTW did you get more Marmite?
You may be right on the hacker, still pointless.

The Marmite situation, well 500g jars in Sainsburys £4.00, 500g Jars in ASDA £3.84. Do you think there is a case to have the cost of Marmite capped, the convenience of ignoring purchase, distribution and other diverse business cost why can't we just dictate the market.
Thing about capping Marmite is 'You can just unscrew it'! Hey a bit like York Councils policies!
[quote][p][bold]Fanny Free House[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: Fanny Free House - I thought the hacker had been dealt with, but it's back. Starting to think it's actually someone at the Press winding everyone up., BTW did you get more Marmite?[/p][/quote]You may be right on the hacker, still pointless. The Marmite situation, well 500g jars in Sainsburys £4.00, 500g Jars in ASDA £3.84. Do you think there is a case to have the cost of Marmite capped, the convenience of ignoring purchase, distribution and other diverse business cost why can't we just dictate the market.[/p][/quote]Thing about capping Marmite is 'You can just unscrew it'! Hey a bit like York Councils policies! deckhanddave
  • Score: 15

10:07am Thu 21 Aug 14

CaroleBaines says...

eeoodares wrote:
Most landlords will not take social housing, if you put a rent cap in place nobody will take social tenants.

Perhaps you should start having a rethink of the way you build houses.
So what would they do with their properties if there were a rent cap? Sell or lower rent; both seem to provide more housing at lower cost in my estimation.
At the moment you have public taxation lining the pockets of landlords, which just seems wrong to me. A friend of mine rents and pays £800 for a two bed flat off Bishopthorpe Rd and a landlord that just takes the mickey in terms of providing a service. Need to redress the balance imho.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: Most landlords will not take social housing, if you put a rent cap in place nobody will take social tenants. Perhaps you should start having a rethink of the way you build houses.[/p][/quote]So what would they do with their properties if there were a rent cap? Sell or lower rent; both seem to provide more housing at lower cost in my estimation. At the moment you have public taxation lining the pockets of landlords, which just seems wrong to me. A friend of mine rents and pays £800 for a two bed flat off Bishopthorpe Rd and a landlord that just takes the mickey in terms of providing a service. Need to redress the balance imho. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 30

10:20am Thu 21 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -25

10:35am Thu 21 Aug 14

asd says...

Oaklands Resident wrote:
Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years???

This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price).

More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property.

The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term.

Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.
I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh.
[quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years??? This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price). More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property. The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term. Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.[/p][/quote]I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh. asd
  • Score: 14

10:46am Thu 21 Aug 14

AGuyFromStresall says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation... AGuyFromStresall
  • Score: 21

10:50am Thu 21 Aug 14

Ichabod76 says...

asd wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote:
Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years???

This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price).

More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property.

The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term.

Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.
I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh.
It was never a problem during Labours 13 years in power !
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years??? This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price). More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property. The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term. Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.[/p][/quote]I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh.[/p][/quote]It was never a problem during Labours 13 years in power ! Ichabod76
  • Score: -14

10:59am Thu 21 Aug 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Once Landlords and Estate Agents fees, and a growing student population. the citizens of the city that need accommodation, and not middle management officials, They can then charge the Earth, wish Government would wake up to the fact. Get Building Council owned properties for the the NON Student community.
Once Landlords and Estate Agents fees, and a growing student population. the citizens of the city that need accommodation, and not middle management officials, They can then charge the Earth, wish Government would wake up to the fact. Get Building Council owned properties for the the NON Student community. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 10

11:01am Thu 21 Aug 14

Priapus says...

old_geezer wrote:
York2000 wrote:
One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments.
Yes, along with a post-Big Bang financial system with countless mis-selling scandals that eventually collapsed because of deregulated greed, working tax credits that subsidise low-wage employers, demutualised institutions that fell by the wayside (Northern Rock, B&B, Halifax, Leeds Perm ...), selling off council housing and forbidding the proceeds being used for replacement, privatised utilities that export profits to foreign owners, etc etc. It all goes back to Maggie, even when it was done by the Blair mob.
Yep, the UK in the 70's was great wasn't it?! Over powerful unions striking every five minutes, nationalised industry providing rubbish goods no one wanted. And as for the mutuals: how about the great example of the Co Op?
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]York2000[/bold] wrote: One of the list of outcomes of 30 odd years of neoliberal governments.[/p][/quote]Yes, along with a post-Big Bang financial system with countless mis-selling scandals that eventually collapsed because of deregulated greed, working tax credits that subsidise low-wage employers, demutualised institutions that fell by the wayside (Northern Rock, B&B, Halifax, Leeds Perm ...), selling off council housing and forbidding the proceeds being used for replacement, privatised utilities that export profits to foreign owners, etc etc. It all goes back to Maggie, even when it was done by the Blair mob.[/p][/quote]Yep, the UK in the 70's was great wasn't it?! Over powerful unions striking every five minutes, nationalised industry providing rubbish goods no one wanted. And as for the mutuals: how about the great example of the Co Op? Priapus
  • Score: 4

11:01am Thu 21 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
[quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us. The Great Buda
  • Score: 22

12:06pm Thu 21 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 2

12:31pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Y.I.P. says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh !
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh ! Y.I.P.
  • Score: -4

12:40pm Thu 21 Aug 14

AGuyFromStresall says...

Y.I.P. wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh !
It is indeed all relative.

And the black and white fact is that in every region of the country houses relatively cost much more now than it did for first time buyers of previous generations...
[quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh ![/p][/quote]It is indeed all relative. And the black and white fact is that in every region of the country houses relatively cost much more now than it did for first time buyers of previous generations... AGuyFromStresall
  • Score: 16

1:09pm Thu 21 Aug 14

anistasia says...

Why as housing benefits bill gone up simple wages not gone up like rents have less wages brings people into the housing benefit bracket.if people had decent wages and job security a lot of people wouldn't need to claim.
Why as housing benefits bill gone up simple wages not gone up like rents have less wages brings people into the housing benefit bracket.if people had decent wages and job security a lot of people wouldn't need to claim. anistasia
  • Score: 4

1:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

asd says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
asd wrote:
Oaklands Resident wrote:
Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years???

This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price).

More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property.

The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term.

Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.
I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh.
It was never a problem during Labours 13 years in power !
Your right, Labour should have done something about it when they were in power but, they never got rid of rent control, that's my point as someone think its all Labours fault, just referring to a fact. All party's just want uncontrolled capitalism so they can benefit from pure greed, whilst rest have to suffer.
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oaklands Resident[/bold] wrote: Is anyone surprised if housing benefit costs have increased over the last 10 years??? This just a re-run of his "big idea" of a rent cap which he threw out last year. No new figures are given or new arguments presented about the effect that a cap would have on the supply of private rented accommodation (where rent levels will reflect the cost of the property to the landlord - including the purchase price). More affordable rented properties are required in the City but the Labour Council sits on a £12 million housing account surplus and refuses to invest it in buying empty residential property. The Council also refuses to build "intermediate" rent properties where rent levels would be similar to any cap and which would be self funding in the long term. Let one of York's all party "scrutiny" committee loose on this and similar ideas then you may get a proper debate rather than a media sound bite on a slow news day.[/p][/quote]I think you will find this is because of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher's ending of rent controls in 1988. Before that, council rent officers had a say in how much a landlord could charge a tenant. So basically with right to buy and also no caps on private landlords its inevitable the housing benefit will rise you don't have to be Einstein to figure that one out! I guess you will blame Labour for that huh.[/p][/quote]It was never a problem during Labours 13 years in power ![/p][/quote]Your right, Labour should have done something about it when they were in power but, they never got rid of rent control, that's my point as someone think its all Labours fault, just referring to a fact. All party's just want uncontrolled capitalism so they can benefit from pure greed, whilst rest have to suffer. asd
  • Score: 5

1:33pm Thu 21 Aug 14

archieboldthe2nd says...

Personally I don’t think you can blame governments for this... the fact is attitudes have changed over the last 30 years. Back then blokes took pride in going to out provide for their families etc. Nowadays there are far more single mothers due a lot of dads legging it. Now working and having and child and being single is a hard job.. In the last few years you read stories about women wanting more children to get a bigger house. While the Jeremy Kyle attitude is not everyone claiming housing benefits there is a large chunk of it. If you give people a nice life for free they will take it… and get used to it… then others will want it…

Sure the government encouraged this with such healthy benefits and it became a way of life. Again 30 years ago it was a shameful thing. Nowadays it’s seen common or encouraged. Until attitudes change this increase will not stop. It’s a hard situation for the government though, what do you do? Decrease the amount you can claim? Where do you let people live? What about the ones who generally are workers or just out of work? To be brutal I think it’s gone that far now that there is no going back? We have seen that with bedroom tax etc. There are that many people reliant on the system that to reduce it would cause chaos.
Personally I don’t think you can blame governments for this... the fact is attitudes have changed over the last 30 years. Back then blokes took pride in going to out provide for their families etc. Nowadays there are far more single mothers due a lot of dads legging it. Now working and having and child and being single is a hard job.. In the last few years you read stories about women wanting more children to get a bigger house. While the Jeremy Kyle attitude is not everyone claiming housing benefits there is a large chunk of it. If you give people a nice life for free they will take it… and get used to it… then others will want it… Sure the government encouraged this with such healthy benefits and it became a way of life. Again 30 years ago it was a shameful thing. Nowadays it’s seen common or encouraged. Until attitudes change this increase will not stop. It’s a hard situation for the government though, what do you do? Decrease the amount you can claim? Where do you let people live? What about the ones who generally are workers or just out of work? To be brutal I think it’s gone that far now that there is no going back? We have seen that with bedroom tax etc. There are that many people reliant on the system that to reduce it would cause chaos. archieboldthe2nd
  • Score: 3

2:07pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
By 'affordable' the council and James Alexander mean social housing which most first-time buyers will not qualify for.

The system (S106 planning agreements) which forces (blackmails) private housebuilders to provide social housing actually stifles their ability to provide market housing at affordable prices. Buyers of private homes are subsidising the social housing, in addition to doing this through general taxation.

It's a punitive, ideological, discriminatory system dreamt up by the last Labour government, and so far the coalition has not hads the balls or sense to scrap the system. they considered doing this last year, but, bottled it at the last minute. They will have no choice eventually, as until they do, output by private housebuilding will not increase at anywhere near the rate it needs to, causing the crisis to worsen.

Note that in York the increase in housing benefit over the last ten years in inversely proportional to the decline in housebuilding in York, which can be tracked to the council's 50% affordable (social) housing policy, which caused massive damage during the five years and ten months it was in force (April 2005 to December 2010), and subsequent reductions in the target have not been enough to make a signioficant improvement.
It needs scrapping!
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]By 'affordable' the council and James Alexander mean social housing which most first-time buyers will not qualify for. The system (S106 planning agreements) which forces (blackmails) private housebuilders to provide social housing actually stifles their ability to provide market housing at affordable prices. Buyers of private homes are subsidising the social housing, in addition to doing this through general taxation. It's a punitive, ideological, discriminatory system dreamt up by the last Labour government, and so far the coalition has not hads the balls or sense to scrap the system. they considered doing this last year, but, bottled it at the last minute. They will have no choice eventually, as until they do, output by private housebuilding will not increase at anywhere near the rate it needs to, causing the crisis to worsen. Note that in York the increase in housing benefit over the last ten years in inversely proportional to the decline in housebuilding in York, which can be tracked to the council's 50% affordable (social) housing policy, which caused massive damage during the five years and ten months it was in force (April 2005 to December 2010), and subsequent reductions in the target have not been enough to make a signioficant improvement. It needs scrapping! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 14

2:17pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Badgers Drift says...

The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.
No it hasn't.

It has been caused by politicians.

Under Thatcher and Major there was a average of over 50,000 council/social housing built every year for the 17yrs they governed. Under Blair and Brown it dropped to around 25,000/yr for their 13 years. In 1997 they hijacked the previous governments policy which aimed to increase affordable housing in rural areas, and used it as a blanket policy to force private housebuilders to provide social housing. These two moves; reducing council/social housing, and forcing the private sector to prodide them are a big cause of our current housing crisis.

Blame it on Labour!
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]No it hasn't. It has been caused by politicians. Under Thatcher and Major there was a average of over 50,000 council/social housing built every year for the 17yrs they governed. Under Blair and Brown it dropped to around 25,000/yr for their 13 years. In 1997 they hijacked the previous governments policy which aimed to increase affordable housing in rural areas, and used it as a blanket policy to force private housebuilders to provide social housing. These two moves; reducing council/social housing, and forcing the private sector to prodide them are a big cause of our current housing crisis. Blame it on Labour! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 15

2:23pm Thu 21 Aug 14

mmarshal says...

I think paying housing benefit for an unemployed ex-council leader named James Alexander would be money well spent.
I think paying housing benefit for an unemployed ex-council leader named James Alexander would be money well spent. mmarshal
  • Score: -20

3:16pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Martin true Viking says...

Has James Alexander joined a gym and bought a new suit with our council tax he looks very Tory.
Has James Alexander joined a gym and bought a new suit with our council tax he looks very Tory. Martin true Viking
  • Score: -23

4:49pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Jonault says...

During the 1980's, Thatcher deregulated the mortgage market so that people could borrow more than twice their annual salary. This led to house price inflation and the housing bubble of 1988. So as not to lose face, the government decided that abolishing the fair rents commission meant that private rent could rocket so that rich folk with large property portfolios would not lose everything.
Houses should be homes, not investment vehicles.
During the 1980's, Thatcher deregulated the mortgage market so that people could borrow more than twice their annual salary. This led to house price inflation and the housing bubble of 1988. So as not to lose face, the government decided that abolishing the fair rents commission meant that private rent could rocket so that rich folk with large property portfolios would not lose everything. Houses should be homes, not investment vehicles. Jonault
  • Score: 2

5:52pm Thu 21 Aug 14

York1900 says...

This all goes back to Thatcher and right to buy where councils had to sell off housing stock and could not build more houses this meant that councils put thousands of houses in to private hands and these houses were then bought up buy private landlords to rent out at top prices
where once councils controlled housing rents by the number of houses they had now that is in the hands of private landlords who want the maximum return at any cost
This all goes back to Thatcher and right to buy where councils had to sell off housing stock and could not build more houses this meant that councils put thousands of houses in to private hands and these houses were then bought up buy private landlords to rent out at top prices where once councils controlled housing rents by the number of houses they had now that is in the hands of private landlords who want the maximum return at any cost York1900
  • Score: 6

6:09pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Jonault wrote:
During the 1980's, Thatcher deregulated the mortgage market so that people could borrow more than twice their annual salary. This led to house price inflation and the housing bubble of 1988. So as not to lose face, the government decided that abolishing the fair rents commission meant that private rent could rocket so that rich folk with large property portfolios would not lose everything.
Houses should be homes, not investment vehicles.
Exactly that. That's the problem right there. Not just for availability and affordability but also for breakdown of community.
What's that? Children playing football near my house?? Well that'll do no good for house prices in the area! Ban it!
Think of the house prices! Oh my investment!

Houses should be homes. Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Jonault[/bold] wrote: During the 1980's, Thatcher deregulated the mortgage market so that people could borrow more than twice their annual salary. This led to house price inflation and the housing bubble of 1988. So as not to lose face, the government decided that abolishing the fair rents commission meant that private rent could rocket so that rich folk with large property portfolios would not lose everything. Houses should be homes, not investment vehicles.[/p][/quote]Exactly that. That's the problem right there. Not just for availability and affordability but also for breakdown of community. What's that? Children playing football near my house?? Well that'll do no good for house prices in the area! Ban it! Think of the house prices! Oh my investment! Houses should be homes. Well said. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 6

6:30pm Thu 21 Aug 14

gmsgop says...

James - you say 'there is an argument...." Perhaps you could articulate it? Oh - and produce the report 'you' wrote...... Let's have a 'debate' but produce the facts and arguments please ---------
Gwen Swinburn
James - you say 'there is an argument...." Perhaps you could articulate it? Oh - and produce the report 'you' wrote...... Let's have a 'debate' but produce the facts and arguments please --------- Gwen Swinburn gmsgop
  • Score: -40

6:44pm Thu 21 Aug 14

raysalaugh says...

Why is it the Landlord is always the bad boy image? The first thing that needs capping is Alexanders wages, paid too much for making disastrous decisions. Landlords provide a much needed service. After all without landlords where would people live? Certainly not in a council house as they have all been sold off and not replaced. Rent capping would make a Landlord just sell up, as it would not be financially worth taking on tenants. Being a Landlord is a business and like all businesses they have to make a profit. The Landlord sets a rent, the tenant agrees to pay it so why is there a "Mr bad landlord" attitude? The majority of landlords want their tenants to be happy in their property and stay in their property's for a long period of time. Without landlords there would be many more homeless people, stop knocking the landlord and instead think of the service they provide.
Why is it the Landlord is always the bad boy image? The first thing that needs capping is Alexanders wages, paid too much for making disastrous decisions. Landlords provide a much needed service. After all without landlords where would people live? Certainly not in a council house as they have all been sold off and not replaced. Rent capping would make a Landlord just sell up, as it would not be financially worth taking on tenants. Being a Landlord is a business and like all businesses they have to make a profit. The Landlord sets a rent, the tenant agrees to pay it so why is there a "Mr bad landlord" attitude? The majority of landlords want their tenants to be happy in their property and stay in their property's for a long period of time. Without landlords there would be many more homeless people, stop knocking the landlord and instead think of the service they provide. raysalaugh
  • Score: -8

7:33pm Thu 21 Aug 14

munkey_mac says...

chelk wrote:
If Universities were required to provide enough accommodation for all their students on the campus there would be plenty of housing in York available so by Alexander's logic rents would be more competitive. No one will want to upset the Universities though
Not to mention the income via Council Tax for all these properties.
[quote][p][bold]chelk[/bold] wrote: If Universities were required to provide enough accommodation for all their students on the campus there would be plenty of housing in York available so by Alexander's logic rents would be more competitive. No one will want to upset the Universities though[/p][/quote]Not to mention the income via Council Tax for all these properties. munkey_mac
  • Score: 5

7:44pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Mr John says...

It seems reasonable to me that people who genuinely need financial get the help they need. However, it is obvious that not nearly enough is being done to get people off housing benefit that don't deserve it.
It seems reasonable to me that people who genuinely need financial get the help they need. However, it is obvious that not nearly enough is being done to get people off housing benefit that don't deserve it. Mr John
  • Score: -3

9:04pm Thu 21 Aug 14

isitjustme says...

Econ 101 - If you want to increase the supply of something, don't cap its price. JA's last quote is a gem. I live in NYC now and know only to well how Rent Control policies work.
Econ 101 - If you want to increase the supply of something, don't cap its price. JA's last quote is a gem. I live in NYC now and know only to well how Rent Control policies work. isitjustme
  • Score: -6

9:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

julia brica says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
I am probably same age as your granddad and my first house cost £3500.
I had a leeds council mortgage and earned a pittance . I struggled and got by not going out...............no
t having a telly..............n
ot going on holiday.....walking 300yds to use the payphone cycling to work to save the bus fare.
You cut your cloth accordingly.........
..........something some should consider
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]I am probably same age as your granddad and my first house cost £3500. I had a leeds council mortgage and earned a pittance . I struggled and got by not going out...............no t having a telly..............n ot going on holiday.....walking 300yds to use the payphone cycling to work to save the bus fare. You cut your cloth accordingly......... ..........something some should consider julia brica
  • Score: -8

9:15pm Thu 21 Aug 14

julia brica says...

Something very wrong with this newspaper when my post gets minus 42 within 10 seconds.
Something very wrong with this newspaper when my post gets minus 42 within 10 seconds. julia brica
  • Score: -7

7:26am Fri 22 Aug 14

oi oi savaloy says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
Ask your grandad how much money he was on when he bought that house?
my uncle paid £700 for his first house, at the same time my parents rented a council house on chappy road, because they couldn't afford to buy, I myself bought a house in the early 80's for £16,250 ( i knocked em down from £19,500) that was around 23 years after my uncle bought his for £700, we worked hard , put in loads of overtime to save up for a deposit and I continued to work hard and put in loads of overtime to pay the bills and the mortgage , Those house prices maybe sound cheap to you today, but back then they were not, why do you think so many people lived in council houses on the once many council estates in York? House prices have been overpriced for years in York, they were going up at ridiculous rates under the tories and also under that last labour government, they went up every year under labour at over 10% p.a. , yet they did nothing when they had 13 years to do something, oh i forgot they did do one thing , my council tax bill went up over 100% in that 13 years ( my biggest bill)
Your 2 child policy is a good idea, i don't think we should stop people having children if they want them, but iIthink we should only pay child benefit and family tax credit to a max of 2 children.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]Ask your grandad how much money he was on when he bought that house? my uncle paid £700 for his first house, at the same time my parents rented a council house on chappy road, because they couldn't afford to buy, I myself bought a house in the early 80's for £16,250 ( i knocked em down from £19,500) that was around 23 years after my uncle bought his for £700, we worked hard , put in loads of overtime to save up for a deposit and I continued to work hard and put in loads of overtime to pay the bills and the mortgage , Those house prices maybe sound cheap to you today, but back then they were not, why do you think so many people lived in council houses on the once many council estates in York? House prices have been overpriced for years in York, they were going up at ridiculous rates under the tories and also under that last labour government, they went up every year under labour at over 10% p.a. , yet they did nothing when they had 13 years to do something, oh i forgot they did do one thing , my council tax bill went up over 100% in that 13 years ( my biggest bill) Your 2 child policy is a good idea, i don't think we should stop people having children if they want them, but iIthink we should only pay child benefit and family tax credit to a max of 2 children. oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 10

10:11am Fri 22 Aug 14

mmarshal says...

mmarshal wrote:
I think paying housing benefit for an unemployed ex-council leader named James Alexander would be money well spent.
Looks like JA has 24 friends.
[quote][p][bold]mmarshal[/bold] wrote: I think paying housing benefit for an unemployed ex-council leader named James Alexander would be money well spent.[/p][/quote]Looks like JA has 24 friends. mmarshal
  • Score: 5

1:30pm Fri 22 Aug 14

rat scabies says...

The real reason it is doubling up is because this labour authority is housing just about anybody who cannot afford to pay rent, in York there are hundreds of houses filled up with drug addicts and alcoholics, all on benefits , all claiming housing benefit, this is what is happening with York's "adult social care" , its come to the point where York is even taking in strays from Manchester and other cities.

Another reason it has doubled is down to the housing immigrants over indigenous, the councils policy AND they do not deny this, is to house immigrants first because they are homeless, they do go to the top of the queue, and they were/are entitled to housing benefit from day one.

This is all down to winning the benefits vote, they (labour) do not care about tax payers money or who goes into social housing or who gets housing benefit, just as long as they get that vote!!
The real reason it is doubling up is because this labour authority is housing just about anybody who cannot afford to pay rent, in York there are hundreds of houses filled up with drug addicts and alcoholics, all on benefits , all claiming housing benefit, this is what is happening with York's "adult social care" , its come to the point where York is even taking in strays from Manchester and other cities. Another reason it has doubled is down to the housing immigrants over indigenous, the councils policy AND they do not deny this, is to house immigrants first because they are homeless, they do go to the top of the queue, and they were/are entitled to housing benefit from day one. This is all down to winning the benefits vote, they (labour) do not care about tax payers money or who goes into social housing or who gets housing benefit, just as long as they get that vote!! rat scabies
  • Score: 9

4:20pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

York expat wrote:
So my wife and I , both in our 60's, have to work over 25 hours just to pay the council tax that goes on housing benefit. That's ok then.
Council tax is a local tax. Housing benefit is part of Welfare Budget which is from central government.
[quote][p][bold]York expat[/bold] wrote: So my wife and I , both in our 60's, have to work over 25 hours just to pay the council tax that goes on housing benefit. That's ok then.[/p][/quote]Council tax is a local tax. Housing benefit is part of Welfare Budget which is from central government. Cheeky face
  • Score: 3

4:31pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Y.I.P. wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh !
Beth. Evolution and market forces dictate. My mother bought a house in 1946 when I was born. Cost £910 , and overlooks the racecourse in York.

The trend is towards renting; and longer tenancies are being promoted by the executives in Whitehall.

Biggest property increases in the last 50 years were in Notting Hill London. The carnival is over!
[quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh ![/p][/quote]Beth. Evolution and market forces dictate. My mother bought a house in 1946 when I was born. Cost £910 , and overlooks the racecourse in York. The trend is towards renting; and longer tenancies are being promoted by the executives in Whitehall. Biggest property increases in the last 50 years were in Notting Hill London. The carnival is over! Cheeky face
  • Score: 3

4:41pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Y.I.P. wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
AGuyFromStresall wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here.

The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me!
Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...
Yep.

oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy.

This situation has been caused by all of us.
My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!!

Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth
ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh !
Beth. Evolution and market forces dictate. My mother bought a house in 1946 when I was born. Cost £910 , and overlooks the racecourse in York.

The trend is towards renting; and longer tenancies are being promoted by the executives in Whitehall.

Biggest property increases in the last 50 years were in Notting Hill London. The carnival is over!
[quote][p][bold]Y.I.P.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AGuyFromStresall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: In most of Europe people rent. And renters are given a much better deal - much longer term contracts, much better service, much lower costs. I don't see why we can't get it right here. The real problem is a lack of houses. Family sizes are getting smaller whilst the population increases. The local plan doesn't have enough housing development sites within it. Good to see a firm commitment to providing affordable houses though - I want to be able to afford a house in the future and I won't be using my mum and dad to help me![/p][/quote]Depends how much you earn unfortunately. If your wage is above a relatively low threshold you won't qualify, but unless you have a handsome wage (or a partner) you won't be able to buy. Welcome to the life of the younger generation...[/p][/quote]Yep. oung Beth may work harder, and longer than her parents, but she may never be able to buy. This situation has been caused by all of us.[/p][/quote]My grandad told me he bought his first house for £4,000!!! Chance would be a fine thing. A basic necessity like housing should really be something the 6th greatest country in economic power can get right!! It is no one's "fault" - we're just not wanting to build enough houses, to meet demand, so prices increase and price people out of the market. But they the debate is all about where to build, use of space, greenbelt, etc etc. Maybe a 2-child policy or guideline would help in the long term. Beth[/p][/quote]ye but maybe only earning a tenner a week,all relative eh ![/p][/quote]Beth. Evolution and market forces dictate. My mother bought a house in 1946 when I was born. Cost £910 , and overlooks the racecourse in York. The trend is towards renting; and longer tenancies are being promoted by the executives in Whitehall. Biggest property increases in the last 50 years were in Notting Hill London. The carnival is over! Cheeky face
  • Score: 3

4:48pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

Mr John wrote:
It seems reasonable to me that people who genuinely need financial get the help they need. However, it is obvious that not nearly enough is being done to get people off housing benefit that don't deserve it.
EU executives say "Every should have a home". But even if they are not prepared to pay you could easily argue.

Massive subject this- only to-day we hear of reservations on the success/failure of recent welfare reform/Universal Credit!
[quote][p][bold]Mr John[/bold] wrote: It seems reasonable to me that people who genuinely need financial get the help they need. However, it is obvious that not nearly enough is being done to get people off housing benefit that don't deserve it.[/p][/quote]EU executives say "Every should have a home". But even if they are not prepared to pay you could easily argue. Massive subject this- only to-day we hear of reservations on the success/failure of recent welfare reform/Universal Credit! Cheeky face
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree