- Joined
- Jan 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,233
- Reaction score
- 460
In the UK the local council has a legal obligation to house you unless you have made yourself intentionally homeless.
I have no idea what the criteria for making yourself intentionally homeless is.
The govt at the start of the pandemic advised some authorities to close hostels/shelters and seek alternative emergency accommodation. This has meant turning to hotels.
If someone loses their job due to the pandemic and can't pay the rent and can't come to an agreement with a landlord. They are not making making themselves intentionally homeless. They can what? Squat, try to find somewhere cheaper, move in with family. Maybe they have no family and can't afford anywhere cheaper so they have to turn to someone for help.
So while this may be an extra burden on the taxpayer it also really helps with two problems. It provides safe secure accommodation for people made homeless and revenue to hotels who under current restrictions can't accept leisure guests. So in a way its two birds, one stone. But its a problem that could have largely avoided.
A hotel may have a negotiated rate with the local council. This could be for example £60 a night. This means it is costing the council £420 a week to accommodate them.
However in these situations the council must find them accommodation within 60 days. That means £3,600 of taxpayers money if they stay the full 60 days and there is a serious shortage of social housing.
The average cost of social housing in 2017 was £97 per week (compare to £420 to keep someone in a hotel for a week). We have a shortage of social housing created many years ago when the right to buy scheme (a good policy, one of the very few Thatcher had) led to the selling off of council property but none of the money was reinvested in social housing.
This is why for years we have had a social housing crisis with people sometimes waiting years to get accommodation.
So essentially greed and a lack of planning has been exacerbated because of the pandemic.
Its a supply and demand issue in many ways.
Or we could have reinvested the money from right to buy and had a sensible social housing policy for the past 30 years.
I sympathize with someone who through no fault of their own especially now has lost their job and can no longer make rent and am happy to use taxpayer money to do so to help them back on their feet. I think that's money well spent.
It must be crushing for someone to lose their job, has always paid their bills and because of the pandemic can no longer pay those bills and is struggling to find a new job. A real blow to their self worth and through no fault of their own. Especially young people who might just be starting out and have little savings to fall back on.
I myself was recently made redundant but fortunately received a decent settlement and had savings to fall back on. If I was not entitled to redundancy due to length of service or had the opportunity to save for a few years I'd be in a very rough spot right now.
So there but for the grace of god go I.
I think its situations like that where a robust social safety net is required. So yes I would say a roof over your head is a right however with certain caveats. Provide the basics, a roof, heating and water.
Evictions the landlord owns the property. It is his. You signed a contract and both parties need to honor it.
If one party can no longer honor that agreement it is not the landlords fault if you lose your job. Not all landlords are rich or greedy. You could try to find an agreement but at the end of the day the property is theirs and should they wish to evict a tenant no matter what the circumstances so long as they abide by the contract.
Tenancy agreements are just a contract. It's not private landlords role to subsidize you and not all of them are rich, bloodsucking vampires either.
I have no idea what the criteria for making yourself intentionally homeless is.
The govt at the start of the pandemic advised some authorities to close hostels/shelters and seek alternative emergency accommodation. This has meant turning to hotels.
If someone loses their job due to the pandemic and can't pay the rent and can't come to an agreement with a landlord. They are not making making themselves intentionally homeless. They can what? Squat, try to find somewhere cheaper, move in with family. Maybe they have no family and can't afford anywhere cheaper so they have to turn to someone for help.
So while this may be an extra burden on the taxpayer it also really helps with two problems. It provides safe secure accommodation for people made homeless and revenue to hotels who under current restrictions can't accept leisure guests. So in a way its two birds, one stone. But its a problem that could have largely avoided.
A hotel may have a negotiated rate with the local council. This could be for example £60 a night. This means it is costing the council £420 a week to accommodate them.
However in these situations the council must find them accommodation within 60 days. That means £3,600 of taxpayers money if they stay the full 60 days and there is a serious shortage of social housing.
The average cost of social housing in 2017 was £97 per week (compare to £420 to keep someone in a hotel for a week). We have a shortage of social housing created many years ago when the right to buy scheme (a good policy, one of the very few Thatcher had) led to the selling off of council property but none of the money was reinvested in social housing.
This is why for years we have had a social housing crisis with people sometimes waiting years to get accommodation.
So essentially greed and a lack of planning has been exacerbated because of the pandemic.
Its a supply and demand issue in many ways.
Or we could have reinvested the money from right to buy and had a sensible social housing policy for the past 30 years.
I sympathize with someone who through no fault of their own especially now has lost their job and can no longer make rent and am happy to use taxpayer money to do so to help them back on their feet. I think that's money well spent.
It must be crushing for someone to lose their job, has always paid their bills and because of the pandemic can no longer pay those bills and is struggling to find a new job. A real blow to their self worth and through no fault of their own. Especially young people who might just be starting out and have little savings to fall back on.
I myself was recently made redundant but fortunately received a decent settlement and had savings to fall back on. If I was not entitled to redundancy due to length of service or had the opportunity to save for a few years I'd be in a very rough spot right now.
So there but for the grace of god go I.
I think its situations like that where a robust social safety net is required. So yes I would say a roof over your head is a right however with certain caveats. Provide the basics, a roof, heating and water.
Evictions the landlord owns the property. It is his. You signed a contract and both parties need to honor it.
If one party can no longer honor that agreement it is not the landlords fault if you lose your job. Not all landlords are rich or greedy. You could try to find an agreement but at the end of the day the property is theirs and should they wish to evict a tenant no matter what the circumstances so long as they abide by the contract.
Tenancy agreements are just a contract. It's not private landlords role to subsidize you and not all of them are rich, bloodsucking vampires either.
Last edited:
