'Wealthy' States tenants fight eviction order

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:

wayside wrote:He said they go in with nothing and than come uut 10 times richer, when I was at school 10 x nothing was still nothing.

I am sure many deputies come out better off than they were when they went in but I think it rare that its through dodgy deeds, I also suspect there are some that ignore there own businesses a bit while in the government and end up worse off.

There will always be the odd rumour usually out of Jealousy kicking about.

Wayside, I must treat your post with the contempt it most certainly derserves.

Pete, I thought you weren't going to make any more comments on this matter!!!

Sometimes I wonder if hes drunk :roll:

that would explain quite a bit.

Pete

Every now and then one of your posts either does not make any sense to me or seems to misinterpret one of my post, why the post above should be treated with contempt I don’t know so assumed you had had a sherbet or two.

80% of the time I tend to agree with you so its not all bad.

Of course I cannot comment on individual cases but I will give you a break down of the policy. The Tenancy Review policy although unpopular with those it effects is nevertheless an important part of the housing stradedgy, whereby The States Housing Department can monitor those who live in social need housing, in order to ensure that the people occupying these homes, are in real social need. People, who apply and subsequently qualify in the first instance, then come into States Housing, receiving essential help from the States at a time when their circumstances and their incomes make it difficult for them to access other housing options across the island and that is absolutly as it should be.

We make sure that once accepted, those on low incomes have their rents controlled these rents are heavily rebated in order that we take no more than 25% of the household income in rent. Within those rebates, we include a small child allowance for each child of school age, also the standard rent for the property includes un-metered water and refuse rates.

Given that the rents for these States properties are heavily subsidised in the first place, it is not unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect, that as time moves on and people’s financial circumstances improve significantly, that they consider moving out of subsidised States Housing into the private sector, or take up some of the other housing options that are now available through GHA non social rental accommodation or the partial ownership/shared equity scheme. Often the misunderstanding of those affected by this policy is that they believe that having secured a States tenancy for life. That has never been the case and as incomes across the island have improved, the numbers of high earners remaining in States properties increased year on year, while those on the waiting list continued to wait to be housed, which was and still is manifestly unfair.

The States of course are perfectly happy to support for however long, those who need and will continue to need social housing and those families or elderly residents on low incomes will not be affected by the Tenancy Review Policy.

I am not pretending for a moment that it is not difficult to leave a home you have occupied in some cases for many years, which is why the decision of the Housing Department can be tested on appeal and an independent panel will decide whether to recommend that the Housing Department look at the tenants individual circumstances again. This policy has been one of the most difficult policies that our board have had to deal with and it may seem unduly harsh but if you have people whose earnings are significantly above the thresholds, some as high as £600 per month above, together with the fact that they are already paying a rent heavily subsidised by the taxpayer then there is no option of people on this level of earnings staying in social rental housing. For those who ask why we don’t just charge a much higher rent to these people? Well the answer is simple, nobody should have a right to buy a States tenancy in social rental housing just because they can afford it, what about all those on the waiting lists who don’t have the money to do the same. Social rental housing is not sold to the highest bidder but is only available to those in need. It is not the taxpayers duty to fund life style choices and people have to choose what they spend their money on but we cannot have a situation where people stay in much needed States housing when they could well afford to live in the private sector.

Deputy Dave Jones

Housing Minister.

There are several cases where a persons income for a few years goes above the threshold and then for various reasons drops below again surely there should be an option where a person pays over the odds for that period which would put something back in the pot and should their situation change again then the go to being subsidised again.

I dont see why you cant just say "OK you can stay there but your rent will be 20% above the the true rent value.

As I see it - it's because there are a finite number of houses and younger people with housing needs are coming up all the time.....you can't tell them that someone is paying over the odds for their states house - so there are none left for the really 'needy' with young children etc etc. That is only IMO and I am sure somebody will put me right if I have it wrong :(

There are plenty of people in States housing who could afford to rent (or even buy) privately, of that there is no doubt.

Look at how many people in the private sector scrape by each month, without being able to afford new cars, Sky TV, going down the pub every night etc.

I fully accept that there are those who genuinely need social housing, and I agree that it ought to be provided. By weeding out those who don't genuinely need it there would be more funds available for those that do. Unfortunately there appears to be an attitude amongst some families that they are entitled to States houses, and this goes on for generation after generation.