Residents, tenants, future tenants, landlords and housing associations have just one month to submit their views on changes to the way social housing is allocated across Sefton.

Since November, Sefton Council and local authorities in the Liverpool City Region have been seeking views on the allocation process for social housing, which is administered through Property Pool Plus.

So far, more than 3,600 people across the Liverpool City Region have responded but further views are being sought as part of the public consultation.

Social housing is allocated several different ways, which considering a resident’s eligibility, choice, preference, and priority. Changes are being proposed to each of these areas.

Cllr Trish Hardy, Sefton Council’s Cabinet Member for Communities and Housing, said:

“Thank you to everyone who has taken part so far in this consultation. Your views are extremely important and will ensure that the allocations process takes into account all factors within an individual’s personal circumstances.

“It is hoped that the feedback received will ensure that the process of matching people with homes across the Borough, is efficient, accessible and places priority on those with most need.”

Some criteria that may place someone in a higher priority could include:

people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless;
victims of domestic abuse, racial abuse or hate crime;
members of the armed forces and reserved forces;
medical need
To find out more information about the changes to the policy and to take part in the consultation, people can visit www.sefton.gov.uk/PPP-HaveYourSay.

The consultation will run until Wednesday 10th February 2021.

Authorities in the Liverpool City Region will all simultaneously be undertaking this survey, the authorities include Halton Borough Council, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Liverpool City Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Wirral Council

Some criteria that may place someone in a higher priority could include:

• people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless;
• victims of domestic abuse, racial abuse or hate crime;
• members of the armed forces and reserved forces;
• medical need

From the survey: 1. Who cannot go on the list for social housing

The council wants to say no to people who:

• Are guilty of unacceptable behaviour when they rented a property
• People who owe money to landlords
• People who have been told to leave a property for breaking the rules of them renting
• People who have no connections to their local authority for the last 2 years
• Anyone who already owns a house
• People who have money or can sell something worth more than £16,000

I wasn't around at the inception of Council housing in England. I do, however, remember acquaintances who were ordinary families living in commodious, Council-owned homes in pleasant surroundings. Then came the ideological notion that if people owned their own homes, they'd be far less likely to vote Labour. So, flog-off the nice Council houses and turn the remainder into social ghettos which no one who could afford to buy would choose to live in.

The better way:
Build sufficient numbers of good quality social housing for rent on comparable terms with the private rented sector and with targeted assistance for those who cannot afford decent housing for reasons of ill-health or incapacity.

Originally Posted by sandGroundZero

Some criteria that may place someone in a higher priority could include:

• people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless;
• victims of domestic abuse, racial abuse or hate crime;
• members of the armed forces and reserved forces;
• medical need

From the survey: 1. Who cannot go on the list for social housing


I wasn't around at the inception of Council housing in England. I do, however, remember acquaintances who were ordinary families living in commodious, Council-owned homes in pleasant surroundings. Then came the ideological notion that if people owned their own homes, they'd be far less likely to vote Labour. So, flog-off the nice Council houses and turn the remainder into social ghettos which no one who could afford to buy would choose to live in.

The better way:
Build sufficient numbers of good quality social housing for rent on comparable terms with the private rented sector and with targeted assistance for those who cannot afford decent housing for reasons of ill-health or incapacity.

Social housing should only be allocated to people who have lived for a number of years in the local area of the housing. This ensures continuity of the community as a whole. Many social housing people abused the system to obtain a house at a cheap rent in more desirable areas where they are not familiar with the community in general. Swapping should not be allowed in social housing because this indicates that people are in no such need of it.
Allow social housing for those who cannot afford their own homes for a set period only, not for life. Social housing should be used as a stop-gap solution to encourage people to better themselves. Only those who are genuinely incapacitated should be allowed long term occupancy. Those who abuse the property or who become antisocial should lose the right of occupancy of the property immediately, and should then be housed in homeless hostels.

Originally Posted by said

Social housing should only be allocated to people who have lived for a number of years in the local area of the housing

Allow social housing for those who cannot afford their own homes for a set period only, not for life. Social housing should be used as a stop-gap solution to encourage people to better themselves.

Those who abuse the property or who become antisocial should lose the right of occupancy of the property immediately, and should then be housed in homeless hostels.

1, How about HM Forces, often they have had to leave an area because of the nature of their job, how about when they return, sometimes after 22 years?

2, So how about those that are trying to ‘better themselves’ but still can’t afford to get on the housing ladder? What’s your plan then? Turf them out because they’ve not made the grade?

3, probably the only vaguely sensible thing I think you’ve ever posted. I’ve no doubt normal service will resume with your next post!

Originally Posted by said

Social housing should only be allocated to people who have lived for a number of years in the local area of the housing. This ensures continuity of the community as a whole. Many social housing people abused the system to obtain a house at a cheap rent in more desirable areas where they are not familiar with the community in general. Swapping should not be allowed in social housing because this indicates that people are in no such need of it.
Allow social housing for those who cannot afford their own homes for a set period only, not for life. Social housing should be used as a stop-gap solution to encourage people to better themselves. Only those who are genuinely incapacitated should be allowed long term occupancy. Those who abuse the property or who become antisocial should lose the right of occupancy of the property immediately, and should then be housed in homeless hostels.

And thank goodness you don’t actually have any say when it comes to the allocation of social housing. Pompous, patronising fool.

18^th & 19^th century technological innovation was impressive. Sadly, innovators didn't make much progress in terms of improving on domestic vernacular designs. With coal smoke obscuring the sun and coal merchants peddling their product the idea of 'solar passive warming ' had to wait until late in the 20^th century by which time the legacy housing stock was decaying and mass-scale house builders put profit ahead of good design. In short, UK housing is subpar in pretty much every respect. Quality housing standards for the bulk of the population do not come about spontaneously; bespoke architectural design is a luxury few can afford.

That is why Council built housing can be useful; but only if it is of high quality. 1960s & 70s Council house building 'on the cheap' exacerbated existing severe social deprivation. The concept of social housing was badly tarnished.

The effort is definitely worth it!

If Councils are to be involved in social housing (and I believe they should be), then it is imperative that we recognize that subsidizing quality is a good investment.

11/01/2021 08:32 PM said says:

• Social housing should only be allocated to people who have lived for a number of years in the local area of the housing. This ensures continuity of the community as a whole.
• Many social housing people abused the system to obtain a house at a cheap rent in more desirable areas where they are not familiar with the community in general.
• Swapping should not be allowed in social housing because this indicates that people are in no such need of it.

• Allow social housing for those who cannot afford their own homes for a set period only, not for life.
• Social housing should be used as a stop-gap solution to encourage people to better themselves.
• Only those who are genuinely incapacitated should be allowed long term occupancy.
• Those who abuse the property or who become antisocial should lose the right of occupancy of the property immediately, and should then be housed in homeless hostels.

…that is, let's have punitive social engineering through housing policy!

__________________________________________________________________

Social housing in the UK developed in response to dire housing for urban and rural 'working class ' households. Society is still stratified, certainly in the matter of housing. However, the circumstances are different and so too should be the responses.

There should be no stigma attached to private or social renting. By the same token, there is no need to set social rents inflexibly. It is entirely appropriate to expect rents to be scaled reflecting renters' income. Keeping in mind that a sufficient quantity of quality (social) rented houses will have an impact on private sector landlords' behaviour, there is no requirement to exclude private renting. Still, the principle of subsidizing quality design and construction, particularly in terms of comfortable, energy efficient housing is desirable.

"It is entirely appropriate to expect rents to be scaled reflecting renters' income"


Sounds like one of Maggie Thatchers old ideas, a poll tax for renters.