General Discussion

As I know not everyone gets the Dawlish Post delivered I thought I'd reproduce here an article that is on page 14 of this week's edition concerning social housing tenants and how rents may be affected if incomes increase. Here's the article:

" Claims that new social housing tenancy rules could encourage some people to give up work or risk losing their homes have been dismissed by the leadership of Teignbridge Council.

The authority has set out a new strategy in which householders who find their low incomes rising could be told they no longer qualified for affordable rented housing.

Should that happen they could be told by providers such as Teign Housing to move on. The alternatives could be to pay higher rents or buy the property.

Former leader Cllr Alan Connett (Liberal Democrat) on Tuesday quizzed members of the executive on the plan. He said the Conservative administration was in danger of falling foul of 'the law of unintended consequences' as the scheme appeared to work against those who tried to better themselves.

He wanted to know what happened if someone 'through hard work and endeavour' found themselves creeping just above the threshold. 'The [strategy] doesn't offer a ladder, it's a cliff edge' he said and predicted that people might opt out of work to remain in their homes.

The meeting was not told what income a resident would have to reach before no longer qualilfying for social housing but Amanda Downie, the council's housing services manager, rejected Cllr Connett's assessment saying 'other options' would be available such as shared ownership or renegotiated rents.

'I can't see why members would want to put public subsidy into social housing for people who are on considerable incomes' she said.

Deputy leader Cllr Stuart Barker (Con) was of the same opinion , although he agreed with one point made by Cllr Connett that there was 'some ambiguity' in the documentation which could suggest that people had to be moved on if their incomes increased.

Leader Cllr Jeremy Christophers (Con) was also happy that safeguards had been built in. 'I don't see this as the cliff edge being described by Alan' he said.

Housing supremo Cllr Philip Vogel (Con) rounded off the debate by saying: 'It does what it says on the tin, it's flexibility up and down'.

Although social landlords will not be legally bound by the strategy they will be expected to 'have regard to it'".