Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Stop these huge rent increases!
These properties were promised as council homes at council rent, but were instead delivered as council homes at so-called 'affordable rent'.
This was the doing of Cllr Alan Strickland, Haringey's deselected Executive Member for housing, planning and regeneration.
The average Haringey Council social or formula rent for a two-bed property is £103.95 weekly.
But Haringey Council’s average ‘Affordable Rent’ for a two-bed is £232.77 weekly (123% higher) ; all plus service charges - which can often be another scam.
These huge rent rises are a big threat to housing affordability, that we need to deal with in the current consultation on the Mayor of London's Local Plan.
Social or formula rent is NOT one of the Mayor's "preferred affordable housing options" (p189)... in a plan that is to cover the twenty-three years, 2019-2041.
In other words, Sadiq Khan seems to want to be the No-social housing Mayor.
But why? - when what we actually need is more and better decent, secure, really-affordable, and democratically-accountable Council housing.
Let's all get shouting about it. The consultation on the Draft London Plan ends at 5pm sharp, on Friday 2 March 2018. Please email londonplan@london.gov.uk. Ensure the Subject line says "Draft New London Plan".
And let's badger our candidates for the borough Council elections on 3 May.
We would be delighted if you could copy your responses to haringey_dch@outlook.com
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by EyeSpy on
-
Khan doesn't want the lowly working class in London. He wants tourists and tax dodgers.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
He doesn't even want to be mayor. Remember he only threw his hat in the ring for the selection after they lost the 2015 general election. He'd rather just play tennis.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Burnham on
-
I suspect that Sadiq is lazy and has no idea how to stand up to the developer interests that are so entrenched in London's planning system. But I also suspect Sadiq is lobbyable about these issues.
-
-
Sadiq and David took a lot of money from property developers to run their Labour selection campaigns.
-
-
In the 2014 election Labour promised to build new council homes. These were presumed to be council homes at council rent. The infill scheme on council estates was part of delivering that. During the process I attended a scrutiny meeting and asked for confirmation that the council homes built would be at target rent and this confirmation was given. Then (in I think 2016) Cabinet decided that as build costs had risen unexpectedly, the rents would now be 80% of market, with the huge uplift in costs to the tenants, as explained in this posting.
-
-
Something always changes somewhere in the economy - and these were the first Haringey Council-built homes in many years. So they were out of practice.
But more than that, Cllrs Kober and Strickland were pursuing the agenda of big rent increases, and also fragmenting the council housing offer: now it is no longer clear what is meant by "Council rent", we have to bore people half to death by specifying formula/target rent, and explaining that Council affordable rent is something else, and not really affordable, etc.
They could very easily have charged these tenants the usual Council formula rent. I believe there were only 19 council tenants in these new builds (maybe it was 29... but only a handful of them) whereas there are 15,000 other Council tenants paying the usual amounts.
Also, the idea of charging 80% of market came from Barnet, which charges 80% of market for new council tenancies. It came along with Nick Walkley.
-
-
And where should the money come from to subsidise these social rents? Council tax is already very high in this borough with very little service in return.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Council houses are not "subsidised". Unlike private landlords, councils are not permitted by law to make a profit from rents. So a "social" rent is in fact the *real* cost of building and maintaining a property. "Market rent" represents the profit that landlords make after maintenance. Obviously the "desirability" and demand in an area allows that landlord to profit further by raising rents to whatever tenants are prepared to pay to live in that area. This is how people are "priced out".
Councils, at least until now, didn't seek to profit from tenants. Rents paid for the build and, after about 20 years or so, the rents became a source of income to keep property and grounds maintained. Long term council tenants pay for their homes and don't even get to pass them on any more since succession rules changed.
When councils partner with developers to build new houses, they get round this no-profit rule but so as not to appear to be handing over public owned land (which our taxes do pay for) they negotiate these so-called "affordable rents" which at 80% of market are in more "desirable" areas still unrealistic for low-waged workers (and most people in council properties are either older, disabled or do some form of work).
Many developers have realised that many council estates are in desirable parts of inner London or near pretty parts of London like rivers and green space and are eager to get hold of these places. They often offer incredible looking deals to councils but, once the ink is dry, they start to rein back on the "social" part (see Heygate estate or Trellick Tower for an example) and councils are forced to go along with it. Eventually, social tenants who are moved out 'temporarily' find they are unable to return at the new rents or have lost eligibility for any tiny bit of council housing left. Leaseholders are even worse off but that's another story.
All defenders of council housing are doing is trying to defend these public spaces and keep them for people on lower wages (the cleaners, care workers, retail workers, public service workers that the city relies on) and not let our land be grabbed by private developers.
A couple of good reads on this are Lynsey Hanley's 'Estates' and Anna Minton's books.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Thanks for that Liz
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Matz on
-
A concise piece of myth-busting - thanks Liz!
-
-
We are currently campaigning to have these high rents reduced to normal Council rents. The issue was raised in the Annual Council's Budget consultation - and the Council listened.
These are not intermediate tenancies for people on middle incomes, they are the government's idea of the future for council and social housing. While ordinary people resist.
We wrote four letters to the tenants, and vistited them alongside a helpful local Councillor. Then we lobbied the Cabinet on 11 February. there were thirteen people there from the high tenancies, including children, family and friends.
Haringey Council has 15,000 council social rent tenancies and just 18 of these high rent tenancies.
Promises have been made that proposals for rent reductions will be coming forward in future months.
It has emerged though the campaigning, that at least three of the eighteen High Rent tenants were moved from the Love Lane estate that the Council wants to demolish, where tenants were promised that theywould not be worse off after demolition.
As well as rents and service charges, these tenants experienced higher Council Tax banding, in one one case going from band A to band D, which is a 50% increase.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
