what this story shows is how messed up Social Housing is, and has increasingly become under successive governments (of all colours). He has a tenancy agreement and that agreement will have been made when he was initially assessed and deemed to be "in need", it was an open ended tenancy with no review period or clauses (see Fixed Term tenancies, which are now used widely for examples of the clauses for re-assessment). It's the same as when you have an elderly person, living in a 3 bedroom property, that chances are they can only afford to heat three rooms (invariably the "living" room, the bedroom and the kitchen) they cannot use the other rooms (and have no need of them), but they either wont move "because this is where I brought my family up" or the local area has no suitable smaller stock to move them into. At the same time there'll be a family of 6, who could use the property to it's maximum, being accommodated in inadequate temporary accommodation at increased expense, it's a mess, and nobody has the appetite or will to actually address the issue, because they'd become unelectable overnight.

I think you're spot on.







What you say is right, but it's always coming back to the core lack of social housing. One trade union leader – or even some elderly people – are not the cause of the problem.

You cannot treat human beings as chattels or ignore the fact that what most desire is a place to call a home rather than a house - what is actually wrong in a person settling and investing in an area and then wanting to stay put - why should they instead regard this dwelling house as a mere transition point in their life that they have to surrender when their children grow up and move away, or a family member (maybe even a child) dies and they don't need three bedrooms any longer - what housing officer is going to call around and tell a family "I'm really sorry that your husband has left you and the kids and all that, but can we have the keys on my desk by 9am tomorrow please and we'll have a small flat ready for you in the next town as soon as we can".



Are we playing Monopoly or something ?

any of my team doing their job properly, so long as the tenancy provides for it.



Social Housing isn't meant to be a lifelong answer for those who no longer need it.

I reckon any party that proposes a massive house building programme would sweep to victory with a landslide.



But I have a feeling that building more houses is not the solution you would prefer

So basically you're running a very large hotel where bodies check in and are checked out when you think that you can utilise them more profitably elsewhere ?

I'd like more housing to be built, yes, and for it to be more appropriately utilised.

It's not about profitability, it's about appropriateness, there are people trapped in Social housing because there isn't the encouragement to move on, a little like benefits. But hey, I've been a housing professional for 15 years, what do I know.

You have a very polarised view that social housing is a temporary stopping point for any person or family, somewhere that they shouldn't linger too long in while they throw a six or buy a winning scratch card, or something.



What "encouragement" do you give your tenants to move on and avoid getting "trapped" ?

We do all kinds of work with them, but explaining it to someone with such a set agenda as yours seems a little fruitless Mr Chicken.

My agenda isn't set in stone, its just a different point of view, you believe that you are there to provide temporary accommodation for absolute defined periods of a persons family life, I believe you should have a different function and I'm curious as to when your job function changed because it wasn't always so.

Why would they need to "move on"and where do you suggest they move on to?



It's a shame you have only been a housing professional for 15 years, if you'd done it for 60 years you would have the experience of seeing how council housing worked through the 50s and 60s and what happened to it post righ to buy