When more means less

There have been many cases that local families, after all their lives in the working-class sector, have been lucky enough to come into a small windfall of money.

It's a dream for most families to hope for this situation to make their lives more comfortable, buy a new car, take the children on holiday, not to worry too much about bills, etc.

Worst is yet to come. Their lives are now about to fall apart, depending on their windfalls of course. They have to leave their States house and go into rented accommodation, especially as their windfall in this island needs to be over £500,000 to acquire a decent family home.

In the last year, many families now have to leave their island of birth and buy in the UK a house of their own, leaving their relations here. It is a sad situation that happens in this island and the way unfortunately the Housing rules apply.

These families are in a no-win situation regardless, of course. Their homes will then pass on to those on benefit from all walks of life.

Is it worth hoping for some good luck in life? Not so in these cases. I believe the estimates were say £70-80,000 then these amounts would not last long in the private sector. A very large percentage of people living in States houses are hard-working and the one chance they get has gone and to no benefit in the end.

I would be interested to hear from Housing the rules and regulations on this subject.

R. S. MAUGER,

Address withheld.

Editor's footnote: A spokesperson for the Housing Department replies:

'Social housing is intended for single people, couples and families who would struggle to afford other types of accommodation.

To qualify for social housing, applicants must have a household income and an amount of savings that fall below certain financial thresholds.

After someone becomes a social housing tenant, their financial situation may improve. They may find work, or better-paid work, or they may receive an inheritance in the form of land, property or capital. Generally speaking, if a tenant's income or savings were to increase to the extent that they crossed one of the financial thresholds, the department would give them notice to leave the property.

The department has adopted this policy, which is endorsed by the States, because it has a responsibility to make sure that its finite stock of social housing is allocated to those most in need. A property vacated by a higher-earning tenant or a tenant with significant assets will be reallocated to an applicant on the department's waiting list.

The department can and does exercise discretion in these matters, however, and would not move to terminate a tenancy unless it was satisfied that the tenant could afford to live in the private rented sector for a sustained period of time. For this reason, households who inherit smaller sums of money are not asked to move out.

Your correspondent appears to suggest that a fairer approach would be to ask tenants to leave only when they have enough money to purchase a property outright, and quotes a sum of £500,000. The department could not support such an approach, not least because it would lead to tenants continuing to benefit from cheaper social housing rents even if they had hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank. It's also worth bearing in mind that someone with that amount of money who applied for social housing would be turned down.

The department appreciates that no one likes to be told to move out of their home and can understand why tenants who come into money would rather spend that money on something other than increased living expenses associated with moving into the private rented sector. But adopting a policy which sought to avoid these outcomes would create a situation where households with significant assets continued to enjoy the benefits of subsidised accommodation at the expense of families in more desperate circumstances.'