The official site ofthe Mayor of Londonand the London Assembly

I do not agree. Does Sadiq´s Office have a department in charge of Social Housing? if yes, then change the job title of the head of that department calling it Commissioner and do the job properly. No more bureaucracy.

Social housing has to be the last option to those who for extreme circunstances are not able to buy their home.
The general rule should be that everybody should be able to buy or build their own home. This would be the real meaning of affordable home: the one that individuals and families are able to pay. This is the real challenge for Sadiq Khan, help us to make this a reality and for that be ready to accept innovative formulas.

I would be strongly for the reintroduction of short-life housing for the homeless (marrying up the homeless with empty properties) it worked fantastically well for over a decade before Thatcher closed it all down.

AND using Housing Cooperative model for permanent rented accommodation. Again this was marginalised when Thatcher closed the NFHC down thinking that all Housing Cooperatives should go under the wing of Housing Associations (her preferred model). However Housing Cooperatives come under a completely different law, which parliament still don't understand to this day! The HCs still surviving have all paid off their mortgages now and the members, housed or not, jointly and severally own the properties. Members of the Co-op direct and manage it, participation goes towards getting housed if you're a member but not yet housed. Rents are set according to budget needs of cyclical and emergency maintenance etc. In other words the tenants and want to be tenants have all the say.

The problem is that co-ops can no longer add to their housing stock since the mid 80s, but are still doing a sterling job maintaining what they have and housing people in need.

The housing strategy fails to protect existing social homes. These are being permanently destroyed via estate demolition and tenure conversion by housing associations. Much is made in the strategy about building on brownfield and this is terrifying to all of us who live on estates, as our homes are classed as brownfield.

Replacing demolished social homes on a like for like basis is an unacceptable policy because the massive social and environmental damage caused by estate demolition is unacceptable in return for no more social homes.

All the new "affordable" rents are misleading and confusing and the vast majority are not affordable to the vast majority of Londoners.

Housing associations are touted as part of the solution to the housing crisis and yet they are now reclassified as private businesses and operate as such with residents seen as an inconvenience.

The strategy prioritises the wealthy middle classes with emphasis on the biggest housing rip off available: shared ownership. And products which are supposed to allow high earning middle class couples to save for a deposit (not possible if 1/3 of income goes on rent). There is virtually nothing for the poor, the average earner, the badly paid professional, the working class, single parents or the many thousands on council waiting lists.

The strategy could be much stronger on empty properties, foreign investors, S106, viability, social (not affordable), uses of public land for luxury flats which frankly should be illegal.

I am shocked that the survey on the strategy I just completed allows no space for comments. This consultation is a sham. The strategy is a developer- friendly, anti- Londoner document which is no help to those of us on the frontline fighting for our RIGHTS to the city.

Social housing residents desperately need proper regulation of social housing providers, and a watchdog organisation with teeth. Changes made over the last couple of decades have left housing associations without any real supervision or accountability, and there is no mechanism for groups of residents to call their landlord to order collectively.

A commissioner is fine but as others have said it needs teeth to work. We also need someone to address issues of what social housing is and what is affordable housing with many developments saying they will build "affordable housing" when local people can't afford 80% of market value and don't get same right as council house and housing association tenants.

This is what is happening in Haringey where local people will not benefit from the current HDV plans. Instead what we are going to get is loss of public land, "affordable housing" that is unaffordable for those in greatest need, fewer council and housing association homes built to last and for families etc with what is built resembling rabbit hutches with developers making fortunes whilst councils ignore the need for and in some cases demolish social housing. Added to this the waiving of the community levy in many developments leading to councils and mayor having to find money for infrastructure by probably selling more land so developers can make off with even more ill gotten gains. Saddiq should ensure that he doesn't fall for this regeneration con trick!

I would just LOVE someone in the Treasury to add up all the money that has been paid to private landlords, plus what has been paid out in the way of housing benefits, and all the other benefits paid to enable workers to rent. And then compare it with the previous cost of providing council/social housing for low income workers. What's the difference? I'm going to guess that government-provided council/social housing was lower. Let alone the issue the average amount of personal debt that every household in the UK is now burdened with, a good proportion of which is rent arrears. Then the cost to the taxpayer of pursuing rent arrears through the courts....and the increase in rent arrears for individuals when court fines are added to the rent arrears....whatever happened to that basic moral ethos that accepted workers needed to be adequately housed & it was the duty of government to do so? I accept it was only in existence for about 50 years - 1930ish to the 1980s - but it recognised the argument that a well-, and securely, housed work force was a productive one. We need to return get to such a system.

It is simply not necessary. What is necessary, is that local councils should be given the money, general resources etc to be housing authorities, using direct labour, in house architects etc.(This was once regarded as "normal", after all) Rents should be controlled, at a level commensurate with people's incomes. Lets have an end to the stigma which now seems to be attached to being a renter rather than an owner. Housing should be treated as a social utility not as a means of private investment. The push towards the latter is a crucial cause of the general crisis we are now in.

good idea but only if it initiate positive changes

Knowing the ideological bent of the Tory government, I would have no confidence in their ability to appoint a Commissioner for Social Housing Residents who would be able to enable the collective voices of social housing tenants to be heard. I also doubt that the creation of yet another bureaucracy will make one whit of difference to the current dire situation those of us with this housing tenure are currently in both within and outside London.

I would much prefer the Mayor of London (and other local mayors also) to just get on with the job of sorting out the housing crisis. This will mean the following:

Facilitating the construction of council housing with affordable rents
Ensuring public land that becomes available is used to construct council homes
Putting pressure on government to keep their promise to fully fund all safety measures for social housing, e.g. sprinklers in tower blocks.
Ensuring that at LEAST 95% of new homes are genuinely affordable (50% is far, far too low a proportion - why do we need more homes to stand empty and be used for money laundering?)
Putting pressure on the government to provide funds for social housing in London and elsewhere.
Campaigning for abolition of the council housing borrowing cap on local authorities.

What a ridiculous survey on the Housing Strategy! Mostly questions on what we think about rough sleepers, hardly anything on the policy itself, and no place to put comments.

Rather than increasing density, already too high in most parts of central London, the Mayor should CPO all Local Authroity lease-held flatss which are not lived in by the owner, and have councils take back Housing Association property which is no longer being used for social housing. This would increase supply and possibly also burst the price bubble.

There should also be a Land Value Tax paid on all property which is not lived in regularly by the owner.

SELF FINANCING LOCAL AUTHORITY SHELTERED HOUSING.
Local Authorities or Housing Associations could acquire land and build sheltered housing for people aged over 65. Tenants who had sold their own property would pay an advanced rental payment equivalent to the cost of the build but not the cost of the land. (In Greater London Build Costs are roughly £2,500 per square metre). Hence, a flat with a floor area of 50 square metres should be available at an "Advance Rental" of £125,000. This would entitle the tenant to live in the property for the remainder of their natural life. When the tenant dies, the property is returned to the Local Authority or Housing Association who would give it a makeover and remarket it to another advance rental client or even a monthly rental client. Clearly, if the Housing Authority focussed on advance rental clients (which means they recover the full cost of the build at the beginning), they could immediately start building another sheltered housing development.

For the tenant that means affordable housing when compared to buying outright and it is achieved by the Local Authority acquiring and retaining the land. The tenant has the additional protection, should they succumb to dementia, that their Lease for Life property cannot be fraudulently sold through identity theft.

The Local Authority or Housing association that hold the Head Lease or Freehold on the land would be re-marketing the property every 25 years on average (hence it becomes a self financing model).
There is a short term opportunity to attract baby boomers who own their property into good quality sheltered housing. The price and the moral is attractive for them as they know that by doing so, they are paying for affordable housing for themselves but which will benefit the next generation and the next and so on. This should encourage Authorities to construct buildings that will last not only this century but also the next.

THE MAYOR HAS PROMISED TO BUILD MORE SOCIAL HOUSING. LIKE EVERY WHERE ELSE THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF LAND AND HE HAS MISSED OUT ON ONE VERY IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF BUILDING LAND IN BACK GARDENS. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF CORNER PROPERTIES WITH ENOUGH LAND TO BUILD A HOUSE OR FLATS, PROVIDED THEY COMPLY WITH AND FALL WITHIN THE GUIDE LINES OF THE NEW BUILD. CURRENTLY THERE IS A STUPID LAW THAT SAYS NO BUILDING ON GARDEN LAND AND THE MAYOR URGENTLY NEEDS TO LOOK IN TO THIS AND HE CAN HAVE THOUSANDS OF NEW HOMES.

I dont know about appointing a Commissioner-it seems to be another position for someone who will be paid a lot for not doing much and another layer of bureaucracy. Market forces are clearly not working, putting many people in the position of not being able to either rent or buy a property. My solutions:

1) Allow Local Authorities to borrow money to build rental properties up to a minimum standard
2) Stop all Right to Buy
3) Stop all Buy to Let eoither to domestic or overseas buyers
4) Local Authorities should re-assess all the properties they rent out every five to ten years to ascetrtain that
a) the property isbeing occupied and not being sub let
b) the kids haven't grown up and moved away. There are lots of properties near where I live which were originally leased to
families with children, but are now being only occupied by a lone parent
c) Council properties should not be passed down to the next generation

The problem with social housing is the cost of say renting . i.e. take a single person renting a studio flat or a one bedroom flat in London
Cost of renting - say: £100 - £120 per week = £400 - £480 added council tax + then add domestic bills, electricity, gas, water rates, TV licence, Internet broadband or wifi, landline phone , smartphone, bank overdraft, loan/s or credit card/s =debts, food and drink, clothing, travel, daily expense allowance - for those with a car - car loan, motor insurance etc -- total of which has got to be calculated weekly/monthly wage or salary - which then makes social housing expensive. Especially in London where 70% of Londoners put aside their earnings towards all of the above..It makes social housing very expensive ..Another example someone who rented a studio flat from the council 24 years ago paying just £38 weekly rent ..will now be paying £140-£150 a week in 2017 and by 2025 that would have gone up to £200 a week and the council tax goes up with inflation ....its between £900-£1100 a month excluding all the other domestic bills as stated above. and for a couple renting 2-3-4-5 bedroom house from social housing with kids the renting cost, council tax and other bills are much higher . The govt could considering implementing a life time rental cost which a tenant enters into a scheme and rent is deducted towards buying their social housing unit as part of the deal once a tenant has been renting say from 5 years after a qualifying period - and will only own the property 100% once a tenant has paid up to purchase the property and a clause to ensure a tenant is not allowed to sell up until after 5 years of purchasing the property at a subsided cost with the help of the social housing scheme funded by the govt etc - would be an ideal scheme and helping those who are vulnerable in our society to become home owners. I am just speaking out loud here - just a thought ?

One of my long-term concerns is about the quality of social housing.
In my own experience having lived in social housing since my childhood in Brent
it has been consistently poor.
As a result, I suffer from depression and have serious problems with my emotions as a consequence of living in poor quality housing.
Little or no interest is shown by the local council let alone the housing association from whom I rent my flat.
It is damp and infested by moths and flies and combined with a complete lack of sound insulation
this flat is a veritable torture chamber rather than a home and I feel very very annoyed and nothing is being done to address these issues by the authorities.
People want action and not words alone.

Deptford is getting a hammering from over-priced development, but when this is aided by the decisions of its labour run council and involves the destruction of social housing and green space including long established gardens and mature trees it is completely unacceptable. This is certainly the case with the recently passed Tidemill Development where councillors served the wishes of the developer even when the people they were elected to represent had come up with a viable alternative proposal that saved all of the trees and gave the same number of 'units'. It also did not involve the destruction of existing social housing.

Social Housing Residents do need representation as currently Housing Associations are a law upon themselves. You only have to look at how the residents of Grenfell were treated by their local housing landlord. That treatment is only the tip of the iceberg. There is no real arbiter for social housing residents, especially those who are vulnerable. In my opinion, senior management of London HAs consider themselves to be extensions of high finance, developers and overseas investors - and have all but distanced themselves from the founding principles of local housing need. Just the ratio of tiny flats that have been developed compared to actual housing need is shocking. And that they are advertised overseas is galling. Ultimately, this initiative by the Mayor is too little too late, but that is the nature of short term politics. If it does come about, it will or should, make a small difference to the trust and confidence of those in Social Housing.

A Commissioner for Social Housing Residents !

Will he or she know what its like to live in social housing ?
Will this commissioner be approachable by local residents?
Or will it be another person paid by us that we cant contact
that makes decisions about us, for us, without talking to us?

Will he or she have any knowledge about planning and
building regulations or will this an in name only appointment?

Will this commissioner tell architects building regulations
are a MINIMUM standard not one to aim for or that BS8300
must be followed as a minimum not a maximum standard?
The London plan is no longer available in a printed
format in my home town so any changes are not seen by many.

I don't think the commissioner will be aware or even know
what I'm talking about.

So how can we believe a commissioner will help us locals,
or will have the knowledge to stand up for us?

We do not want or need shoebox affordable homes
to purchase we need social / council housing for families.
We need homes for children to grow up in not
the shoddy low quality buildings being built today.

We Need homes where children and adults can play / talk
in there home without next door hearing every word said.
We need homes for single people many will never find a
home they can afford in our capital or out regions.

If we are to have happy communities we must have
homes that have good sound proofing , a place to play,
not where children need to cross a main road to get to a park.

We must stop this low quality high priced property building,
at the expense of the local residents.
We need to look at empty property including offices left for
years empty and being vandalised.

If planning changes were put in place to make it easy to convert empty offices
that after a given time should then become housing a lot of built to rot offices
could be rapidly made into homes to rent.

We also need to stop the land banking by big business that stops homes being built.

A register of bad private landlords is a good idea but we also need a register of bad Council and Housing Association landlords. Some Housing Associations have openly said that they're no longer interested in social tenants. They want to become commercial property landlords. My housing association sold a flat last year for around £1,000,000. Yes. a million pounds. A Housing Association. perhaps that's what they mean by affordable housing.

The Councils or Commissioners office if it happens, need to do a thorough AUDIT on social housing properties.

There is a corrupted issue that needs to be addressed:
It has become apparent that many social housing residents are illegally subletting their dwellings , either cash to illegal immigrants or peddling them on rental internet platforms for flats, rooms etc.

Many people genuinely in need of social housing are left out , as properties have been given to others who make a business out of it hoping they will not be found out. They should be found out and taken out of these properties who should them be given to other applicants

While broadly positive, my main concerns with the proposals are:

- How many affordable homes are planned to be built, and what is the baseline for "affordable"? I would hope it would be accessible to the 70% of Londoners who earn less than £30k, especially as a substantial amount can only afford properties with the aid of housing benefit, and those who have dependents also have to ensure they have money for childcare and/or carers.

- Also it's worrying if land ownership will go to developers rather than councils. It may prioritise profit over accessibility, as developers are running a business, not a public service.

- I feel the most important thing is to give residents a loud voice in this matter. It would be good if a small group of residents with housing know-how had a seat at the table when the proposals for the change in housing policy are finialised.

I get very angry when ministers etc keep referring to social housing as " AFFORDABLE HOUSING"! Properties are only affordable if you are within that budget/income. Most people are NOT!!!!! Change the wording and lower some of the rents within the councils and housing associations. This needs addressing ASAP.

I was born in London
I joined the social housing register at the age of 16,27 years later I signed my first social housing tenancy.
So far all my adult life I am lucky to have been in paid employment this is down to me working hard.

Having had this social housing tenancy for five years now. I have reported to my social housing landlord within these five years. That mortar continues to fall off the roof of my home. My social housing landlord had put the plumbing for the washing machine in what was the old outside toilet every time I need to use the washing machine I have to get address go out into the outside garden and then open the door to what was the old outside toilet in order to use the washing machine. The kitchen is not fit for purpose; only one person can be in the kitchen at any one time, there is no food preparation workspace. When I try to open the door to the oven the oven door hits the base unit to the kitchen sink that is opposite to the oven/cooker. So the oven door cannot open safely, I have to lean sideways to take hot food out of the oven

If I hadn't taken this property as seen I was told in writing that I would loose my housing priority. All I want is for my landlord to address these issues. My housing provider just seems to drag tenants through complaints procedures stage1, stage 2 and so on just trying to wear tenants down, hopping us social housing tenants just given up and shut up.

Yes their needs to by some sort of social housing commissioning body/panel made up of people that have lived in social housing and that is independent of Government and Social housing providers.