Affordable housing is not affordable

It seems that 'affordable housing', a term much bandied about nowadays, is actually not really affordable at all. Generally the phrase is taken to mean that the property is available at below full market cost or rent. Much is often made of the 'affordable' element of housing in new developments. However are they really affordable for low income families?

In an article in the excellent Property People magazine (available foc to annual members of my online service www.landlordlaw.co.uk) we are told that the term 'affordable' has recently been defined in monetary terms by a team of researchers (led by Peter Ambrose, visiting professor in housing studies at the University of Brighton, working closely with the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and London Citizens).

The team calculate that the amount affordable for housing for a family of two adults and two children, living in east London, is £135 per week (at the present time). Not surprisingly the researchers also found that the only housing available at this price is local authority or registered social landlord (housing association) housing. Privately-rented housing or low cost home ownership would is completely out of the question.

So affordable is not affordable. Rather like the accelerated possession procedure is not really accelerated. Does anyone have any other similar examples of misleading phrases from government?