to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

[fideline]

....housing?

1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

No. Its not.

It is however often misunderstood.

Its not hard to grasp at all but people seem to associate council housing with benefit claimants and everything (stereotypical) that goes with it!
I grew up on a council estate and by hell do you get judged for it! Definitely all tarred with the same brush

I often hear about people, including me, being 'handed a free house' and having to explain that it isn't free, I pay rent just like everyone else

YANBU. These are people's homes, not a handout. I grew up in a council house and it was very much the norm where I grew up, not just for the poorest. If I had found a secure LA tenancy in a house and area I liked I would stay there and pay my rent and sod what anyone thought. However that is not how my life has panned out, and instead I have six figures of mortgage debt, how aspirational of me

Yanbu.

Occasionally, people really are thick enough to think that council houses are free. I am genuinely puzzled when people can't understand that anyone can apply for a council house, not just benefit claimants. I would take an educated guess that the majority of people in social housing are workers.

I think people like to think that.. makes them feel superior or something.

There have been several threads on here recently where posters have just refused to accept that there is no subsidizing of rents, despite being given detailed explanations.

Some people just do not want to accept it.

Now the issue has reared its head on Bob Crow's RIP thread of all places. Infuriating.

As to the stigma Tru can you imagine how much worse things will get if means-tested five year tenancies become widespread? Ghetto- creating madness.

No, I don't think people are being deliberately perverse. A little ignorant, perhaps; with private rents being so high, it can seem as though council tenants are receiving a subsidy, when they're only paying half the rent that a private tenant pays.

But you've not really made your case in your OP, have you? It's better to tell people why you think they're wrong, not just that they are wrong.

I agree with you OP.
In fact I once had a boyfriend who expressed his surprise when I told him that I paid rent on my HA house.
He was forrin though.

Shakin has hit on another one; the 'council house are free' myth.

MsV There isn't really a case to make. My OP presents two FACTS. They shouldn't need a case made for them precisely because they are facts.

And my case re. people being perverse is as follows; It is unreasonable to refuse to believe facts just because you don't like them or they don't suit your argument.

Not deliberately perverse, but ignorant maybe?

For example, the idea that council houses are open to all. That may be, but councils prioritise houses according to need, and if you are working and on a reasonable wage, with no mitigating circumstances such as DV, you are unlikely to get one.

And while council houses/HA houses may not technically be subsidised, the council could charge market rates but don't, which has the same overall effect, surely?

Gosh hadn't actually heard about the means testing so i googled it!

The best comment I ever got was from my very posh friend's mum when i was invited round for tea. "i must say TruJay, had Natalie told me where u lived before u were invited u most certainly wouldn't have been coming into my house! But u actually are a lovely girl"

And while council houses/HA houses may not technically be subsidised, the council could charge market rates but don't, which has the same overall effect, surely

This.

I think people should be complaining about the exploitative levels of so called market rents, Crohnically, rather than about the fact that social rents have been kept at reasonable levels.

There is currently a shortage of reception-year school places in many areas. If we allow it to continue for three decades we will have an education situation that mirrors our current housing situation. A majority will be forced to pay through the nose and the lucky minority will be sneered at. Of course, it won't be allowed to happen.

I think people should be complaining about the exploitative levels of so called market rents, Crohnically, rather than about the fact that social rents have been kept at reasonable levels

But that mostly stems from mortgage values though, so surely we'd have to blame the banks then?

I'm sure they should, and do, complain. But in the meantime, if they're not eligible for social housing, or are so far down the waiting list that they could be waiting for donkeys years, what are they to do?

Besides, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that social housing is not subsidised. I was pointing out why it is reasonable for somebody to think that it is.

@ Tru. What a delightful woman

But Nursey and Crohn why would they? Profit is not the purpose of social housing.

Do you both believe social housing should be abolished?

I always find it strangely odd that people would rather drag social housing into the wrongness that is private rents.

The council don't need to charge silly prices for council housing.. CH is nothing to do with the private market.

It's weird.

You've lost me, why would who do what?
And how did you get 'social housing should be abolished' from what I wrote?

Nursey it is partly the mortgage rates, but rents only began to spiral upwards after tenants' rights were drastically reduced in the 80s, making BTL an attractive amateur investment. Once BTL mortgages boomed, rents started climbing.

So private tenants lost out twice; first they lost security of tenure, then they got clobbered for rent.

Does that mean there was a time when council housing (and I'll use that term because i think it may be before HAs) rents weren't a lot different to private rents?

"Besides, that wasn't your original point. Your point was that social housing is not subsidised. I was pointing out why it is reasonable for somebody to think that it is."

Fair enough. I suppose the perversity I am thinking of is when people are told the facts and still persist in believing otherwise.

Yes poor.

cross post there fideline.
So tenants right reduction = higher rents because landlords were allowed to run amok?