New build social housing

You are right. HAs do have some designated key-worker developments. Usually in areas where property prices and rents are above the means of essential key-workers. They are only a small proportion of the HAs housing stock though.

That doesn't alter the fact that HAs have a responsibility to house people with the sort of problems that might cause them to be difficult neighbours. Those people can be housed on any estate or development that doesn't have criteria that excludes them. That is almost all of most HAs' housing stock.

Criteria can also change. I know of one HA that found they had insufficient demand for their over-65s housing (flats and bungalows) while they were struggling to provide accommodation for younger single adults with alcohol and drug addictions and ex-offenders. They changed the criteria to "solve" the problem. It was an absolute disaster for the elderly tenants.

Where are you referring to ? There’s a massive shortage of housing stock in a lot of places in the UK nowadays. Not just London but also in various northern cities and towns , those kind of individual & families eligible for some social housing end up indefinitely in private rentals. Sometimes they never get social housing- or at least not for a very long time .

I knew families in London who had lived in private rent for upwards of 10 years and didn’t see any hope of getting social housing. Their housing benefit paid for the rent and sometimes they had to make up the shortfall.

Even if they did eventually get social housing, the point is they still may spend a significant chunk of their life living in private rented accommodation.

And if and when they leave to HA or Council housing they’ll be replaced by similar families. So, my point is the people in those private rented areas are still living among those families too on a long term basis.

Private rented accommodation is often used by councils for families eligible for social housing while they wait for suitable council or HA accommodation to become available. Those families and their problems eventually end up in social housing.

It would be lovely if HAs could refuse to allocate housing to people who are likely to cause a nuisance to their neighbours, but they can't. It is their responsibility to provide for these people if they meet the qualifying criteria. They have to provide homes for individuals and families with complex problems and needs. Neighbourhood nuisance often comes with those problems and needs. It's the nature of their business.

i think it depends on the particular estate/development. I don’t know about all the other developments my HA owns but mine which is a new development, was selective as it’s a mixture of privately owned and rent to buy flats and the criteria you had to meet to move in meant everyone had to be working (or have access to enough funds to show they are going to be able to buy a house in the near future) . It was only built a few years ago, so most people who live there are people who were chosen by the HA.

If anything, it’s more of a worry that in years to come when the first wave of owners decide to move somewhere bigger, and rent the flats out to people that the HA won’t have such control on everyone who lives there. But that can and does happen anywhere.

Yeah, thats an absurd statement. I used to live in a lovely period building in a nice part of London. The landlady /flatmate was a single working professional but one of her downstairs neighbours were what would be called a “problem family” for want of a better phrase .

They had form for going through others mail and the children clearly had behavioural issues . They were private renters probably paid for by housing benefit as neither parent worked despite their kids being school aged - I assume it was some kind of special school as they’d get taxis there hence the parents didn’t even have to do the school run . Every other tenant in the block was part of the residents WhatsApp/ committee whereas they didn’t get involved at all - not a crime in itself but together with everything else paints a picture of what kind of neighbours they were.

I also used to work with similar families, as a support worker and nearly every single one was in privately rented accommodation.

I think we agree.

You don't want to live near the awful person in the flat below you and I don't blame you. He/she sounds horrible and not like you at all. As I said in my post, people want to associate and live among people like themselves. In your case, sober and non-abusive.

Unfortunately, because you live in social housing, you are more likely (note I said "more likely", not "inevitably") to live near people who cause nuisance.

HAs are well aware that most of their tenants are decent neighbours, but they are also aware that ASB, crime and neighbour disputes are a common problem on their estates. They can't ignore that fact or sugar-coat it in the way that many mumsnetters would like, because they have to deal with it every day. They would be letting their tenants down if they didn't.

It would be lovely if HAs could refuse to allocate housing to people who are likely to cause a nuisance to their neighbours, but they can't. It is their responsibility to provide for these people if they meet the qualifying criteria. They have to provide homes for individuals and families with complex problems and needs. Neighbourhood nuisance often comes with those problems and needs. It's the nature of their business.

I am truly sorry for your situation. I have seen many decent people suffering in similar circumstances. That is why I would not recommend living near social housing to anyone who has a choice.

It's perfectly normal for all of us to want to associate with people like ourselves.

Personally, I don’t limit myself to only certain types of people. I can generally find common ground with anyone. Except those who look down their nose at others. I’ve zero time for those types.

How about HAs take some responsibility and accountability for who they allocate homes to.
Im 50 years old teetotal have NEVER been drunk, have never touched drugs and am child free by choice.

I live above an abusive alcoholic on 16 cans a night.

We are NOTHING like each other, but the fact that you think we are explains the shitty rude threatening letters we get because HAs think we are all the one big homogenous mass that they have created by turning housing estates into hostels!!!

There is no doubt that you are more likely to find ASB, crime and other nuisance where there is social housing. Those who are arguing otherwise are kidding themselves. That doesn't mean that most social housing tenants are nuisance neighbours, nor that all homeowners are saints.

I would never choose to live near social housing. It's not just the nuisance angle either. This won't be popular with some people, but it's a fact that most of us want to associate and socialise with people like us.

I don't want to live in a community where many or most of my neighbours are benefit dependent and don't work. Especially if it's a lifestyle choice (and despite what some might think, it often is). I have nothing against those people, but I have little in common with them either.

Having worked in social housing, I have found that social housing tenants don't usually want to live among people they perceive as different to them, especially if they perceive them to be more privileged. It's perfectly normal for all of us to want to associate with people like ourselves.

I know of feckless, jobless thugs in million pound houses in gated communities. They’re called villains

All "feckless jobless thugs" are definitely not all in social housing.

Off topic, but in Holland they got so sick of antisocial social housing tenants that they moved them outside town in buried shipping containers. Apparently it's worked quite well and the tenants prefer it because there aren't neighbours phoning the police every ten minutes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1490056/Dutch-yobs-banished-to-steel-container-homes.html

Holland's rowdiest housing tenants are being moved into steel container homes in a government crackdown on nuisance neighbours.

The reinforced houses, which resemble shipping containers, are to be built at sites on the outskirts of cities for residents who cause problems with noise, violence, drug abuse or untidiness.

"Nuisance neighbours" can be evicted from rented homes under existing law, but Dutch MPs say that this just shifts the problem onto the streets.

Politicians were prompted to find the fresh solution after a "neighbours from hell" television documentary, which starred the notorious Tokkie family, from Amsterdam, caused nationwide uproar.

The family's 20-year feud with neighbours has been marked by fights with baseball bats, guns and Molotov cocktails. During the show, cameras followed individual family members who live in a filthy, rubbish-strewn home.

At one point the family patriarch, Gerrie, 51, a tattooed, pot-bellied sewage worker who was the family's sole bread-winner, took to the street with a samurai sword to attack his neighbours.

His twin daughters, Natalie and Natascha, 21, had their own children taken into care. His eldest son, Wesley, 20, constantly claimed to be too sick to work while another son, Wimpie, 15, whiled away his life loitering in the local shopping centre. The fly-on-the wall show provoked widespread debate in Dutch society. The programme-makers were accused of glamorising anti-social families, while politicians were criticised for not tackling the problem.

The government turned to the container homes proposal after the success of a pilot scheme of four dwellings outside the medieval town of Kampen, in eastern Holland.

Each home has three basic bedrooms, a kitchen and a bathroom, and is supplied with heating, gas, electricity and hot water. Tenants who cannot afford furniture are given financial help to buy items second-hand.

Members of the first family to move in were so dirty that local shopkeepers kept air fresheners to hand lest any wandered in.

Anette Schlueter, a city housing adviser, described the family as being of "low IQ". She said: "They defecated all over their house, even in their fridge. They had no idea how to use a toilet and kept lots of animals. You can imagine what the smell was like and what they smelt like when they walked around.

"They need constant help from social workers and they have to be told all the time what the rules are and to stick by them. That is why things didn't work out with them in the regular home but did in the container home.

"I don't think we will ever see them leaving, because as soon as they go anywhere else the problems resurface. We tried once and it didn't work."

The advantage of grouping socially dysfunctional people together, she says, is that they can be easily visited by the police, social workers, or staff from other agencies, such as the department of employment.

Rent on the homes, which are run by a housing association that specialises in looking after families on low incomes, is €250 (£170) a month. Other residents include cocaine addicts, alcoholics, former tramps and people suffering psychiatric problems.

Most appear happy with their surroundings. Hank van der Kolk, 50, a crack cocaine addict, alcoholic and the longest-serving container tenant, has erected a wall to screen him from the rest of the compound. He has also built a patio and carried out other home improvements.

"I can't remember being a bad neighbour. I was evicted after they complained about my drug taking," he said, inhaling his second pipe of crack of the day. "I get by on benefits, and to be honest it's not so bad here."

Jan Jrootjen, a 66-year-old former tramp and alcoholic, said his only complaint was about the two heroin addicts living next door. "They make too much noise, they are always playing their music really loud and get on everyone's nerves," he said. "But other than that it's great here. They tried to move me, but I refused. I want to stay here until I die."

Ms Schlueter said that the Kampen authorities gave the land to the housing association at a time when there were no other houses near the site.

Since then normal houses had been built nearby, but because buyers knew that the container home residents were there already, there had been relatively little friction between the two neighbourhoods. Residents in adjacent streets did not wish to be named, but one said: "My family and I were pretty apprehensive when we moved in here but the container residents are really no bother.

"They keep themselves to themselves and don't trouble anyone. Of course they are social misfits, but they get on with their lives and don't bother us."

Andrew Smith, the former Work and Pensions Secretary, said last night that the Dutch plans sounded like an interesting experiment, which should be monitored by the British Government. "We do need to take tough action against anti-social tenants," he said. "This Dutch idea sounds well worth having a look at to see how it works in practice."

But surely y"all got what you wanted You wanted social housing to go to the most desperate. So dont whine when the reckoning has to be paid.

Not a fucking chance. Leave it to the virtue signallers and go have a quiet life.

Not all in social housing are feckless jobless thugs, but all feckless jobless thugs are in social housing.

The worst neighbours I ever had owned their house in a nice little village. They were awful, and I mean really awful. The husband is now in prison. Horrible neighbours can happen anywhere.

I live on a mixed owned/ HA estate now and it’s fine. The occasional argument in the road - but nowhere near as bad as my old neighbours in the nice village were, more entertaining than anything.

I don’t think it should necessarily put you off, but sensible to have a look around at different times of the day. While my estate is fine the new estate on the other side of town has had lot of issues as they moved a a lot of “problem” families there from what used to be thought of as the “rough” area of town. That area is now nice and quiet, but people who have bought nice new big detached houses on the other new estate are having a lot of problems with antisocial behaviour and are unable to sell. I would say that’s the exception not the rule though.

@JenniferBooth I am a council tenant. I would argue against life time tenancies with no strings attached. I some council/ housing association properties are misused and under-utilised.

Don't do it. Even if it's ok now, it's likely to go downhill in the next 10-20 years, plus no one else will want to buy your house if you want to sell unless it's very cheap

Can we not use facts and statistics please?

Now let’s get back to pretending that people living in social housing are just as - if not more - pleasant than people who own their homes through hard work.

Yes, I appreciate it's not an absolutely like for like comparison but I think it suggests that the occupants of social housing are much more likely to be problematic, even if the overwhelming majority are good people.

It is no great mystery. If you own something and have to fund it yourself then you’ll generally look after it better to help retain the value of your asset

EXACTLY Yet i bet you (like many others on here) would argue against lifetime tenancies.

You know who it mostly affects when HAs move the druggies in...................the OTHER tenants.

Council estates mostly don't exist anymore for this reason. There aren't council estates here, SH is well dotted around. So my close there are 5 x 4 house terraces. 1 of each is social housing, the other 3 private. There was a massive shift from council estates many years ago and it's one thing R2B has helped with.

Don't touch it with a barge pole

I'm sure somebody will be along to say it was probs the accountant up the road committing all the burglaries. 😂

Personal crime

• Social renters experience 40% more personal crimes within their neighborhood than owner occupiers regardless of where they live vii and specifically: an increased predicted number of theft from person and robbery victimisations viii;
• 85% higher odds of assault in the night-time economy ix; and
• nearly double the incidents of acquaintance violence than owner occupiers which has increased over time.

Our analysis of crime survey data (from 1990s through to 2014) highlights that social renters experienced between double and 10 times the national average household crimes depending on their area of residence iii, and specifically:

• 70% more household thefts;
• 40% more criminal damage iii;
• 50% more burglaries (including attempts); iv and roughly 40% more burglaries and household thefts than owner occupiers.

Social renters have higher odds of experiencing or witnessing ASB xii by roughly:

• 30% with regards to criminal ASB (this includes criminal damage/ graffiti, harassment/ intimidation, tohers using/ dealing drugs, dangerous dogs, and indecent sexual acts);
• 20% with regards to inconsiderate social ASB (this includes inconsiderate behaviour, loud music/ noise, litter/dog fouling, nuisance neighbours, and begging/vagrancy/ homeless);
• 40% with regards to vehicle related ASB; and
• 20% with regards to ASB from groups hanging about.