Council houses owning brand new cars?

@Arraminta

If a family is earning, for example, £4000 a month and the rent is £550 (plus other bills) then the rest is theirs to spend on whatever they choose.

How do you propose they be stopped?

Is what you're saying that if your landlord finds out you have a BMW, they should put your rent up?

No, housing associations are independent companies whose entire business is properties to let. They're typically a little more expensive than council rent but cheaper than private. Some housing associations work with local councils and you can bid on those properties from the Council list if you can afford them.

Council rent is quite cheap so probably why tenants have more disposal income if they work full time.

The only requirement to go on the council list is links to the local area, must have lived there for at least five years and you can't make yourself homeless by giving up a private rent, you basically have to be evicted or living with someone else and need to move out. Even then, the wait is years long, decades in some areas. I waited 15 years.

the most thoughtful post I have seen on this thread. I guess the implication might have been that the level of income/wealth might have been higher than others that or ‘on the list’. And presumably if this is a new build, people who are allocated these new houses should be the families most in need, not those that splurge on luxury cars?

Another thread on social housing.

Maybe they upgraded to fit in with the new neighbourhood.

Possibly DLA cars.

Who knows? Who cares.

I don't have a luxury car. We have 3 cars and a van. One car was left in a will to us.

Both can be true

Absolutely, when allocating available resources priority should be given to those in most need. However an occupied council house is not an available resource. It's already been allocated and is someone's home. Typically someone who will have had their share of disadvantage and for whom securing that tenancy a rare piece of good fortune. To take that from them just because they are working and have improved their lives is not an act of morality, or indeed of necessity, as there are other options to address housing need. If we are resorting to playing Robin Hood, then it shouldn't be the comparatively less/no longer poor we should be taking from to help the poor.

Has the needle got stuck on the record.

People allowed to live in council housing and benefit from reduced rent should not then be able to spend £400+ on car finance. It's counter productive and immoral.

I’m not for kicking people out of their homes BUT if someone has £600 a month to spaff on a tit-mobile like a BMW, wouldn’t a better thing to do would to charge him open market value for their rent and with the extra money you receive from that person invest it in new social housing?

So eg if open market value on the private rental market for a property is £1,000, housing benefit should be adjusted to cover a proportion of the rent depending on how needy the tenant is. If you are severely disabled and will never work your housing benefit covers the whole cost. If you have a low income but are earning the housing benefit is reduced and you pay more in rent. If you have a good salary you’d pay the entire £1,000. More social housing needs to be built in the UK. We need to find ways of funding it. This way we aren’t paying housing benefit to private landlords, but to housing associations who will hopefully reinvest the money.

I don’t think we really disagree. But people paying for their own accommodation presumably release more money for the council to distribute equitably. But bottom line is, for me, morally, the most needy should get the most help… and I agree again it is the system as currently constructed that means councils do not have adequate resources for what they should be able to provide…p.s. not a Tory by a country mile!!!

After our lovely downstairs neighbour died after living there for 19 years we got
A. the druggie and his non resident girlfriend who used to throw furniture at each other
B. tthe alkie who banged on the ceiling and called me a cunt through the floor.

What are you insinuating?

My apologies, mis-typed, entirely contrary to what I was trying to say. Why should most needy NOT get the most help? Apologies again.

Very well put but, and I 100% agree BUT, essentially, should families on shelters not have priority over those who are able to rend luxury cars, the cost of which is probably commensurate with their subsided rent?

Do the usual benefit haters who think that "families who really need it" will move into these council houses once the existing tenants have been evicted not realise who would get these houses?!

When I asked what do you suggest, make someone else homeless or push another family into poverty?
The answer was yes, loose their subsidy to a more needy family.
So yes someone did think some should loose their home so it can be given to someone else more needy

A lot of new build housing estates have to have a % of Social Housing nowadays , often tho the properties are ' shared ownership ' and not just for rent.

and...people do still have / get company cars.

THIS! And in the case of single parents who are stuck in hotels etc social housing tenants who are complete strangers are expected to be more responsible for the kid(s) than their OWN FATHER

I didn’t say they should, you did

We do. A real world where its beyond ridiculous for people to suggest that other people should give up secure affordable tenancies on homes where they are happy, to move into insecure more expensive tenancies in the private sector to 'be kind' to a more needy family. I'd bet my own house the people saying council tenants should do this wouldn't disadvantage themselves and their families to house some theoretical needy household. The responsibility for housing vulnerable people lies with the authorities. Private citizens who care about this can use their vote to elect officials they feel will do this most fairly. They can use their money to donate to housing charities. They can lend their support to campaigns. Expecting them to give up their own home is too great an ask and not somethong those calling for it would be prepared to do.

Again. That was on the table. Councils didn't want to do it. Why would you want to create transient ghettos (for want of a better word) over settled, mixed communities?

Might send this thread to as many housing associations as i can
So they know that its popular with the public for them not to bother with the charging points for electric cars

Bet you fucking social housing haters didnt think of that did you!!!!
Still the HAs will be pleased to save the money