Council houses owning brand new cars?

@Bryonyberries Good explanation but its not that councils spent the money on other things, they weren't allowed to spend the revenue on replacement housing. It was part of the concerted move to bring market forces and privatisation into the public sector, and look how well that's gone.

OP, if you didn't actually know: council houses are owned by the local council itself (and rent is generally a bit cheaper), housing associations are separate organisations with their own properties where the rents tend to be affordable but not as cheap as council rents. A lot of social housing now is HA rather than council - lots of council housing got sold off to HAs in the late 80s/early 90s (theoretically to improve social housing stock), and lots of council houses got sold via Right to Buy. HAs have different funding sources and aren't quite as restrained by budget as councils tend to be.

Either cars on the Motability scheme (which means they are disabled... lets not get jealous of that, yes?), or the cars are hire purchase/lease.

This - some of the best houses in London are council. Peabody in Covent Garden, Datchet House in Euston, and lots of really old brick Georgian houses in Bolsover Street. They also just built a new development, private+council where Middlesex Hospital was, close to Nassau Street, WC1

It has got fuck all to do with you.

Where are the people on benefits getting cash to buy brand new flash cars?

Getting the higher rate of PIP to be eligible for a car is not easy to get.
Maybe you should give it a go, and report back here.

Speaking of subsidised.

Across the river in Nine Elms, Janine Streuli is one of many NHG shared ownership tenants in a block called Viridian Apartments. But far from delivering Kenrick’s utopian vision of good quality housing for everybody, regardless of wealth, Streuli and her neighbours have ended up paying for the concierge and garden landscaping of the wealthy residents of the adjacent luxury block. They’re facilities that she and the fellow affordable housing residents haven’t been given access to; their block has a separate “poor door” and their entrance to the communal gardens are sealed shut.
The charge was only announced five years after Streuli moved in, when the affordable housing residents got a bill for thousands of pounds. While their initial leases made clear they wouldn’t have to pay these fees, NHG’s own lease with the building’s management company — which actually runs the development and its facilities — said the opposite. When the discrepancy was eventually identified the tenants were asked to take on the cost. They were now going to be paying to maintain the luxury gardens and concierge that they weren’t even allowed to use. Now she and most of the other residents spend upwards of £6,000 or £7,000 a year in service fees, almost 500% the rate promised when she moved in. While subsidising the facilities of their neighbours, many of their own flats and corridors have dealt with flooding, penetrating damp and mould — problems that have never been adequately fixed. Eventually the residents cobbled together enough money to take NHG to a property tribunal, and next month their fate will be decided by a judge

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/notting-hill-genesis-london-biggest-landlord/?ref=the-londoner-newsletter

Don't get drawn in folks - this is clearly a wind-up post - the username gives the hint.

I know a couple who's kids have flown the nest and still live in theirs.

No incentive to try and earn more if you are at risk of losing your home.

Well, God forbid that the lower orders should have a better car than you…

Social housing is not just for ‘families’ …

No not at all

how odd!

And then you get all those nonsense about how hard it is benefits are to get. Yeah, right.

My garden is big enough to have goats, instead I've got dogs 😂

Why is this allowed? Surely if they’re now earning well they no longer need a council house and should move on, so that a family who really needs it can have it!

Paying outright for a second hand car might be a cost they can't afford. It's a chunk of money and not everybody has the means to save. Getting a new car with weekly/monthly payments may better suit their budget. Also you're less likely to have the big maintenance costs of an older car.

Its not subsidised, subsidised implies part of the rent comes for tax. Its lower rent, yes, but no one else is topping up the payments.

I live in a council house, i was on the list for over 5 years, in that tim i had to find the upfront money for 4 private rentals as landlords wanted the house back for personal reasons, sold the house, and one passed away the family wanted to house back. 4 times i had to uproot my kids, myself, move further from schools, from work, from friends, from shops etc. I owned with my husband but the marriage broke down, we had to go private renting whilst on a list. When i got my council house, and the secured life time tenacy, i swore i wouldnt never voluntarily leave it. Now i earn over average income, pay full rent and council tax, still a single parent with no asistance from their dad, i cant afford a new car granted, but im not leaving my council house into the hands of private landlords ever again.

"Anxiety and depression" eh

Unlikely you get it "just" for that you also need evidence loys and lots of evidence not just your word and your mate bob down the road backing you up honestly take a good long look at the rates pip are taken to tribunal and take all the way up the system only to be granted it last minute it's not easy to get people in genuine need often get rejected and the reason it costs so much? They deny genuine claims and then spend a fortune trying to stop genuine people claiming

It's a farce

Ive an in-house lawyer relative who gets a mobility car due to her disability. With a corporate lawyer spouse… And a professional colleague who also has a mobility car (BMW).

Because if people are at risk of losing their home for doing better in life, then there is no incentive to do better. Housing is a vital need, and no one wants to risk losing it, even if that means they stay on a lower income.

I wish people would educate themselves, I also wish developers would stop labelling them incorrectly.

as part of new developments the developer will normally have to provide a number of affordable homes. These can be (amongst others) social rent, affordable rent, shared ownership and discounted market sales (like first homes). Some will be managed by councils, others by housing associations and for discounted market sales they aren’t managed at all but controlled through agreements. These homes should be tenure neutral so that you can’t tell the difference between them and market homes (although the car parking is generally a give away).

dont assume that these houses aren’t owned with a mortgage by those living in them.

You do realise that you could get all this information straight off Google?

Are you genuinely for real?

Anyone can get a council house. I had one a few years ago in a new build, we had money just weren't interested in buying a house (I have now). We were surprised when we got it because we didn't have kids at the time and didn't seem a priority but it was a bit out the way and there wasn't much interest in it. If I was renting, I'd rather go council in all honesty it's alot more reliable, your house won't be sold and they're pretty good at repairs