Council houses owning brand new cars?

Thefasttraybake, blossomtoes, you are not paying the open market rent of the property you live in. If you are totally skint, fair enough. If you’re not, give up your property to someone who needs it more or pay full market value rent. Not doing either is immoral.

At this point I think people are looking for attention. The evidence has been posted and they're still pretending they can't understand.

I presumed spouses were joint tenants so no change of tenancy if one does. Why should it pass to the next generation though?

Passing on a tenancy is only once... and that would be from one spouse to the other, or a single parent to a child that lives with them. My parents are in a council house. If my dad dies, why should my mum be evicted? That makes no sense.

I don't think life time tenancies need to end. I think short term ones in the private sector need to end. People want to feel safe and secure in their housing.

In my opinion the life time tenancies need to end. Also the practice of passing on a tenancy.

No. I asked because I wasn’t sure, I personally didn’t think asking to be educated was a bad thing???
but no need to be rude x

Council houses have life time tenancies. They are not "starter" homes. If they were, people would get moved on.

"Should someone who can easily afford private rent, and have a nice car, be forced out and made to get a mortgage?" emmmmm yes, that's the entire point. If you can afford it the system should be structured to allow a family in need to have a home? (the Q was never around having a car as such, in today's world pretty much essential (I know there are exceptions) but why they are allowed to, essentially, pay for them with their subsidised rent...)

Why aren’t you renting privately then? Genuinely confused. I’ve never “qualified” for a council property. I thought they were means tested and there for people who can’t afford private rents.

Have always been of the belief that council houses were to help people starting out while they needed it.
Then, if and when you managed to get yourself to a position where you could afford a mortgage/own house then you move on.
It evidently isn’t that way at all but that is why there is a massive lack of local authority properties nowadays!
As an aside when my husband left the army we put our names down for a council house - that was 35 years ago and we still haven’t got one….

"Should someone who can easily afford private rent, and have a nice car, be forced out and made to get a mortgage?" emmmmm yes, that's the entire point. If you can afford it the system should be structured to allow a family in need to have a home? (the Q was never around having a car as such, in today's world pretty much essential (I know there are exceptions) but why they are allowed to, essentially, pay for them with their subsidised rent...)

Have always been of the belief that council houses were to help people starting out while they needed it.
Then, if and when you managed to get yourself to a position where you could afford a mortgage/own house then you move on.
It evidently isn’t that way at all but that is why there is a massive lack of local authority properties nowadays!
As an aside when my husband left the army we put our names down for a council house - that was 35 years ago and we still haven’t got one….

but why a BMW, not, say, a Volkswagen Golf (still quite a price car compared to others) ...

Of course they’re allowed to have a car. But using their subsidy to rent an extravagant luxury car doesn’t seem to ethical to me… but it’s not their fault individually, of course, it’s the structure of the system…

I live in a council house. And I work so hard on my own business. My kids have brand new iPhones. I have a gorgeous 67 plate fancy car and have another vehicle too. We eat amazing food. Eat out often. Have nice clothes. Designer sunglasses. I vape. I don’t drink. I go the gym and have a PT. My kids go to multiple clubs almost every day of the week. I have a 65 inch TV on my wall. I have well cared for pets.

May be these guys are the same? Not everyone in a council house is poor etc. many work. And work bloody hard.

Of course they’re allowed to have a car. But using their subsidy to rent an extravagant luxury car doesn’t seem to ethical to me… but it’s not their fault individually, of course, it’s the structure of the system…

Ok say people are evicted because of their car. What next? What other things are people in social housing not allowed to have because others think they're a lower class of being and wrap that up in a coat of faux concern?

How is it not subsidised if they are paying less than market rate?

Their rents aren't subsidised.

At this point it's clear you are on the wind-up, but the above bears repeating because too many people believe it to be true.

Well you can choose whatever route you want, but not deny social housing to a family in need…

At this rate it’s going to be every other post.