Page 6 | Council houses owning brand new cars?

TheCluelessMum · 2025-05-06T19:52:49+00:00

I’m writing this post with the hopes of being educated, not slandered however I completely appreciate I may be just completely shot down for asking this. i live on a new build estate, 12 houses at the start of the estate are council houses. I don’t know this because I’m a snob, I know this because it’s clearly marked on plans when you buy those houses. i see so much stuff online about how the UK benefits system is failing people, the higher rise of food banks. It’s absolutely abhorrent people are in this situation. however, when entering my estate today I noticed that each and every single council house had a car newer that a 20 plate. Mercedes, Audi’s, BMW’s even range rovers.. there was not a single house out of the 12 which had an older than 20 plate car. I am now confused as to why this is the case? Everyone I know (including those receiving benefits) continually speaks about how hard the cost of living is. so could someone please answer how/why those in what we would presume lower income families, are able to afford such lavish cars.

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 18:44

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 18:41

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

Show quote history

Yes ok, if you like.

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 18:41

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 17:14

Forced mortgages 🤣 you will buy this house!

Show quote history

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

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 18:41

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

TheWorminLabyrinth · 08/05/2025 18:05

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 17:12

"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...)

Show quote history

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.

vodkaredbullgirl · 08/05/2025 17:56

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 17:50

pay for them with their subsidised rent...)

Their rents aren’t subsidised.

I know, it's getting a bit tedious now.

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 17:50

pay for them with their subsidised rent...)

Their rents aren’t subsidised.

Coconutter24 · 08/05/2025 17:26

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 10:58

are there not many thousands of families out there ARE actively looking for council help with housing, living in temporary housing, because (for exampke) people who can afford new BMWs are hogging the limited council housing supply?

Show quote history

And when those families come out of temporary accommodation and get a council house then what??….. they are never allowed to earn enough to buy nice things? They have to stay needy?

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 17:14

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 17:12

"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...)

Show quote history

Forced mortgages 🤣 you will buy this house!

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 17:12

XenoBitch · 08/05/2025 16:20

Meanwhile, in the real world, people in social housing are allowed cars. And being able to buy one outright or lease one, or swap their PIP for one, does not mean they should be evicted out into the private sector. That is not how it works, no matter how many people on here are stamping their feet insisting it should be that way.

I mean, even private rental are not easy to come by nowadays with upwards of 30 interested parties per property. Should someone who can easily afford private rent, and have a nice car, be forced out and made to get a mortgage?

Show quote history

"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...)

WildflowerConstellations · 08/05/2025 17:08

@HamptonPlace I'm not sure why you keep talking about needy families when I've explained in detail the way applicants are prioritised for social housing. There are different kinds of housing need.

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:45

XenoBitch · 08/05/2025 16:34

Expensive Sky TV packages and Peloton will be next.

Show quote history

And let's not get started on brows, eyelashes, tans and Botox!

JohnTheRevelator · 08/05/2025 16:45

There seems to be a long standing myth that you have to be claiming benefits in order to be eligible for a council property. There seems to be so much council tenant bashing on Mumsnet.

XenoBitch · 08/05/2025 16:34

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:32

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?

Show quote history

Expensive Sky TV packages and Peloton will be next.

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:32

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:16

it's cars though. 12/12 per OP. We know the cost is high, be it bought outright or rented. I think we agree the ideal scenario is for more social housing but, in the real world (and i think i'm repeating myself, because I am!) there is a scare public resource that should be equitably distributed...

Show quote history

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?

XenoBitch · 08/05/2025 16:20

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:16

it's cars though. 12/12 per OP. We know the cost is high, be it bought outright or rented. I think we agree the ideal scenario is for more social housing but, in the real world (and i think i'm repeating myself, because I am!) there is a scare public resource that should be equitably distributed...

Show quote history

Meanwhile, in the real world, people in social housing are allowed cars. And being able to buy one outright or lease one, or swap their PIP for one, does not mean they should be evicted out into the private sector. That is not how it works, no matter how many people on here are stamping their feet insisting it should be that way.

I mean, even private rental are not easy to come by nowadays with upwards of 30 interested parties per property. Should someone who can easily afford private rent, and have a nice car, be forced out and made to get a mortgage?

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 16:20

@HamptonPlace You don’t understand what a subsidy is, do you? I advised you before to RTFT but as you clearly haven’t, once again this is from a council website.

^If the tenant pays their own rent in full, as a tenant of a local
authority, they are paying the full rent charged by the local authority
for the occupation of the dwelling. Social housing rents are well below
market rents, but are not subsidised rents. The Housing Revenue Account
(HRA), which is where all of the properties are accounted for if they are
owned by a local authority, is what is known as 'ring fenced', which means
all of the costs of providing the social housing need to be met from the
rental income received from them. The housing fund cannot be subsidised
from other areas of Council activity i.e.; Council Tax, planning fees,
parking income etc. Under the same rules, the HRA cannot use its funds to
subsidise the rest of the Council's services.^

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:16

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:12

Uh huh. Do we know the circumstances behind the car? The cost of the car? Do we think that people should be evicted from their homes because their circumstances improve? What could be the pitfalls there?

Show quote history

it's cars though. 12/12 per OP. We know the cost is high, be it bought outright or rented. I think we agree the ideal scenario is for more social housing but, in the real world (and i think i'm repeating myself, because I am!) there is a scare public resource that should be equitably distributed...

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:12

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:08

well i found it quite simple to infer from her posts that those who can spend £500/month on a luxury car are not the most in need?

Show quote history

Uh huh. Do we know the circumstances behind the car? The cost of the car? Do we think that people should be evicted from their homes because their circumstances improve? What could be the pitfalls there?

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:10

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 15:59

It’s. Not. Subsidised.

Show quote history

well. it is. the difference between what it would make on the open market vs what is charged is plain and simple a subsidy. Not that subsidies are in and of themselves a bad thing, as such. But pretend it's not a subsidy is laughable.

Arraminta · 08/05/2025 16:10

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 15:55

No point arguing that it's fair for people to surrender legal tenancies then.

Show quote history

I never did argue that? It's endearing that you are so passionately idealistic and I salute you for it. It won't change a single thing though.

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:08

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 15:54

Oh maybe you can explain how that particular philosophical theory can be applied to (a)the assumption that people with certain cars can afford privately rented housing, (b) that using the PRS is innately morally superior to renting socially and that (c) transient populations are preferable to stable ones?

The pp didn't have a lot of success elaborating what she meant.

Show quote history

well i found it quite simple to infer from her posts that those who can spend £500/month on a luxury car are not the most in need?

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 16:06

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 15:50

Yes? Nobody disagrees. My viewpoint is that fairness would involve affordable housing for all.

Show quote history

on this point we both agree!

Arran2024 · 08/05/2025 16:06

JudgeJ · 08/05/2025 10:02

The original ides was that council housing was for those who could not afford to buy, not just as another stream of rented homes.

Show quote history

But back in those days, most people could not buy. The criteria for getting a mortgage were incredibly strict. It was more akin to the vision of the NHS - good provision for everyone.

TheFastTraybake · 08/05/2025 16:03

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 15:59

It’s. Not. Subsidised.

Show quote history

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

BIossomtoes · 08/05/2025 15:59

HamptonPlace · 08/05/2025 15:34

the 2 just aren't comparable. "If you had to shoot your child or someone else's what would you do". In this instance, someone can afford a luxury car new iphones for their kids etc, they can afford to give up their subsidised accommodation to some family in need.. there is an essentially unlimited supply of education..

Show quote history

It’s. Not. Subsidised.