Council houses owning brand new cars?

When I say that secure communities are better than transient ones, what is it that's hard to understand?

Would you rather have the same neighbour for ten years, someone who perhaps worked locally, who you could leave a key with or who'd take in a parcel? Or new neighbours every six months, some good, some bad, never getting to know them?

I'm sorry about your son, or happy if it's worked out well...i don't 'expect them to' i expect the system to be logically arranged such that the most needy families are prioritised. Is that so unreasonable?

i am sincerely glad you have been housed. I can only imagine how traumatic that whole scenario can have been.
To your point, people whom choose to spent have a grand per month (or whatever) on a luxury car rental don't seem to be the most needy?

Well no of course it doesn't. Like I say, in some cases working people are prioritised for social housing. It isn't, and never has been intended as housing for the poor and destitute. It's a scarce resource, yes, but not closed off to everyone.

Again, nobody has a moral obligation to leave a secure tenancy that meets their housing needs unless they break the terms of the tenancy. Would you take your child out of their school if someone else needed a place there?

Yes, of course I know they're available to private landlords too. I used to be one, though we never accessed any state funding.

Social housing tenants will not be asked to pay higher rents for the much improved units they live in. They will also benefit from the cheaper heating and electric bills, or course.

I have so done now, not sure where that fits into this conversation?

i'm not (necessarily) claiming the luxury car drivers are illegally inhabiting the property, it's the concept that the system doesn't prioritise the least well off...

Not in the least because the fact that social housing rents aren’t subsidised remains. I notice that you’re ignoring my pointing out that similar subsidies are also available to private landlords and owner occupiers.

In social housing (pay rent, no housing benefit) We have a brand new car every three years, it’s a company car, we don’t own it.

And that particular point of view has what to do with Occam's Razor?

Are you arguing that the presence of an expensive car in front of someone's house means they have hundreds of pounds spare each month?

And if you are, bizarrely, arguing that, again. How do you apply Occam's Razor?

If you have more than £6000 in savings on benefits UC then it reduces so it encourages people to spend all their money, on anything they want, and not save. People who don't have top up benefits or entire income benefits might save if they can afford to.

Less rent to pay since social housing rents are cheaper than private tenancies. Therefore more money to spend on other things.

No mortgage and all that interest to pay. Different priorities, happy to rent and perhaps have a subsidy towards rent rather than struggle to buy and if working have very little help?

Some might be Motability cars.

Morally, if they have excesses of money, to the tune of many hundreds of pounds a month, they should use that excess to pay a more enhanced rental rate.

Oh dear. I sense that you're flailing a bit now. Has me drawing attention to the hundreds of millions the state is pouring into the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund, ever so slightly spoilt your righteous argument?

Council rent’s not cheap, HA is even more expensive. It was cheaper for me to buy rather than rent.

That applies equally to the private landlords who get the subsidy. I bet they put their rents up anyway.

Gosh that's quite ironic.

Please do explain how you apply that particular theory to the suggestion that someone with an expensive car must ergo be able and morally obliged to rent a private sector property? I'm sure William of Ockham himself would have been intrigued to know!

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

And this is the problem. People who see things very simplistically and extrapolate. There's no nuance and no real knowledge of what the private rental sector is like, hence the inability to understand why social tenants aren't somehow discovering a conscience and leaving in droves. No comprehension of the myriad reasons people rent socially, no grasp of how things work in reality. Just public sector bad, private sector good.

Solar panels and heat pumps are better for the environment if I had my way all new build houses would come with Solar panels as standard the heat pumps are not good in Scotland allegedly so I would say standard where they will be effective

New doors I get a new door every 15 years I believe but I only get two and my house has three doors it's random but I currently have three composite doors extractor fans had to be fitted by law apparently they have stock standards we have a stock survey every two years where they go through your home loft to celler (if you have one)

Ultimately I firmly believe it's the lack of affordable houses to buy that is an issue and ties up rental stock people can't afford to buy if they could they would I have new houses to buy near me they cost an absolute fortune for little boxes no-one is buying them no-one can afford them

Mobility cars?? Most of them are new and they have to trade in after 3 years
A gift?
Perhaps their circumstances changed?
Not on benefits, but rent from the council. Not sure how that works but I know loads of people do this, I think people just go on a list?
They worked and saved up for it...
Won the car in a competition
Have it on finance

Lots of reasons really. Easy to look at it from the outside without thinking of the complexity that life is.

It’s very simple, actually. If people in council homes can afford luxury cars they have enough money to buy or rent privately rather than hogging a lower rent council house which could be given to someone who needs it (ie someone without thousands of £££ of disposable income to spend on luxury cars!)

@HamptonPlace
you’re weirdly defensive about something you appear to know nothing about.
Do you expect families with a secure tenancy to uproot their lives and move due to a social conscience? Newflash they don’t have to.
My DS1(31) has had a council( now HA) tenancy since he was 16. He works full time and earns reasonably.
He lives in Bath however, which rents for similar properties are around 1K
He was granted the tenancy as he was removed due to physically attacking his two younger brothers., who stayed with me.
You know nothing about the circumstances and are going round posting the same old shit every time

Strange that you're choosing to ignore any mention of the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund? What are your thoughts on it, now you know it exists?

As for the private landlord thing, we were private landlords (and bloody decent ones, I might add) but we have now sold our rental because it was no longer viable thanks to all the legislation. We offered it to our lovely tenant at slightly reduced market rate in recognition of him having been such a good tenant for so long. But sadly he just couldn't get a mortgage.

We all live in a capitalist society, and that's never going to change.

I rent from council but don't get any benefits.

My DC is disabled and this was the best way to get the adaptations we needed and a secure tenancy for them.

When my DC is old enough and responsible enough to take over the tenancy themselves I will move out and buy/rent my own place because I don't need the adaptations but they do.