Council houses owning brand new cars?

If the private landlord had to provide these extras out of their own pocket, they would have to increase the rent.

However, Housing Associations aren't paying for these millions of pounds worth of improvements to their housing stock. The government is simply giving them the money through this fund. Tenants aren't being asked to pay more rent to cover the costs.

I know, Blossomtoes, and FWIW I'd say it's a subsidy to both

However your post I was replying to said "You mean the scheme that was scrapped in 2021 and covered private landlords and owner occupiers?", when in fact the scheme (though renamed) continues, and the second part seemed to me to imply that social housing wasn't covered

It provides funding for both private landlords and Local Authority housing. Both.

That’s what I said. I notice you seem happy for private landlords to be subsidised.

It provides funding for both private landlords and Local Authority housing. Both.

And the government's current Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund gives hundreds of millions to, not surprisingly, Social Housing Associations.

The clue's kinda in the name.

It’s also available to owner occupiers and private landlords, ergo not a subsidy to social housing.

I'm surprised that since I drew attention to the government's Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (where the state is currently giving hundreds of millions to Housing Associations to improve their housing stock) some posters are still insisting that social housing isn't subsidised, in any way, by the state?

As with various other "funds" used for the same purpose I suspect it's a case of constantly repeating something in the hope it'll be believed, @Arraminta

Nor does the "private LLs operate for profit and Councils/HAs don't" explain the price difference, since rental income reinvested in the provision of homes - which is what many of us are advocating - would then put social providers under the not-for-profit umbrella

So now maintaining and future-proofing homes equates to subsidy. Clearly, to some, it would make no sense for landlords to look after their stock!

Do private landlords subsidise their tenants by providing such features or does it just apply to tenants who rent from councils and housing associations?

Much straw-clutching going on here.

Sorry, Local Authority Delivery.

Correct. LAD standing for 'Local Housing Delivery' obviously.

Though it's now largely superseded by the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund which has been rolled out, on a national level, over the last few years.

The HUG Scheme (Phase 2) is ongoing, Blossomtoes, and definitely includes social housing

It used to be called LAD but is basically the same thing

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/green-homes-grant-local-authority-delivery-lad-and-home-upgrade-grant-hug-release-june-2024/summary-of-the-green-homes-grant-local-authority-delivery-lad-and-home-upgrade-grant-hug-statistics-june-2024#:~:text=LAD%20Phases%201%20and%202,are%20off%20the%20gas%20grid.

I'm surprised that since I drew attention to the government's Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (where the state is currently giving hundreds of millions to Housing Associations to improve their housing stock) some posters are still insisting that social housing isn't subsidised, in any way, by the state?

A social housing development near us, of over 100 properties, is currently being retro fitted with new solar panels, new double glazing, new external wall insulation, new front doors, new ground source heat pumps, new extractor fans. The list is endless.

I think it's a ridiculous use of my tax payer's money, frankly. I would much prefer the hundreds of millions to be spent building new, compact social housing units that are already energy efficient.

The reason I got mine is due to my child's needs rather than my own. Our previous rented property wasn't suitable for him and we were able to pretty much go straight to the top of the list and have first choice to a suitable place based on his medical needs.

We were incredibly lucky and only had to wait for a month. It was in the perfect location too right by his school.

The law sets out reasons why different groups of people should be given reasonable preference by local authorities responsible for prioritising applications for social housing in their area. Local authorities can decide how much preference they give to each of the groups, while taking into consideration local needs, as long as they give them reasonable preference. How exactly that is done is set out in each local authority's housing allocation scheme.

Statutory reasons for reasonable preference:

1. Homeless households
2. People living in unsanitary or overcrowded housing
3. People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds
4. People who need to move to avoid hardship
5. People occupying accommodation which is temporary or insecure

Needy is people needing a home. Apparently there's a tier system in some people's heads with a set time alarm clock to those people who need a home. It's weird

Define needy because it could mean anything

I have a child on DLA am I a priority over someone who just "has children" unsecure job situation are they in need because it's a secure tenancy and a bit lower than private people fleeing from domestic violence are they in more need?there are always going to be people in need how do you decide who is a priority? Then you get the demanding people in need I need a three bedroom house but not in that area because it's rough then they get the MP involved and everyone else involved they are being offered suitable accommodation just not in there preference area they are a minority but a loud one

The reason I am a housing association tenant is because they took pity on me when I was being evicted I wouldn't be a priority but they had a flat in a rough area and I took it

Oh please look the word up!

That isn't what happens, outside people's fevered imaginations. I don't know how to explain to you how ridiculous is the concept of people legally inhabiting their rented homes somehow behaving in a way that is immoral and harms others. I mean it seems so clear and logical but yet you can't seem to take it in. I'm not really sure what the point is in continuing this bizarre discussion!

no precedent indeed. But does that address the moral question at the heart of this thread? I'm not sure what you are raising re 'transient people'? Do you mean travellers (as they are known as in ireland), or something else?

getting away with depriving the truly needy families of a home so that they can 'afford' a luxury car...

"Afford" is a nebulous concept. And there's no precedent for removing tenants with legal contracts/tenancy agreements. The law would have to change. As I may have mentioned, that was mooted before and didn't happen because it was impractical.

You've not addressed the question of settled v transient communities I don't believe?

I agree re supply issue. But reality being reality this is never going to be the case in the near or medium term. So, having the resource available that we have now, who should benefit? Those who can afford BMWs or families living in temporary accommodation?

I am not trying to justify it as I don't believe is is justifiable. Limited supply - ergo should be dispensed to most needy families. Simple.

You can try to justify it till you are blue in the face. Just keep going round in circles.

And also, get away with what? Peaceful enjoyment of their homes according to the conditions of their legal tenancies? You make it sound like SH tenants are setting fire to B&Bs and kicking the dogs of homeless people!

can't quite wrap my head around people believing the most needy should get the most help...

Hmm you might want to rephrase that.

There is no moral imperative for council/HA tenants to give up their secure homes. The onus is on the government to ensure decent, affordable housing for all. There are myriad reasons why that will never happen in practice, none of which obviate the responsibility.