To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

The ‘lifetime tenancy’ IS with the tenant……not the bricks and mortar

do people not know this?

The lifetime tenancy many of us on this thread is just that! Not the house/flat we are in

we can move from property to property and area to area by exchanging our homes with other people

ive just done it myself. My lifetime tenancy had seen me go from young family, to a bigger place as they grew, now to a smaller place as they marry and move out….next exchange will possibly be a retirement home in 15 or so years time….litte bungalow somewhere

I’m not saying private renters should go into council for the security, I’m saying SH should be reserved for the people who really need it and when they earn enough to save for a mortgage, give them time to save up and then move out. Your idea about the size of house would be better than what we’ve got currently.

This is how my ha works, I have the tenancy for life, but not specifically this place. I'm under occupying at the moment, 2 of us in a 3 bed, DD is at university but obviously comes home regularly and will be living here when she qualifies.
They do send letters & emails about under occupancy and moving to a smaller place and I've responded each time, but unfortunately under this ha, two beds are bungalows for over 55 or disabled, of which I'm neither and we can't have a one bed because then we'd be over occupying, I discussed with them that I'd be happy to take a one bed and use the living room as a second bedroom instead - we barely use ours because we basically live in our bedrooms and although the housing officer themselves agreed it would work if we were ok with it, they couldn't knowingly let us over occupy.

I get that but I'm now stuck until I'm old enough for a bungalow or DD moves out and I get a one bed - although a lot of those are only available to prison/care leavers and those more vulnerable than I am, with a lot of them having support.
Smaller means cheaper for me to run as well, less fuel for light and heat for a start and less rent which would make my financial situation better than it currently is, but there's no where for me to move to, except another 3 bed so there's not a lot that can be done, and although 'only' around £100-£150 per month more expensive than private rent, that's money I just don't have 'spare' without going back to the bare bones of life and not being able to afford things like turning the heating on in winter, new shoes when I need them etc, as was the case when I private rented - and prices have only increased since then.

This is exactly it. There is an opportunity cost for the council having this amount of money tied up in housing that isn't providing the best return and also leaves them liable for expensive maintenance and repairs. Compare this with putting this same amount of money into a bank account and getting an easy 5% return a year then you can see that owning the social housing is actually costing the council money even if there is no mortgage to pay. This is particularly relevant at a time when councils are so cash strapped and they really need their assets to work for them.

Yes, but they could!

Or to put it in the form of an AIBU analogy:

My mother lives alone, and owns her own house outright as well as an investment property she bought years ago. She allows my sister to live in the investment property on a "covering costs" basis, i.e. she pays enough rent to cover the costs of repairs and maintenance but my mother doesn't make a profit. This is fine and I'm glad my sister is supported, but my mother has started asking me to help her out with her own living costs like groceries and fuel etc. My sister knows I do this but doesn't see the problem, and says my deal with my mum is totally unrelated. AIBU to wish my mum charged a proper rent to my sister so she could support herself instead of asking me for more money?

Neither side is unreasonable per se. In a context where council budgets are really squeezed it does start to make sense to ask why they are deliberately not maximising their use of assets though.

How are they saving for a mortgage? Their money is going on rent ? Also if they are getting help with their rent via uc . Then once they have a mortgage how are they going to pay it? As the UC will no longer help them.

The second part i do get you its like a rock and a hard place. I think its seen that all the time a private renter is able to private rent their not priority because they have housing.

I think its mainly familys in temporary accommodation/homless /care leavers /Dv/medical that have priority.

Also just thinking that people spend years in temporary accommodation/hostels etc. Theses places are often awful. Shared kitchen bathroom with several others. Often dirty. Its very common to have damp , rats , nice, cockroaches bed bugs even self contained places are simlar condition.

I can't see how it would work for private renters to go into social housing for the security. And skip the shitty bits.

I personally think there should still be life time tenancy but I think there should be a change. Something like the life time tenancy is with the social landlord not the actual building. Meaning once you don't need that size property you get moved into something smaller.

Yep, my DP is not eligible for social housing, but can't afford to buy (and is too old anyway). Almost half his take home pay goes on private rent, so he can't save much either.
Lots of people in his position.

I don't think the council are allowed to use rents for non housing stuff

This is true but it depends on whether you look at "the council housing budget" or "the council budget".

A given council housing scheme might be able to be self-sufficient and pay for all its own direct costs (repairs, management, perhaps interest on mortgages if still active), while still offering rents below the market rate (i.e. the private market rents).

However, the council that runs it might be (and is increasingly more likely to be) running up deficits in other areas to be able to afford, say, social care or SEN funding. They have a potentially productive asset (lots of paid off houses) which could in theory be used to raise money to cover these other costs by charging people the market rent instead of the lower social/affordable rents. But instead, they raise council taxes on everyone in the area to be able to cover their other costs.

This is an issue that could either be solved by increasing council rents to closer to market rent, or by lowering costs elsewhere in councils.

I believe social housing provides a cheaper alternative for those that 'need' it. You can still work, and be unable to afford private rent, or to buy. I don't however agree with those that abuse the system by earning more than enough to buy, yet choose to stay to fund an extravagant lifestyle. Dh, and I work hard to afford our house, we moved out of a council flat, and were lucky to be in the position eventually to buy. I have a sibling however that stays in council accommodation, when they can more than afford to buy. Sibling can afford luxury meals, clothes, eg £160 coats, etc, and has a great deal of expendable cash due to cheaper rent, free repairs, and renovations. My sibling had to audacity to complain about the new kitchen thay eS installed for free recently. Ours is old and falling to bits. I have asked sibling if they would consider buying, as obviously there is a fair bit of complaining about the repairs and renovations. The response was that sibling didn't think they could survive without the lifestyle they lead, and likes working 4 days. There is over £60,000 going in the household of two.
This I don't agree with, when there are people seriously in need of that accommodation.

Give them time to save up for a mortgage then. We cant keep up with the housing need.

Also, what about all of the people who never qualified for social housing but also didn’t earn enough to save for a mortgage? They never get that security and might be earning less than people on lifetime tenancies.

Mumsnet is littered with disingenuous posts like this at the moment on loads of topics. The message is always 'don't focus on those of us hogging a scarce resource but instead fight for this scarce resource for everyone'. They knew full well that this isn't possible and that something like lifetime tenancies on private rentals can't possibly happen for a whole host of important and valid reasons.

People don't have an inalienable right to subsidised housing. We need to make best use of the housing that we have and this will involve moving people on when the housing they occupy is no longer appropriate. There really isn't another way the system can function well and meet the higher number of people's needs.

It's not easy to private rent. There are many families that are in work but still get help with rent via UC. Private landlords will not touch them. Or there has to be a guarantor who then has to be a home owner or earn 2 or 3 times the rent. If there are problems with payment that then get put onto the guarantor.

If people from social housing move into private rented it could be as little as 1yr and the landlord could decide to sell . That then means a section 21. Bailiffs and back to temporary accommodation for God knows how long. This includes people who work.

Doesn't all this " move people out if they become better off" just lead to ghettos though? I can remember my grandmother saying that in her day to get a council house you had to prove you could pay the rent and was expected to keep it decent.

Now I can understand needing help to pay rent ( which applies whether social or private renting) but can't understand why it's acceptable to turn places into complete shitholes. Although tbh the tradesmen who work for the council seem to be find of doing a shitty job also. Friend of mine had a beautiful council home. The council decided they would do " improvements". Rewired and put plastic trunking half way up the walls, fitted central heating leaving pipes exposed everywhere and radiators placed lower so wallpaper finished above it. She refused the kitchen " refurb" as they wanted to replace her solid wood cabinets with everything built in with some cheap chipboard crap and not build in the appliances.

Now that doesn't help people take pride in their home.

I live in public housing here in Australia and here if you start to earn too much you lose eligibility for the house and get evicted do you get to keep your house in the UK? Your house isn't forever here unless you stay poor!

People are ignorant. Blame the tabloids.

So if someone is living in poverty and they rightly get a council house, over time they manage to build up their income and they are earning 40k+, they should get to live in social housing forever whilst people in poverty are in temporary accommodation?

If being a landlord was so lucrative there’d be lots of landlords and lots of available properties.

Exactly. It's weird everyone's banging on about need. Everyone NEEDS a home. People aren't chess pieces to be moved about to get their turn at feeling secure for a bit.

Bring in cast iron can't sell up guarantees for private tenants and you might find people think differently. But nobody is going to give up secure housing to run the gauntlet of greedy landlords.

Someone I know got a 3 bed semi detached new build for around £600 a month, the mortgage on that house would require a £25,000 deposit then around £1400 a month payment. People also often get help with rent if on UC

The support that is NEEDED is security….which a lifetime tenancy provides….thats the NEED not the cheaper rent. The security

safe in the knowledge you won’t be chucked out cos the landlord wants to sell up!

Almost?

I feel like looking for the tiny violin me.

yes i know

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326040-childcare-is-not-a-dumping-ground-for-the-unemployable?page=1

Of course you can talk about it. It’s not to help families by the way, it’s to increase the workforce.