To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

Here Educate yourself and learn that its not just sub post masters who have been the victim of a shit computer system
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5109616-to-think-social-housing-tenants-need-their-horizon-moment-and-lessons-have-not-been-learned

And just in case you cant be bothered to click on the link cos it doesnt suit your agenda
"OneSanctuary SAP is the name of a multi-million pound software system brought in by Sanctuary in 2016, designed for use by all areas of the business. It has been an unmitigated failure, and is a huge drawback of working for this company.
The issues caused by SAP are staggering and difficult to keep track of. Because SHA tried to implement SAP in a cost effective manner, they ended up vastly under-investing in critical elements. There is no tailoring of the generically presented system ('vanilla SAP'), which is an issue as social housing is a unique environment from a service delivery and CRM perspective, whereas vanilla SAP is more geared towards providing a solution for manufacturing industries. Thus, the system uses corporate nonsensical buzzwords and methods of handling accounts which absolutely do not reflect industry practice.
Here are just some examples of the more specific issues faced by staff:
No rent statements have been issued since it was implemented in August 2016, and if a resident insists on a rent statement it has to be prepared manually in a spreadsheet
The rent and calculations for accounts are hard to use, and often completely wrong. Mostly because the system was never designed to understand housing benefit payments, and this has a very convoluted workaround which a computer cannot make sense of.
SAP cannot interface with Local Authorities Housing benefit systems so payments are missed, lost or misattributed
Direct debits do not work reliably, and for a long time following the implementation did not work at all. Front line staff are now preferring standing order.
The front end system of SAP requires far more testing and money spent on it. Each customer account is a total mess of information, with no discernible way to separate notes left between differing departments, with information left by staff often going into the wrong account entirely. This needs looking at as from a compliance (DPA) point of view the breaches are serious
From a usability point of view, the view of a customers account within SAP CIC does not display appropriate information to the user (as stated before this is likely because the system was never designed to be used by a HA) and the user often has to go trawling around back end systems to find obviously relevant data (e.g tenancy start date, account balance, property type etc). This is a seemingly minor but considerable waste of resources"
And just like Horizon and the PO they will not admit that anything is wrong.

I agree also private renters can be evicted. It happend twice to me under section 21. Both times ended up homeless /temporary accommodation. I would never ever go private again.

If it’s not subsidised then what is it? Why do people have to get on a list and qualify for a council house if it’s not cheaper than market rate rentals?

You can be evicted from a council house for not paying rent too. You can also be evicted for reasons that would never apply to people who own their home.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/grounds_for_evicting_secure_council_tenants

Right, but this thread is about people who do not live in social housing, and why they might think social housing, particularly with life time tenancies, is unfair? I asked what you thought people with a mortgage would do in that situation? I am not suggesting for one minute you would and certainly not should, give up your home. I agree, why would you? But for those who have a mortgage, they don’t have that “luxury”. You can’t pay, you are out. Hence, the resentment.

Thankee!

oh yeah
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/childfree-mumsnetters/4825473-child-free-people-being-told-they-deserve-less-yet-being-expected-to-do-more

one oppressed group oppressing another group Not the first time Chez Booth have experienced this either.

Was our LGBT HO who threatened DH over his disability aids.

Is there a childfree MN board??

Another one for the MNers without children board.

But I won’t lose my home….i have the security. So why on earth would I give that up for a mortgage or private rental?

there is absolutely no benefit to my family

What about working age people who are not increasing their earnings?

They'll like be too old or too poor still, so what then?

@YouWillFindMeInTheGarden I understand exactly what you are saying. But what do you think people with a mortgage do? They take out a mortgage based on right now. They might become disabled, lose their job unexpectedly, their children might need to come home and they might not be able to afford it. Even with insurance, if you become unable to work or suddenly need more bedrooms? You have to find the money and if not? You lose your home or have to say no to your children.
That is a very simplified example but it’s not difficult to understand the position of both sides I think. We need more social housing.

Also…I have just paid for new flooring and upgrade on one of the bathrooms

i wont get that money back if I ship us all off into a private let!

Council house people 😭.

No

we could afford to as it is Right now

but I don’t know what lies ahead. Adult children may need to return, one of us may get ill,disabled or lose out job. It’s the security we need not the cheap rent.

sldo, we downsized to this house 4 weeks ago. So no. I’ll stay put. For the (priceless) security. Would not really relax in a landlords house who could sell up at any time, yet I’d be paying double what o pay here? Nah

I'm so glad that someone has raised this issue. I get sick of people assuming that everyone who lives in a council or social housing property is on benefits and lives there for free. Agree with the previous poster who said that they are not always particularly cheap. Cheaper than privately renting I grant you,but sometimes by only a small amount. There is a really snobbish attitude towards council housing.Numerous times I've heard someone say that they'd never move to a particular area or street because it's next to a council estate. OK,there are some rough estates around,and as a council tenant myself,I wouldn't fancy living on them! But there are a lot of decent ones around,such as the one where I've lived for nearly 41 years!

My heritage is immigrant parents, I was raised to believe you were a failure if you needed it.

Same. I was brought up by immigrant parents who talked negatively about ‘council house people’ who were on the dole and got their homes for free etc. it was only many years later that I realised how bigoted they were, but also that council homes were coveted by many. I had been brainwashed that they were the worst possible place to end up.

No, if someone earns over a certain threshold, they may be able to do what many people do and buy their own permanent home.

The children learn we take what we need when we need it and when we don't need it we pass it on to others who need it more. Teaching social responsibility and generosity rather than dependence.

The only ones who should have a permanent home provided by the state are those with high levels of disability who need a specific accessible property, pensioners who do not the capacity to increase their earnings

Yes, and remortgaged to help build homes for other people

Those who private rent, what is included in your rent if any?

Yes and when they die, presumably that house will go back into circulation and be given to a family in need at that point. Sure they could hand it to another family now, who would then probably be there for 50yrs plus themselves. Or it can go to a different family in say 10 or 20 years. What difference does it actually make? None really in the grand scheme of things.

Single adults in need already have a very low chance of getting SH. But they exist, they need the few 1 bed places that are out there. I worked with vulnerable people for many years, a lot of whom were single and needed housing. Not all of them got it. But it was life changing for the ones that did. But do we just kick them all out then? To make way for these pensioners who don't want to move?

Housing is in short supply at every number of bedrooms. Shuffling people around isn't going to help. Because people will lose out at other levels. There already exists a mechanism in which to do it voluntarily, mutual exchanges. And it works well for many people. I've exchanged more than once. A lot of HAs have a scheme where they will pay if you voluntarily downsize. It's not much, but appeals to some people. It's not like people can't downsize if they want to and people do take that option sometimes. It's how I got a bigger place because someone was willing to take my smaller one.

There simply isn't enough housing for everyone that needs it. You can try and shuffle the pieces around to squeeze more in but each household is 1 unit, be it an old couple, a family or a single person. You can't fit in more units than you have properties, no matter how you do it.

What about all the housing built post war by the councils. That's been well paid off by now

I think it should be in the contract that when there is only 1 adult or a couple in a 3 bed or more move into a 1/2 bedroom house, flat or bungalow. More of these should be built.