To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

Everyone getting private rent paid by UC is the same surdy

Everyone who has their rent paid for entirely by UC is getting their house for free.

We do need it though?

We need a mass social housing build, it should be the norm for the majority of renters and private rentals for more short term transient renters.
Private renting is not more virtuous, you are simply paying someone elses mortgage in the majority of cases. A huge amount of HB pays that mortgage, that should not happen. Lower rent requires less benefits to pay for it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul so to speak.
'Affordable' housing should be redefined to NMW affordability.
I am in a council bungalow having downsized, it took nearly 2 yrs for a suitable property to come up. I work FT and pay full rent.

My local council allows you to apply for housing as couple if your income is £40k.

If you say that someone should be evicted if they earn over a certain amount, then there will be no incentive for people to try and earn more. I get there should be a cut off at the point of applying, and I would agree with that. But not when you are already established. Secure housing is a basic human right.

And rents are not "reduced". Private rent is just more.

Yes many people who work in social housing have jobs - but why are they more deserving of reduced rents than other people in good jobs - if someone is earning more than £40k a year they wouldn’t qualify for social housing.

Social housing is in such high demand it should be returned to people who really need it

So I should kick out my 2 adult kid's and I find myself a one bed flat? None of us can afford private rental. Until my HA says I have to move, we not going anywhere.

If you are single or in a couple, you only get 1 bed anyway. Where I live, a tiny studio flat is deemed enough.
A lot of adult children are living at home for longer now. Evicting a whole family once an adult child reaches 24 makes no sense.

Families in temp accommodation are not the responsibility of people already housed.

Perhaps only people with children should get social housing - other than 1 bed, then they must move on in the 3 years after the DCs reach 21.
So many families are in temporary accommodation which is very sad.

I don’t blame you and I’d probably do the same thing given the opportunity. It doesn’t make it right though and it’s blatantly obvious from this thread that the life long agreements given out with these homes along with right to buy has caused a massive housing crisis for generations to come.

No, I’m staying put in mine

i have kids who have moved out, got partners etc but I also have a dd who works abroad and may want to return and sad to say but if my boys relationships should break down then there’s a room here. Also somewhere for grandkids to stay

theres no help for young males if they find themselves homeless

family are everything right? Mine is, to me.

I've got a lifelong tenancy (recent). It meant so much to me- freedom from fear, anxiety and uncertainty.

But I will give it up once I'm sure the DC are settled and don't need to boomerang back, in favour of a retirement bungalow- there are plenty in my village.

I’m going to go against the grain and say that I actually think the concept of the right to buy was a great idea and a great way to get people on the housing ladder that otherwise wouldn’t have been. The problem was that rather than investing the money from the sales of the houses into building more houses the government used it to make the overall bank balance look better. Had that money been reinvested into housing we wouldn’t have the housing crisis we have now and potentially the costs of housing wouldn’t have skyrocketed the way they have.

Are social housing life long agreements still being issued? Or have they been phased out?

Damn right.

And how do you feel about the taxpayer paying for the housing element of people forced to live in expensive private rentals, where all our money goes straight into the pockets of private landlords?

At least social housing is owned by us, the public*, and charges reasonable rent, therefore bringing the benefits bill down.

*kind of

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. A SH brick wall 😂

Social housing is not subsidised.

^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.^

From https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_my_social_housing_rent_subsid

Social housing is subsidized- the initial building costs and often ongoing running costs are paid by the taxpayer. The tenant doesn’t pay a market rent because the taxpayer is paying for some. That’s especially unfair if the tenants are not even in need

I personally think there should be move movement in the system. Houses for the need should be the way with social housing - need 1 bed, then should be moved to 1 bed. Family needs more beds so should be swapped with people who have too many bedrooms. The luxury to say no shouldn't be there because they rent. Tenancy should be reviewed based on need. If people weren't in big homes then some of the struggling families could be moved into them. Just because someone has occupied a rental for 15 years shouldn't confer rights to keep it when not needed.

And where exactly are these people going to be moving to? If any one bedroom accommodation in areas are only allocate to over 55's. Then those under that threshold won't be moving there will they? Those who are only eligible for a 2bed won't be moving into a 3 or 1bed will they?

If you seriously think there is the money in the system to swap tenants around housing stock like chess pieces every few years. Then I've no clue what part of housing you've been working in for years? Add in the money it would take to conduct these "assessments". The home visits, the money drained into ensuring each of these homes was brought back up to standard for new tenants on a 2-3yr turnaround.

Up routing people from areas with family, friends, employment. Then whose footing the bill for these moves? Furniture removal, ripping out flooring/replacement of flooring, as you're not allowed to keep it in SH when a tenant moves out.

Then you need to add in the fact that tenants have been issued with license agreements. Unless they breach the conditions of these then they can't legally be asked to leave the property. Then you need to consider that the LA actually sold off most of their stock so they now fall under different HA's. They are all ran separately they won't have enough housing to do these "swaps" anyway!

It should be related to need - certain property sizes for certain number of people, accessible properties only for those with mobility needs etc. Relating it to income disincentives progression in careers etc, as someone couod get a pay rise and then actually end up worse off if need to move to private rental

The London borough I work in has thousands of new build HA flats being built, I have no idea where they keep finding land to do this in an already very built up area, but somehow they do.

Exactly, I totally agree with you. You can't just chuck people out when they meet a certain threshold, it just wouldn't work.

Thing is, why would you bother to retrain or educate yourself, and get a good job, knowing that as soon as you do you will lose your home, your security, and totally upend your life?

Where's the incentive?