To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

And?

Why are people so resentful of that security? Is it because if you're not poor and miserable you're doing it wrong? Don't worry I'm still poor despite working full time and living in SH! The security isn't money in my pocket, it's a bonus that I don't have to keep forking out to move annually or less for sure, but I'd still need to opt for the cheapest place to live that's available to me, be that secure or not. I'm not sat counting my piles of cash in my 27 bed mansion laughing at the silly tax payer like people seem to think HA or council tenants are. Be rest assured I'm still skint and struggling!

And, yes I well know because I lived in private rental for years, moving every couple of years or less, having to job hop because of it, having what meagre savings I could manage wiped out by moving costs, again.

I've subsidised social care by working in it for the pittance you get paid, and other people have definitely benefitted from that, not having to care for their own elderly or frail relatives and not having to pay more for it so I can have a wage where I could afford private rent or to buy.

So like I said, maybe we get rid of all of it and people can start to pay the true cost of things like social care or childcare, so that people like me can afford to private rent or shock horror buy somewhere?

Those saying SH should be related to income and it should be regularly reviewed - How does that work in practice?

Say for example I live in social housing, I have worked hard, studied and gained qualifications and now earn £55k per annum. At what point would I be evicted from my home? After passing the probation period? Upon signing the contract?

If I have previously been in a lower paid job chances are I haven't had chance to save enough of a deposit to secure a mortgage so do I have a grace period to start saving?

What does that look like to you?

If they don't have mortgages then they have a hell of a lot of capital tied up in housing. You do know that landlords could extract that money from the house and put it in a bank account and passively earn 5% a year? So £270k (average UK house value) could earn £13k a year just sat in a bank and you wouldn't need to worry about vacant periods, expensive maintenance and difficult tenants.

There is an opportunity cost associated with tying money up in property, especially if you can't charge people enough rent to compete with other investment opportunities. Lots of landlords with property they have already paid for are using this as a form of pension and security for old age and aren't necessarily rich at all.

HAs are a totally different beast and benefit from lots of advantages that the private rental market simply doesn't have. The problem is those advantages aren't really scalable without costing the government an absolute fortune

But are you getting a secure tenancy because if you are that's a huge advantage over a private rental as you well know.

Most HAs have charitable status and are therefore able to mitigate a lot of tax. They do not pay Corporation Tax of 25% for example on their "surplus" like any other business, including a private landlord if he ran it as a business, would have to. Private landlords also have to carry out repairs.

I remember when Bob Crow was in the news for saying he would be turning his back on his working class roots if he bought his own house and have up his Council house. He was earning £145000 pa at the time.
I have a lodger currently who is planning to move in with his girlfriend. She is in process of a 3 way swap that will gain her an extra bedroom for his child. Her adult child and their partner live with her already and all 3 have reasonable jobs. Light earns up to 50000 pa so they will be 4 salaries coming into that family unit.
I think I find this more frustrating than occupants who genuinely have little income and little opportunity to earn more, such as single parents with young children.
I have also had a friend( single mum) in private rental who had had to move a lot as landlords kept selling up. She was very relieved to finally get a HA place but by the time she did, her son had got a job and left home and her daughter will start Uni soon, so when she really needed the security of tenure, it was not there.
I also know a few people in SH who have since met wealthy partners that they do not declare who share bills/ buy shopping/ fund treats and holidays etc. People seem to get away with what they can and milk the system where they can which leaves not enough money to sort those most desperately in need.
We all need to look at ourselves really as are all guilty. I happily accepted child allowance for my 3 because we were entitled, but arguably could have survived without.

Landlords don’t necessarily have mortgages. Housing associations also pay tax and carry out repairs.

There clearly needs to be a shit ton of new houses built and because of the tenancy agreements given out years ago anyone who now needs social housing is screwed. The woman who posted about living in a two bedroom flat and not being able to find anywhere else isn’t the best example but there are people who being allowed to take the piss. My husband’s parents are a good example, two of them in a four bedroom council house, it’s been just the two of them for 20 years now. They see is as “Our home” Without acknowledging at all that if the housing crisis had been the same as it is today they would have found themselves with three children probably living in a travel lodge for years on a waiting list. I get it, it’s a beautiful home in a lovely area and privately renting in the same area would be triple what they are paying for social housing, It’s why me and my husband had to move out and commute 90mins to work every day.
They should be told, you either go into a smaller property or you privately rent. It was stupid to allow life long agreements in the first place.

Landlords pay mortgages. The mortgage interest in itself is often more than social housing rental. Plus the landlords pay tax to the government and are responsible for repairs to the property etc.

i am not a landlord but just pointing out that basic thinking skills may be insuficient to understand the whole picture

One of the less well known advantages of social housing over private is that local authorities and housing associations have additional powers to manage the behaviour of those using their property. If your nuisance neighbour is in social housing you have a much better chance of something being done about it.

Because when the poster needed social housing for herself and for her 2 kids she was given one, she wasn’t told to go seek help from the kid’s father.
And now a new mother with children needs social housing. There isn’t enough to go round so who should have it, the poster who was once in need but not anymore, or the single mother who is currently in need?

Of course I don’t think the poster should be kicked out of her house, but I am pointing out the injustice of the system. There will never be enough social housing and blaming the government is not going to suddenly create social housing overnight. Which is why the existing social housing should be used accordingly, depending on need, and assessed every few years, in the same way disability benefits are. People move in and out of privately rented accommodation all the time, why can’t people in social housing do the same (assuming they are no longer in need, ie vulnerable for whatever reason)

Working people in social housing is a good thing;

Private income into government pots.

Housing benefit claimants in social housing is fine;

Government money back into government pots.

The big problem is housing benefit claimants in private rentals;

Government money into private pockets.

The best situation would be to build enough social housing to accommodate everyone who needs housing benefit, keep the government money circulating, ban people from using housing benefit on private rentals which then brings the costs down so people with lower end private income can afford to move there and free up more social houses for those needing benefits.

Yes, i do think we are heading towards problems. When we got ours our HA prioritised those who were working and earning. Now they are not allowed as those don't even make it on the housing register.

Any form of earned income deems you capable of privately renting and social housing is going to become worse in terms of the tenants. Here it is now only those completely unable to rent privately for whatever reason.

@Sendcrisis2025 thats is storing up issues though isn’t it. My friend and her partner both work also for local authorities. It’s ok pay but not amazing. Due to the SH shortage any new neighbours are people with the most points and need. Now for many that could mean they are perfectly fine but so far all new neighbours have been awful with addiction issues and various problems. Someone got axed in the head a few months ago a couple of doors down over a drug deal, person caught thankfully. There seems to have been a cycle of SH. Right to buy however people feel emotionally it improved some areas, shortages now mean it’s only going to get worse. Probably ending up in some places like the projects in America.

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

For a lot of landlords, it’s a business. When interest rates rise, so do the mortgages on their properties. Do you expect people in business to make a loss?

Because greedy landlords are forever increasing their rents to maximise their own profit.

Housing associations are not looking to profit on their housing stock in the same way.

So the private sector is massively inflated rather than HA being subsided.

It amazed me how many people lack the basic thinking skills to be able to figure that out.

I would say though, re repairs, I dont ever contacted my HA for repairs (I appreciate it am lucky to be able to dodge them) HA repairs are absolutely rock bottom in terms of quality and even being done correctly.

10 years ago we were housed in a HA home. We have a 3 bed and rent of £615 a month. I work full time although my privately owned neighbours to my right are of the assumption I don't work. I work for a LA so mostly WFH unless I'm in court/mediation/a drop in session.

However, even 10 years later the situation in our LA now is so dire that if you work you aren't ever going to be eligible for social housing. You will be backed with a tenancy guarantor scheme and deposit by the LA and expected to rent privately. Only those with no means to rent privately will ever be housed here now.

ok, I’ll bite. What is “unfairly”?

Should someone with no kids turn down social housing and struggle on in private rents because they don’t and sometimes can’t have kids ? Should someone with “only” one or two children turn it down as they should give it to those with 3+ kids? Should people with non disabled kids decline as “a family with disabled kids need it more”? Should anyone who actually works full time and not on benefits turn it down because someone else is on benefits? (And btw someone’s income on benefit if they have kids can often exceed a single working persons income)

There’s always someone “worse off” than yourself but we do what’s best for ourselves in every other avenue of life, so this absurd idea of the “less deserving” (as you may see them) stepping aside when it comes to social housing is ridiculous.

Why don’t we all push against inflated rents and poor standards in private rents which affect everyone from unemployed or disabled on benefits to full time time working professionals. Rather than saying “oh them over there have it better in social housing, and they don’t seem quite desperate enough - not fair”

In choosing not to charge the market rate for the rental income, the council /HA are sacrificing some potential income.
I
This is subsidising.

Im not sure you understand what subsidised means. The council receive reduced income for these rental properties therefore it's a cost to the council, of lost income. That lost income is one reason council's currently struggle to meet all the costs of the services they have to provide like social care, refuse collection, libraries.

However you want to spin it, social housing is significantly below market rents and for those living in it and using housing benefit to pay for it, it's effectively free.

Can't believe there are people on this thread trying to claim social housing isn't really cheaper 😂

This thread merely highlights the point that more social housing is needed. The problem with tenants in bigger houses having nowhere to downsize to is real and is being addressed with new developments featuring more 1/2/3 beds rather than the 4+ beds that were being built 15-20 yrs ago. I do remember the bedroom tax being announced and the governments response at the time to people who couldn’t afford it was to “downsize” when even I knew there wasn’t the housing stock to support that. It is being addressed, but it’s the public sector, so everything moves at a glacial pace.

But the system as it is isn’t working, it is inevitable that changes will have to be made. But this thread has made me reflect on the perception at the moment that everything will be fixed if you just “tax the rich”. Perhaps I’m wrong but it seems to be the belief of a lot of people that if others have “more” they can pay. Whilst in theory, I agree with that, it’s worth remembering that we all have “more” than someone. So, for the people saying they could but won’t leave their social housing or downsize because “why should they” there is someone else who believes you have “more” and they need it more than you do.
I think we are all going to have to make sacrifices to get out of this mess.

Not even considered at all in many cases! lol

kinda off topic but it drives me mad when governments bang on about doing this and that for families when it’s things that affect everyone including single person households! I’ve noticed politicians use that rhetoric slightly less recently so I wonder if someone’s picked them up on it.

“It’s not a matter of numbers: singles are not being ignored because there simply aren’t that many of them to matter electorally. Last year, there were 8.3 million people living alone, representing 30% of all households, with millions of others in shared accommodation. And yet they are absent from the political rhetoric and major policy discussions about alleviating pain for “typical households”, families struggling with childcare costs and mortgages. After all, it is often single people at the sharp end of the increasingly unhinged private rental market, with singles half as likely to get on the housing ladder than 30 years ago.”
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/25/hard-working-families-single-people-cost-of-living-crisis

The vast majority of landlords with mortgages have BTL interest only mortgages so they can scale their business. In these cases the tenants aren't helping the landlords pay for the asset as such as the landlord has no intention of every truly owning the house. In fact lots of landlords don't really make a great deal of 'profit' from the rent. The model instead relies on house prices going up and the landlord making money that way when the the house is sold. It's a gamble of course though, as house prices can go down as well as up and so can interest rates. The landlord is also responsible for the maintenance of the property so a new roof etc can also be a huge threat to the business model.

You seem very angry and bitter but landlords perform an important function in the market.

I guess if more social housing were available, market rents would fall?

You're correct about one thing. Right To Buy is what fucked it (quite deliberately). At the same time, a system of ever-tightening restrictions was placed on councils and HAs which meant - for several years, at least - they weren't allowed to spend their own money on new build!

I'm not up to speed with the intricacies of government control these days, but Right To Buy needs to stop. It's the main reason for the shortage.