To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

Made to leave??? Daniel Heweitt would be busy reporting on that eviction for ITV News. If i ever got wind of one id make damn sure he and his news team knew about it. Would this happen in Germany?

VE Day tommorow Lots of flag waving and jingoism Which group of renters has the better quality of life? The British or the Germans

I don't disagree with council housing but it should be means tested and reviewed every few years.. If circumstances have changed and you are then able to pay private rent then you should be made to leave Same with the single person hanging on to their 4 bedroom house,, needs to be a system of swapping for smaller property

I didn't say it was the same? I was highlighting the cost difference.

Not exactly the same though…. 1 is secure the other depends on what the landlord plans

i know which I prefer and it’s nothing to do with costs

Why does anyone rent instead of buy? It's pretty much the same set of reasons the government doesn't just build loads of houses and stop renting from private landlords.

Firstly it costs a hell of a lot of money to build a house. The state doesn't really have this kind of money so would need to borrow and would be subject to very high interest rates. That's if the market would want to lend it to them in the first place considering it's current debt. The government would also need to think very hard about increasing the debt by building houses that would have a very bad ROI as this may well reduce confidence in the country's economy and crash it. Put bluntly, it costs a lot less to fund a year's rent than it does to build a load of new houses. You can make an argument for the houses being a long term investment but that doesn't help the issues the state would incurring trying to raise the necessary capital.

If public money is finite, why funnel it directly to landlords and ensure people can't progress in life and have spare money to boost the economy?

I'm sure you think you've got the right of it but it makes no sense to me.

Most homeowners have paid their mortgage off by the time they are 67. Most lenders don't allow you to have a term that takes you beyond 65.

How will anyone pay a mortgage that's not paid off. I have worked since I was 18 and will have a pension. And as retired I can move to somewhere cheaper.

Yes this always annoys me OP. I live in social housing, have always worked and do not recieve any benefits at all. My rent goes up every year and of course, I am expected to maintain the house (decorating etc) at my own cost- which obviously I do because contrary to belief, I look after my home just like everyone else. All housing should be affordable. The fact that landlords are able to put rents up to ridiculous amounts, with no regulations is the real problem here. Other family members in private rented property pay way over the top for a house which is neglected by the landlord, repairs never done etc. And have to move constantly despite being excellent tenants.

How will you pay the rent when you're retired?

People often bang on about "it's not your home" but us SH tenants have rights. There are very specific circumstances in which SH tenants can be evicted and therefore, while we inhabit the home within the rules it IS our home. I'm sorry private renters don't have that security, I really feel for them. But my home is my home. I might not own it on paper but I won't ever break the rules and therefore it's my home for as long as I want it. People can say that's wrong all they like, but that's the tenancy agreement I signed.

When people buy a property, they don't say it's the banks house! But it is until the mortgage is paid off. Don't keep up with the mortgage and yes you can lose your home. Does that mean you don't call it your home in the meantime? Of course not.

SH tenants are given an empty shell of a place and it is up to them to make it a home. You often don't get even so much as a light bulb left behind! If you want it to be more like a private rental then councils/HA's would need to start decorating and furnishing these homes, providing white goods etc, that's what private landlords do. How much would that cost them?

It's always been the way that if you qualify for it, you can get SH. But it's a roof over your head and it's up to you to make it a nice home. In recognition of that, you're given a secure tenancy, to incentivise you to invest in it. If you want to change it so people only have short term tenancies then the whole model of SH would need to change. That's without all the other problems that would come with that, which other posters have already highlighted.

I won't ever buy my house, so eventually someone else will get it. Whoever does get it, will need it I'm sure. So doesn't really make a difference if it's family A, B or C. To be blunt, SH tenants are dying every day! Just like the rest of the population. Their houses are going back into circulation, as mine will at some point. The fact supply isn't keeping up with demand, is not the fault of any individual tenant. Nor is it their problem to "solve".

So anyone who is renting or HA should not class where they live as there home because they didnt buy it hope circumstances never put you or yours in that position.as I said I looked into a 1 bed property there are none on offer in my area. And as moving out of London to commute i couldn't afford to commute into work the cost as the rent would still be to high for distance from.my office.. my Dds since moving out have moved back at various times when needed and it's there home too. Or should I say to them it was never there home as I didnt buy it. If I can find suitable affordable housing I will move and make my next place my home too..

https://www.radioexe.co.uk/news-and-features/local-news/councils-social-rent-error-sparks-outrage/

A government regulator has criticised a Devon council for “serious failings” after it overcharged its social housing tenants for more than two decades to the tune of £7.5 million.
Mid Devon District Council reported itself to the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) last year when an audit unearthed an issue with how it had calculated, and therefore charged, rent to its tenants.
The council, which has roughly 3,000 social housing homes, has overcharged more than 1,200 tenants a combined £7.5 million since 2002.
However, it has sought legal advice which it has said means it will only need to repay six years’ worth of overpaid rent to individual tenants, which it has estimated would total up to around £1.8 million.

I am sick of this type of post appearing on benefits and SH threads. Yes of course in an ideal world everyone has access to the support, money or housing they need and want. In the real world, someone has to fund this and public money is finite. So there will always only be so much social housing and it undoubtedly won't be enough to meet demand. This is why how it's allocated matters and we can't just kid ourselves that we can get around this by just building more.

I disagree, I’d have zero issue with a low/middle income couple living in a one bedroom council house. My issue is that couple staying in a three bedroom council house when there children left home 15 years ago. I don’t blame people for taking advantage of being allowed to do this, but it isn’t right.

I see a lot of people talking about unfairness.

The real people getting shafted here are the low to middle income private renters. It is unfair that most of these people's incomes are going on renting something that is unsecure and worth far less than it is.

The answer isn't to make sure that people in social housing suffer equally. It's to make sure a job is sufficient to pay private rent and have money left to live on.

We need more availability of social housing. Then private landlords simply wouldn't be able to charge what they do, not when a market rate property was also available.

Its always the same on here People pretending they care about families living in hotels when thats bullshit because on other threads they say people should not be having kids that they cant afford. Which proves they dont give a shit about families in hotels They just want to use them to bash social housing tenants

Yep Then the usual fuckers on here moaned at ppl who had downsized for not having a spare room to self isolate in during Covid. SH tenants cant win,

I understand you feel like it’s your home but it isn’t, you haven’t brought it and it wasn’t built for one lone woman. There is countless women with (as an example) two young daughters living in one hotel room waiting years for a property like yours. You should downsize to a one bedroom or if London is to expensive than move out of London and commute.

I moved into my 2 bed housing association flat 13 yes ago with my 2DDs we were homeless to circumstance with Ex. my current rent in London is £1170. I work full time all rent bills are covered by me I looked into downsizing to a 1 bedroom as both dds left but the rent isn't much cheaper and no 1 beds in my area available. It's my home I look after it and am a good tennant. I have worked hard and not on a bad wage now but there is no way I would be able to even rent a 1 bed private in London. What do you suggest I move into a house share at the age of 56. It's my home.

So is mine.. I know there are sink estates, but I’ve never lived in one. I look after my home - I’ve replaced the bathroom and kitchen here, with permission, because my HA is very slow with upgrading.

All good, as I want to life in a nice place.

NC for this but I work in local Government in social housing and in my area at least the right to buy has decimated the available housing stock - what we have left is poorly built post war housing which is falling apart and riddled with damp and which lack of funding means we cannot afford to cover basic things like windows and roofs -we contract out which means they largely have us over a barrel as far as costing goes.

We are fire fighting constantly in terms of trying to provide a decent living standard but coming up against tenants time after time who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately means the damp problems worsen in an ever diminishing way with regards to people’s living conditions and health.

The tenants are mostly ( not all, but mostly) in receipt of UC to cover their rent, their socio economic status means that a lot are poorly educated with no recourse to or encouragement to train or re-enter education in any way. So job prospects are limited and the cycle continues.

We have thousands of people not paying their rent or in substantial rent arrears - yes, even though their rent is £95 a week in some cases it doesn’t take long to amass thousands of pounds of debt. And we try our level best not to evict them because guess what ? Then we have a duty of care to house them as homeless, so you end up with a family in a one room bedsit in sheltered accommodation and trying to access the housing resister which won’t do anything about them because we don’t have the space or available housing to accomodate them because we don’t have any one bed flats to downsize the people in their 60s who are still living in 3 and 4 bedroom houses into and even if we did they won’t move because they have secure tenancies and “ don’t see why they should”.

its an absolute clusterfuck which needs billions of pounds investing in new local authority housing in the short term and education, job creation and wealth distribution in the long term. None of which will ever happen as successive governments either cut funding to the bone or ignore the very real social reasons as to why why need this sort of housing in the first place.

Right to buy caused huge problems but there's an idea it was just a greedy Thatcharite policy when it was much more complex than that and involved a lot of councils not having the money to do the necessary checks, repairs and upgrades on council properties so it was easier and of course, profitable to sell.

Private rents are set by the open market. SH does not have to operate in the open market and does not have to cover the same costs. Stock is cheaper to buy or build due to government grants / loans. The loans they are servicing are cheaper as they’re not buy to let mortgages with ridiculous interest rates. Repairs/ improvements are cheaper due to economies of scale.

To be very clear, I am pro social housing and agree with you that providing cheaper housing for people while they need it (not forever), is a good use of public funds. But it’s completely disingenuous not to recognize that rents are cheaper because costs are subsidized by grants / loans and other income streams. If SH had to operate on the open market the rents would inevitably be much much higher.

I’m not on any sort of means tested benefits, so pay full SH (Housing Association ) rent myself.

I have never claimed benefits of any sort. I’m retired now.

I pay £900 every four weeks for a two bed garden flat.

Its not really that much cheaper than a private let - but I’ve got a tenancy for life.

I’m in a London/North Kent borough.