To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

For the same price as a HA 3 bed at approx 70% market rent, could probably private rent a 1 bed property?

I work in SH, there is very little "profit" to be made from rent and that goes back into the business. Just the cost of the annual compulsory gas and electric checks cost more than 3 weeks rent for my area - not to mention the management costs, repairs and upgrading carried out. I agree management costs could be lowered if we didnt have to spend so much time dealing with various tenancy issues. Small grants are given towards new house building but most of the existing stock is mortgaged to provide money to build houses for other renters.
I will say 75% of my renters are really good tenants but virtually all of the ones coming in for the last 20 years have been given property because they have issues and they cause tremendous problems. They have started to tip the balance on previously good estates.

No, you are ignoring opportunity cost and the cost of capital/building.

Cost of capital and building is super relevant and what allows HA to turn 'a profit' that can then be used to fund future housing. Private developers and landlords don't have access to free capital. They have to borrow the money and therefore also pay interest. If social housing was built with private capital then it would incur the same problem and undoubtedly wipe out any profits. We don't have infinite cheap public money to pump into housing, especially when you consider that the money could probably sit in a bank account and earn more money on interest right now than you could get from building housing and charging an affordable rent. This is costing every tax payer a hell of a lot of money through direct funding and opportunity cost.

Add to this the fact that there is only so much cheap/ free land and housing on new estates that can be subsidised and turned into HA. Building costs are often artificially low for social housing but this is often due to factors that can't really be scaled in any meaningful way and in some cases directly rely on private tenants and buying paying more to subsidise social housing. The model doesn't work if everyone pays a lower rate.

This is why the idea that social housing is somehow a step towards everyone paying less rent is a fallacy. It is a limited finite resource that is heavily subsidised by the state and private housing/rental market.

South West. Where houses and private rents are very expensive.

I’m sure yeah. How often do they update it? Rents have sky rocketed round here

Where is this?

Yes, it's unfair. So we should be working towards everyone paying the cheaper rent, rather than everyone paying the more expensive rent.

It is free for some when it's fully paid for by housing benefit.

When it isn;t free it's a hell of a lot cheaper than private rentals.

And has the security, lifetime usually, that people in private rentals can only dream of.

My step-sister has a four bedroom council house with front and back garden. That made sense when she had 5 kids at home but now it's just her and her husband she's living the dream. Cheap rent, a beautiful house and she hasn;t worked since her teens.

I mean, I think people do realise the rent is way below market rate. So yeah you're not necessarily getting free housing, but you're definitely getting free money.

It should be reserved for people in need honestly, it's deeply unfair that one family has to pay market rate rent privately while another gets cheap rent in a council house when they both have similar incomes.

Currently, enough funds have been released to build 18,000 social homes. Which is....something, I suppose.

But I reiterate again: the state gives a small proportion of the money required to build new HA homes. The rest comes from existing rents. So, if you are a HA tenant, rather than your rent being subsidised by the HA, you are in fact subsidising new builds for the next generation of renters. It's a virtuous circle. Take profit out of the equation and everyone wins.

Oh I have just seen the post above me where private and social housing costs a similar amount. Maybe it depends on what part of the country you are in. I’m south West and the difference is huge. Maybe in other areas there isn’t much in it.

My point is that in many areas there are not more suitable properties people can move into ,some people might be desperate to move to a smaller more suitable property but there is nothing available.

Why? Straghtforward system which applies to all no special exemptions for the entitled.

I've said it before, but what is actually needed is low cost housing for rent available to all. 1.5 million units into social housing would be far better than 1.5 million units into private housing for starters.

A cross-party, long term housing strategy, covering the next 25-50 years, incorporating sustainability and using MMC needs to be set up. Fund it using institutional investors, who look for long term, steady returns on their investments. Offer apprenticeships for all trades involved in construction, with CICs set up to provide jobs and ongoing maintenance to the housing stock. Central government to provide some of the funding to offset land costs and subsidise infrastructure. They've had loads of money from RTB, it's time to reinvest it in housing.

No lifetime tenancies with an obligation to move up or down as circumstances change, this keeps fluidity in available stock. Lower rents to enable people to save for deposits if they wish to buy from private housing stock. Making the housing available to all, takes the heat out of the private rental market, which in turn should release stock onto the market for people to buy.

It's a win-win all round. Everyone is housed in well maintained housing, running costs are low and people have more disposable income due to affordable rents, so more money is in circulation, less housing benefit is needed. Those who are not so fortunate are looked after too in housing that meets their needs and is fit for purpose.

I know several people who live in social housing - yes they all work, and all of them pay around £400 a month for a 2-3 bed house.

Compare that to the cost of a private rental 2-3 bed house in the same area of £1800- 2000 per month.

So yes, it is ridiculous to imply it isnt cheaper or subsidised.

In my area a private rented house will be £1175 for a 3 bed. Social housing in the same area for a 3 bed is £480.
It isnt the landlords purposefully raising the rent. For my 3 bed that I live in and own my mortgage is £1100. So if I wanted to rent it out (which I don’t as I need to live in it) then the rent would need to be more than £1100 to cover the costs. It is the mortgage interest rates that has caused rents to rise.
I thought that social housing was meant to be affordable housing for people that don’t have high paying jobs. So my friend who is renting hers for £480 was a carer for years and years but she is now training to be a nurse. She is the kindest person I know but doesn’t make much money and has 3 kids and a useless husband. In terms of whether social housing is free no it’s not free but in some cases housing benefit will be paying for it. It is subsidised though as the rent is way less than someone would pay if they were renting it privately and way less than it would cost if someone got a mortgage for what the house was worth and paid the mortgage if for example they had a 20% deposit.

My rent is around £25 a week cheaper than the advertised private rents, £100 a month, part furnished as in has cooker, fridge, freezer etc. One is £150 more and fully furnished with well , furniture! Every private rent I lived in had carpets, curtain rails and generally curtains or blinds, and at least a cooker if not fridge, freezer & washer too, all supplied, maintained and replaced by the LL. And just as open to being 'subsidised' by housing benefit (or whatever the equivalent is now) as an SH home - at a higher amount because they cost more.

SH has none of that, you pay to install, upkeep and replace those things yourself, the HA doesn't supply, maintain or replace any of those things.

It's the 'no frills' end of renting. Why would you expect that people pay the same 'market rent' as private renting when they're not actually getting the same? Would you pay the same rate for a budget hotel with no frills as a 5* because that's the 'market rate' for a hotel room? Or would you expect that the price increases with the amenities?

That's often completely ignored because it doesn't suit the agenda of 'Free housing! Subsidised housing! All not fair!'

I pay my rent from the low wages I receive for working full time, plenty of people have been and continue to be 'subsidised' by that work being delivered for less than it costs for the person doing the work to live. Perhaps it's time to scrap it all and people can start paying more for the services they want and need instead of relying on cheap labour and then bitching that they're paying for everything and getting nothing in return?

That's not going to happen.

Eliminate social housing. The going rate paid for ALL properties and no one is treated differently. Equally. end of argument.

They were offered a one bedroom flat, they have said they will only consider a two bedroom. There attitude is “This is our home” They can’t see that actually that home was given to them because they had small children and needed it. I think it’s disgusting that they get to stay there forever.. Yes they both worked and now have good pensions but why should they get to live in a cheap rent council house when you have people with multiple children living in shitty temporary accommodation for years, or couples who work continuously yet still have to use food banks to feed their children because private rent is so high?
unless they are going to build enough houses to cover the people who need social housing the agreement should change to.. It’s yours until your children leave education and then you either go to the one bedroom we offer you or you privately rent, just like everyone else has to.

Well said

I'm sorry but I think this is a really selfish and entitled attitude. You are clearly paying well below market rate for a large house that you don't need anymore and is probably in demand by families that actually need the space. You have already benefited from years of subsidised accommodation and now you won't move unless you 'break even' financially. What a joke! You have never really paid your way when it comes to housing and now want to be compensated for moving to a smaller house or flat that would actually meet your needs.

I get it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas but this is why we need powers to move people like you on and stop you hogging housing stock and being so heavily subsidised to do this.

I haven't seen anyone say they thought social housing was FREE per se. More that it's subsidised/below market rent. It certainly was for my mum, who had a council flat from my teens through to her death in my 30s.

She worked and did not claim any benefits. She COULD have afforded private rent but why would she when she got a much cheaper deal through a council tenancy and effectively a guaranteed home for the rest of her life?

Absolutely. I didn't say it's necessarily a bad thing. We need more affordable housing. But I do also think we need more transparency.

My rent is £850 a month and I pay every penny of that. I don't claim any benefits at all.

I'm in a 4bed house and wouldn't necessarily be opposed to downsizing in future. But the problem is that anything I've seen and liked has a higher rent than mine for a smaller place, around £1000-£1200 a month. (I'm not going to go for something I don't like or move to a cheaper area, why would I?). This is because I've been a tenant for a long time so my rent can only be increased by a certain percentage, whereas newer tenancies are priced higher. Additionally, there's a possibility with some that I'd have to give up my lifetime tenancy and go onto a fixed term tenancy. Which obviously I'm not going to do. A smaller place and less security for more money, no one would choose that.

There's also an issue on flats having service charges, that can spiral out of control. As I don't think there's any kind of cap on that. My HA made an error and billed me £30 p/w for "tree work" when they don't do any here! It was eventually resolved but clearly they think that's an acceptable charge. Let alone everything else they can charge for in flats. So a rent of £250 a week could become £300+ with service charges.

So I will probably become one of those old people rattling around in a 4 bed. Because it just makes no sense financially to downsize. If they want people to downsize they need to make it viable. I'd want to at least break even on any move I made, I'm not making a move to lose money.