To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

I grew up in a council estate and mine wasn’t like that at all and still isn’t

Even if that were true, the fact the taxpayer is funding the building of the housing is a subsidy.

Come on though, cheap or not, they aren't nice places to live. I did 5 years as a volunteer police officer, and every single shift we were at the council estates for something or other. It was absolute carnage. Most people didn't work, never cleaned their homes, often drunk by noon, shouting, fighting, honestly it was horrendous. I felt very sorry for the few (and it was only a few), decent people who were there having to live amongst that shit show.

It’s not free but it is subsidized. We give billions to fund affordable housing each year not including the fact that generally local councils housing departments don’t cover their costs. Also obviously social housing providers don’t pay tax as private landlords have to. Not to say any of that is wrong but we should be honest that we are subsidizing social housing

I feel the opposite, good quality, secure, affordable housing should be the standard for all. I own so no skin in the renting game but I grew up in a council flat and when I was 18 I rented a council flat. Not through any need just applied and they let me view one.

I gave it up a year or so later and moved to a private rental as wanted to be in the city centre. It’s really populations increases / right to buy so less social housing stock. I think we need to invest in social housing. More social housing means less competition for private rentals and will bring down prices.

Clue's in the name there really, isn't it? HAs are getting funding to build new houses, not to subsidise rent.

But as I pointed out the tenants in social housing are paying above the costs to the council so not subsidized.

And smaller SH properties are not necessarily cheaper either ( my OH worked in high up position in a SH company)

Getting a council house is like winning the lottery today, vs having to live in private rented accommodation.

I’d say for young adults today the likelihood of getting g a council house as a couple while in full time employment are incredibly low - zero, in many areas.

I was talking about movement from bigger to smaller social housing based on needs not on income. All social housing is subsidised by being cheaper than private sector rental. Not talking about income at all, just size of property to free up homes for families currently occupied by single people or a couple.

as I understand from this thread, it’s the security that SH provides that’s so wonderful.

doesnt that make it more unfair to those who have a mortgage? Who are paying shitloads more, but have less security than someone in SH?

im a life long leftie but something is very wrong with SH model now. It seems that some people are protected from the horrors of life through having a SH place, when they have no extra need to be thus protected. And others, in exactly the same situation re work, income, have no such protection. Is it that which feels so unjust?

Then where is the incentive for anyone in SH to earn more? Who's going to think " yeah I'll apply for a promotion/better job", if they know that promotion/better job might mean losing their home or their rent getting increased which would wipe out any increase in £ that promotion/better job may bring.
So many people complain about "sink estates" but woe- betide anyone in SH actually trying to get on in life.

But we were talking about the "subsidizing"

Whats the incentive for people to earn more if it means they lose the security of a social tenancy and pay more for not being able to decorate your home and landlord puts you on 6 months let's so insecure private rentals

I guess if rents were nearer market rents it might encourage people to move to rental property more in line with their current needs? Movement from smaller to bigger and bigger to smaller homes might flow more then. Needs led.

Yes alot of people do work and live in council or social housing but this is actually subsidised housing and not affordable housing.

That's a massive difference in rent.

Rattling around in social housing too big for current needs is a problem. Families need affordable homes and yet some people rattle around in a home too big with a subsidised rent (social housing rents are below market rents). It does need reviewing since there is a housing crisis.

I've been in social housing for 6 years after I found myself unexpectedly a single parent. It's a tiny 2 bed mid-terrace but my rent is £1001 a month!! And we're no-where near London but it's a new build which are always more expensive.

I will soon to be leaving this house...which some may say is mad....to move in with my partner (also a single dad of now grown-up children). With our combined wages we can afford to buy a home. I have had people say to me, you're mad for giving up a lifetime tenancy, but I personally think if people find themselves in a position where they financially don't need to be in social housing anymore, then it should be freed up for someone who does need it.

For me being in social housing and getting UC to top up my wages was always a temporary situation. I am very grateful for the system being there when I needed it. Obviously other people use the system in a very different way but that's between them and the council/ government. We're all in different circumstances so I don't judge.

I'm confused who is actually " subsidizing" the rent though? Town next to us has plenty of social housing that was built in the 20/30 years post war. The houses have obviously long been paid for, the council are very slack on doing any repairs so what is the £120/150 a week rent actually paying for? And how is that subsidized as it seems the tension renting are paying far more than the cost to the council so must be almost into " profit" area there

Why are you all over MN being gratuitously unpleasant to people?

I also agree, or have their rent increased to closer to the market rate. I know many people in social housing earning more than we do but still paying subsidised rent.

Social housing is de facto subsidised when you take into account the cost of capital. Ask any landlord or homeowner with a mortgage and they will tell you that the cost of capital is one of the biggest costs of ownership. In private rentals this is passed onto the tenant, in social housing it isn't in the same way.

Not around here it's not. Around here social hosing rents are set at the local housing allowance rate which is the maximum amount you can get in housing benefit towards rent in private housing. You then have a 2/3 year tenancy, have to supply you own carpets, kitchen appliances, curtains, etc. Private renting is much better value and often cheaper.

I privately rent and my rent is 40% lower than friends who live in social housing.

I think the reason that’s the perception is that a) for most renters their rent is a massive proportion of their income and expensive and b) it’s widely known that social housing properties are in short supply and very competitive and families are living in hotels etc as there aren’t enough homes.
An outsider looking in would therefore assume that social housing is generally for those who need subsidised housing and that support rather than someone arguably lucky enough to have a reduced and secure rental just because.
Personally I think it needs a complete rehaul as it’s not fit for purpose. A single person in a 3 bed house who’s now doing really well no longer needs it compared to some of the people waiting for social housing. It’s not a fair system.

I live in a council house. I know lots of people who do. Most work but some like us don’t and we do get the full rent paid. We are carers for disabled dc though, we worked prior to the dc and will work again at some point in the future.

The problem with social housing is that there is not enough of it. Right to buy was a terrible policy.
My grandparents got a council house in the early 60s, as part of the post war house building. They were a working class couple with kids who both worked (my grandmother part time). It massively helped them. At the time they were the sort of people who council housing was aimed at. Now, at least in the south east it’s so scarce that hardly anyone manages to get social housing and many eligible people sit in B&Bs and temporarily accommodation for years before they access anywhere permanent, if they ever do at all.

Round here a large proportion are druggies, mental health issues, and can’t work etc