To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

Or they should have to pay higher rent and this extra cash be used by the council to house other vulnerable people who need it

I think it's unfair that it's a house for life at low rent.
I think (unless people buy their council house) it should be reviewed every three years and if they don't earn as little as they did before then there should be a sliding scale where rent increases to affordable housing rents for that area (which is still subsidized but not as much as social rent) . This would enable councils to house everyone who is needy of affordable housing.

A colleague of mine on c.£55k p.a. who is a single man aged 30ish 'inherited' the family council house. His dad sadly died a couple of years ago and he, by his own admission, cheekily asked the Council if they'd transfer the tenancy to him - and they said yes! So he's alone in a 3-bed house, big garden. Personally I think that house should have been offered to a family in need on the waiting list.

I'd rather there were more Council houses - better than housing benefit going to private landlords - but priority should go to those in greatest need, whilst they are in need. I dont think a Council home should stay in a family for decades when they no longer need the support.

Yes but it is a loan. And you have to wait 3 months before you can claim it.

If you have a mortgage and end up on benefits then you can get the interest paid on your mortgage (not the capital repayment, which is fsir enough) the difference between the two groups is not that one gets help while the other doesn't. In fact they both get help but one of them will end up with an owned asset and the other will not

Yes, so I pay (it's anonymous so I'll say!) £100 a week, which is all covered.

A place like this is likely worth £600 - £800 a month around here. It's a gorgeous area and it is mixed in with some very expensive houses.

But for a private rent, they'd be potting themselves a decent few hundred a month out of people's benefit money.

UC only pays what this place is actually worth. So a private landlord is automatically charging more than it's worth. That's pure taxpayers money.

The fact anyone on UC is paying money to private landlords is mad anyway.
They are doing so because there is not enough SH to go round.

Ohh I see….so private rentals rent can be paid by UC/Housing benefit too? Just like in a HA/council home

i wonder if those in private rented will be told to move to a smaller property if family size decreases? Just like social housing tennants are being told to?

But if the rent was lower then you may be able to pay it all yourself.Say £500 on a council place, private costs £900. Due to income eligible for £400 towards rent on private but zero on council. So it's actually paying for private landlords profit

UC covers LHA. If it is less than your private rent then you have to make up the short fall yourself.

I know of someone who has a 2 bed social housing place l in Romford. It's £297 a week. That's not cheap in my eyes

I have a HA place and don't work, although I know others who have one and do work.

No one would want to swap the circumstances I've experienced in order to be offered this place, I assure you all. Nor the circumstances that prevent me from working. I guarantee working is easier. They don't just hand these places out like sweeties. You have to really be in the shit to qualify, at least in my county.

Aww dont spoil their fun with facts.

Yep, I know people who are struggling to swap like for like.

You can also get UC housing element in private rentals Would imagine actually more likely as rents higher

I struggled to go down from my 5 bed to a 4 bed

you can’t just move, you have to find someone to swap with who is eligible

tgen jump through other hoops too

Still benefit fraud of some sort is being committed up and down the country and everyone is aware that it is going on, any post that is benefits related on MN has commenters admitting they personally know people who are doing it,

That doesn't say how much the rent was though. Just that those particular tenants get housing benefits . Different people in the same property might now

BULLSHIT.

The Elephant and Castle neighbourhood is being physically, socially and ethnically transformed. This started with the demolition of the Heygate estate, a classic for stigmatised perceptions of council housing and the people who live in it. As the local 35% Campaign has meticulously documented, a succession of promises to Heygate residents were broken to arrive at a situation where 1,214 council homes were demolished, to be replaced with 2,704 new homes, of which only 82 (3%) are for social rent. The HA partner was London and Quadrant. To be eligible for the cheapest one-bedroom home built by them on the Heygate site, people needed a minimum household income of £57,500. The average household income in that part of Southwark is £24,324

Do the fucking maths. 1,214 council homes replaced with 82 social homes

I saw that thread. OP's sister is not able to work. The fraud was her not declaring a live in partner.

you would know that no one chooses not to work and as an easy life.

Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows there are plenty of people like that around, there was even a post on here yesterday about a woman admitting that her sister was committing benefit fraud…..everyone is aware this goes on

Quite, but that means rental income does not have to cover the cost of new houses which the business needs in order to develop. Therefore, rental prices are effectively subsidised by the government/ other grants or income streams.

I am very pro social housing. I grew up in social housing. However, it’s not true to say that social housing rents are equal to the cost of provision - because that’s the whole
point of it.

Because private rentals are for profit whereas social housing shouldn't be

What do you think should happen to the "people who can work but choose not to"?
Do you think they should be kicked out onto the street?

If you have any idea of how the benefit system works, you would know that no one chooses not to work and as an easy life.

Speaking of subsidised.
Across the river in Nine Elms, Janine Streuli is one of many NHG shared ownership tenants in a block called Viridian Apartments. But far from delivering Kenrick’s utopian vision of good quality housing for everybody, regardless of wealth, Streuli and her neighbours have ended up paying for the concierge and garden landscaping of the wealthy residents of the adjacent luxury block. They’re facilities that she and the fellow affordable housing residents haven’t been given access to; their block has a separate “poor door” and their entrance to the communal gardens are sealed shut
The charge was only announced five years after Streuli moved in, when the affordable housing residents got a bill for thousands of pounds. While their initial leases made clear they wouldn’t have to pay these fees, NHG’s own lease with the building’s management company — which actually runs the development and its facilities — said the opposite. When the discrepancy was eventually identified the tenants were asked to take on the cost. They were now going to be paying to maintain the luxury gardens and concierge that they weren’t even allowed to use. Now she and most of the other residents spend upwards of £6,000 or £7,000 a year in service fees, almost 500% the rate promised when she moved in. While subsidising the facilities of their neighbours, many of their own flats and corridors have dealt with flooding, penetrating damp and mould — problems that have never been adequately fixed. Eventually the residents cobbled together enough money to take NHG to a property tribunal, and next month their fate will be decided by a judge

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/notting-hill-genesis-london-biggest-landlord/?ref=the-londoner-newsletter