To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

I think they are given a bad name as all the people who can work but choose not to work are housed in them giving hard working people like your family a bad name

Apparently in the 70s in the UK around a third of the population was living in social housing, so a lot of people these days probably had some grand parents / parents / relatives living in them at some point for one reason or another

Of course it is subsidised. HAs are currently waiting for the next round of funding for new build programmes to be announced from central government.

It is subsidised housing. And needy people dont have access to these homes because folk are given lifetime tenancies even when they can well afford to buy or rent privately. And the usual answer of build more homes is nonsense. It hasn't happened yet and probably never will.

UC housing element payments are also subsidising private landlords mortgage payments too.

Not by very much any more, sadly. But any subsidies they do get are earmarked for building new houses, not put towards lowering rents.

FFS, they are not-for-profit enterprises. They make profits and plough them straight back into the business. That's how all non-profits work. No subsidies involved.

Agree with your general point, but business loans aren't subsidies!

And how do you think they can afford not to make a profit? Could it be because the business is subsidised by government funding?

And they are costing the state much less than if they were privately renting and claiming housing element.

There is a big difference in houses being built on government owned land (so the cost of building them is massively reduced as the most expensive part of building a house is buying the land in the UK), tenants paying rent for 20-30 years to cover the building costs (again reduced as buying materials in bulk and basic fixtures and fittings) and then after that the rental income going back into the government coffers after maintenance. Even if the rent is paid by housing benefit, the rent payments are still going back to the government. The government still has an asset which generates income. They should never be sold so the increase in value of the property is irrelevant.

As opposed to a tenant paying a landlord’s mortgage so that landlord then has an expensive asset paid for, and benefits from the increase in value at the same time which they can capitalise on, by someone else’s hard work and/or conversely the government using tax payers money to fund the landlords mortgage in the form of housing benefits with no asset to the government or income generation after it is paid off.

Councils are not for profit. Landlords are.

Who is being subsidised in the above scenarios?

Does is matter? Someone has a roof over their head, which is great.

Subsidy by another word then. Whatever that word is.

Im not sure why people get so arsey about this, we should have subsidised or cheaper social housing, its not a problem to say that.

Theres nothing wrong with having a private rental sector either, except that in his country the governments over time have preferred t have the private sector prop up all rental properties rather than have a health social housing sector.

But if you get UC housing element and it covers the rent then it literally is a free house isn’t it? You get given money not everyone would and you get a house for money you haven’t earned?

My understanding of the word "subsidised" is that it's when the price of goods, property or service is partly paid for by someone else. Which isn't what happens with social housing. Nobody is giving the HAs money to keep their rents down.

The case is more that private rents have been artificially inflated for the sake of profit.

We are given incentives to downsize here they go through it every couple of years cash for an exchange

My mum is in her 70s and a couple of her friends have asked the council to downsize but they didn’t have any 1 bed homes available.

"Build more social houses"

As someone who has worked as a construction consultant in social housing for 15 years I say I completely agree with building more.

The issue is who gets the houses once they are built.

I was on very good terms with a HA Director who told me they manage 300 houses and have a 15 year waiting list to get one based on the number of voids they get per year.

New builds are being asked to accommodate inter-generational families now, 8 or 10 person houses but the funding makes them unviable. The sweet spot for funding is 4 person 2 bed flats but there's only so many of those you want to cram in to an area.

And social housing isn't the free meal ticket some think it is, you can have a nightmare neighbour move in next door and there's almost nothing anyone can do about it as long as they are paying their rent.

If a nightmare neighbour moves in next to me I just sell up and move.

Your household may pay full or part rent for your home, however most social housing tenants do not pay full rent, and receive housing benefit.

Join the finance department of a housing association, the rents and collections team will open your eyes, and you’ll soon begin to really understand the numbers.

To give you an anecdote, I own a 2 bed flat in a Victorian terraced house. The upstairs flat is also a two bed, it’s council owned. I bought mine from the council when they sold it at auction a few years back. It’s located in a nice part of the world; houses on the street usually sell for around £1.8-£2.2m.
Anyway I’ve gotten to know the tenants upstairs from when I did the renovations. She and her husband have 3 children and as part of another conversation, she mentioned to me that their rent is fully covered by housing benefit. Her flat on the open market would probably rent for £3k per month.
My tenants, in a similar sized flat downstairs but with garden, pay £3,200 per month.

Fair enough

My parents looked to downsize from their under occupied 3 bed house. No properties available. 1 bed are in huge demand.

To a point, yes, but knowing what she went through i think it was much more complex than that. And to her, it was her home, where she raised her children. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

And she refused to take up her right to buy, she knew the house wasn't hers really.

This. Social housing is generally always cheaper than the private sector as rent is linked to a formula based on local incomes.

I think likely people may have an issue with it because even when people are back on their feet earning an above average wage they’re able to stay in council housing which by default as said is essentially subsidised so not as OP says the same if that person was in private rented as they wouldn’t qualify for HB to ease the pain of the higher market rent (which they can now afford of course). This is why people like millionaire Levi Roots refuse to move from properties they now no longer need.

Social housing providers get government LOANS to build (or sometimes buy) properties, which they have to pay back with interest. They also build/buy properties with the money they make from rents.

Yep, that's right - the money they make from rents. They charge less rent NOT thanks to any subsidies, but simply because they aren't gouging their tenants like private landlords do.

The answer isn't to keep being mean-minded about social housing, but to encourage more building by HAs and councils. This could be done with a levy on private developers.

The Conservatives imposed a whole set of weird strictures on social housing providers, which essentially prevented them making any money to fund new builds. I haven't kept up to speed with that but, if they're still having their hands tied, that needs to end.

100% agree.