To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

What a disgusting comment.

Well we all know what tenants having no choice resulted in eight years ago

I live in social housing. My rent is roughly 50% of the local market rate. It has allowed me to live in an area that I could never afford to live in and allowed my child to go to fantastic schools.

When she has finished sixth form, we are going to try and get a swap to a large property and then buy it. The system is flawed, but you’d be foolish not to utilise it.

They weren’t given a house.

Whatever, you think it’s fine to stay in a house that was given to you based on your needs at the time, have those needs disappear but you know… I need all of these extra rooms for when my kids want to come home at Christmas.
I think this is selfish and entitled, but that’s people for you. Like I said, the rules should change so the choice doesn’t lie with the tenants.

YY Im getting really really sick of this shit now. And its only me and DH in a one bedroom flat At his age and disabilities we really need a bungalow But i dont resent the tenants already living in bungalows. Because that would be stupid.
Guess that makes me a better person than the SH haters

They weren’t given it. They were given the opportunity to rent it and they weren’t paying off someone else’s mortgage. It’s a shame they didn’t take their huge discount and buy it then you’d be really green with ill disguised envy.

Of course they were given it, I can’t imagine my landlord would give a toss if I pointed out I’ve paid his mortgage on the house I’ve been paying rent in for years. It hasn’t made it my house, I don’t get to keep it forever.
I know far too many people in this situation, my in laws being two of them, great big four bedroom council house that they were given in the 80s, it’s been just the two of them for years, it shouldn’t be allowed.

So people should get a mortgage You think they should buy a house Be told what to do with their own money
Okie dokie but only if the same thing happens with Child Benefit Parents get to have to prove its being spent on the child

Nobody was given a house 40 years ago. Anyone living in one for that length of time has essentially paid for it, despite never owning it. I wouldn’t be moving and if I took out a mortgage it would be to buy that house at a discount thus removing it from the social housing stock for ever.

All this thread has proved is that you can’t trust people to do the right thing.
If you were given a three bedroom council house 40 years ago and all of your children have now grown up and moved out you should obviously have to downsize.
If you’re circumstances have changed and you could now get a mortgage but enjoy the cheap rent you should be made to move on.
If you’re moving on and you have adult children earning a good wage you shouldn’t be allowed to move them back in and make them a successor of your tenancy.
All of this crap about needing to keep a larger home just incase your children want to move back in. Or not wanting to move out of area and have to commute back for work is just nonsense. The problem is that the tenancy agreements handed out have allowed people to take the piss, the rules need to change.

Not everyone can get a mortgage.

Wouldn't you get that with a mortgage?

But the NEED for social housing isn’t dictated by money…earnings or benefits…. It’s the SECURITY. That’s the NEED

i need security in my life thanks….?we could well afford to private rent but will choose to stay in our SH home for the SECURITY it gives us

why would I move out, watering the money we have spent on our home, to live in a house double the cost with the chance of being given notice to leave at any given muinute?

we won’t be!

oops I realise my misunderstanding now on social housing vs welfare state
but we seem to agree there’s not enough provision for low income or unemployed so it causes unfair situations amongst those in need

Oops Ok sorry I now realise my misunderstanding.
But I think we do all agree there isn’t enough social housing including bungalows for retired. Nor housing for those on benefits ( which I now see isn’t called social housing).
Unfortunately there’s not enough stock so it’s unfair to those who need it but can’t have it . Including those on low incomes who work, live in one bed flat as that’s all they can afford while someone else who has managed to get social housing has multiple bedrooms and garden.
Dont know what answer is , government has messed things up

But it is a benefit available to people on lower incomes. Otherwise you don’t qualify. There isn’t much stock so few who apply will get it. Others on same or lower income may not get it.

This wasn't London btw. Not sure what LHA has to do with it?

Indeed. Definitely like the idea. Bring it

LHA depends on area though. London is going to have a LHA more than someone up North.
When I was renting private, it was cheaper than council housing. But then my landlord was shit. Swings and roundabouts.

No one said 'they are all on benefits' 😂They said

• some are on benefits
• some are on a low salary and need SH
• some are on a higher salary and could afford private rent/mortgage so are in less need of SH

It isn't and has never been linked to the welfare state. No matter how much you will it

That's cheap. Saw on Facebook today someone wanting to swap a 3 bed council house Rent on it is £277 a week

I know they can't make up their minds 😆

MN You must move out of SH when you start earning more
Also MN They are all on benefits