Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

To be fair though you have said some things that are not very nice . People pissing out kids being one of them.

I’m neither predictable nor lazy, I just happen to agree with that post and disagree with you

You seem to be a very fragile person. You invited comment on your personal circumstances by bringing them into a thread you ostensibly started to discuss one topic, where it became very clear that your motivation was resentment over your own circumstances. In respect to your other reply to me, of course I would advocate for someone in temporary accommodation to refrain from having a baby - but it isn’t someone in temporary accommodation here using their personal circumstances to criticise private tenants or homeowners.

I’m sure you would have reacted very well if someone had told you when you brought up your specific situation of not being able to afford to have a baby that they couldn’t care less about your circumstances, as they are materially irrelevant to the conversation you started. But that would have been very rude, and no one did it. Maybe sit down and have a think about why even the merest suggestion that you could do something to change your own circumstances instead of woe-is-me-ing is so offensive to you, when the entire premise of the thread you started was speculating as to the personal circumstances of others.

The funny thing is, I don’t even disagree with your original point - lifetime tenancies don’t make any sense and need overhauling, but not because people earning too much should be evicted, but because of factors like under-occupancy and antisocial behaviour, where it can be difficult or impossible to take action due to the security of tenancies.

No, I don't get why a 20 something just stating out in life should inherit a lifetime tenancy for a 3 bed council house from their grandparent. Especially when there are young families in temporary accommodation and have greter need for this home.

A secure future for young people should not depend on a lifetime social housing tenancy. A secure future for a young person is decent job prospects with good pay progression in order to fund their housing needs. Sometimes that means moving away from the area they grew up in, a social housing tenancy could actually be a hindrance.

That was so predictable and lazy of you to say that.

Im not picking on you but I doubt you’d like to see your family evicted because they were doing ok for themselves.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Yeh same old thing month in, month out. Pure jealousy from those who fancy picking on others because they can’t see a painless way out of their debt.

But you very much DO care about the living standards of others! You started a thread on the subject in fact, based on your own bias. I doubt you give a fig about social housing and the tenancies. You just wanted to pick on people.

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway I think there’s something you need to address about your reading comprehension. This thread is about lifetime tenancies for social housing tenants and the unfairness of these tenancies for some of the tenants.

Labour are not bringing this in. Council houses have always been lifetime tenancies . That was the whole point to give people security without the fear from being evicted

Not necessarily rich but better off than most, clearly op is far from the only one as birth rates are so low, it's hard to save when you have a mortgage to pay like I said if your home is owned by the council and your rent is less than half of what its worth like my mother's is then it's most likely a lot easier to save.

That aside the op clearly loves her husband and it sounds like hes a reliable man working an ordinary job is it really so bad for her to want a family with him? It's not like he's an unemployed heroin addict.

Also it's been implied by plenty of posters on here that op is wealthy/fortunate/punching down etc to have a mortgage. But sometimes it really is the only option when council waiting lists are 10+ years and private landlords are evicting people left right and centre. Personally it was the only option for me after the last landlord eviction yes you do need a bit of money for a deposit my house is shared ownership so the deposit wasn't much. You don't actually know whether ops house is shared ownership or it could be really small so a small deposit.

Please make up your mind is she a rich snob with a massive mortgage looking down on renters or a foolish woman married to an unusually impoverished man?

@RowsOfFlowers YABVVVU.

The vast majority of people who qualify/qualified for social housing will never be 'rich' or on £100K a year or more. And most will need (and deserve!) the security of a lifetime tenancy.

Do you really think loads of people who get a social housing property/tenancy, (and are on less than £30K a year when they get the property,) are on £80K/£90K/£100K a year plus, a few years later?! Get real! This would not be the case for - as I said - the vast majority of people!

Seriously, I am sick to DEATH of this 2-3 times monthly social housing tenant bashing. It's soooooooo old now! 🙄

Why do some people deeply resent people having a secure, affordable, rented home? Jealousy? Anger? Bitterness? All of the above? 🤔

.

Do you seriously believe that only a rich person could, with 1-2 years notice, support their household for six months while their child’s mother didn’t have an income? It might take some cutting back and lots of saving, but this is not an unobtainable goal.

Please enlighten me as to the vast riches (in yearly salary) that you think a man would need to fully support his household for an extended period of time as my husband does, including buying a semi-detached house in the SE, running a vehicle and the occasional holiday. Then I will tell you how much my husband earns.

How do you know she overextended herself? I don't see where she mentioned the size or location of her house. For all you know it's already as small and in a cheap location as possible.
You seem to imply the op could of easily just made a cheaper decision around her house as has been pointed out on this thread it's not easy to just "choose" to live in a council house the waiting list is years even for people in bed and breakfasts. Private renting is just as expensive as a mortgage Y'all seemed to be implying the op just overextended herself and could easily of made another decision.

Most men these days can't support a household single handedly, clearly op isn't the only one in this situation seeing as there's so much in the news recently about people not having children anymore. Either your husband is on a really good wage or you have extra money from paying cheaper rent (which good for you genuinely, as I said I don't hate or resent people in council homes my own mother has lived in hers her whole life) but the ops situation isn't unusual.

I believe that you are wilfully misunderstanding me so that you can feel victimised. It is not advocating for having children with someone purely for money to say that you shouldn’t have a baby with someone if they can’t afford for you to have the bare minimum of time with your baby. If my husband couldn’t afford to support a family, I wouldn’t leave him, but I would hold off on getting pregnant until and unless we as a household could support the increased expense. And I wouldn’t be complaining about people in more affordable and secure accommodation - I would be shouting from the rooftops that this should be available for the majority and that the government needs to take radical action.

And @Frateletheboss , I was not suggesting or implying that she should have done any such thing. I was directly saying that she has overextended her finances to buy the house she’s in if every month is such an extreme struggle to pay the bills. That’s unfortunate, but there were alternatives to making that choice, mainly relocating or getting a smaller property. I also think most people can see there is a big gap between “wealthy” and “able to mostly support his household for six months while his partner receives SMP”. A person doesn’t need to be rich to pull that off, especially not with a planned pregnancy. They can both save to fund a more comfortable maternity leave, as I believe is common for people to do if they both work. They have to have some spare money or they wouldn’t have been able to get a mortgage.

No as I said there are exceptions. It is just statistics - I'm sorry you don't understand that.

I think taking away lifetime tenancies will incentivise people to stay poor. In London where I live a 2 bed housing trust flat rents for about £600 a month. An average private rental is well over £2000. People simply cannot afford that. There is no right to buy for these sorts of properties.

The tenancy can only be passed on once, normally to the partner, not willed to an adult child living elsewhere (they do check).

Most people would prefer to buy, but in London at least it is outside the reach of people on average wages.
I just googled and the cheapest 2 bed flat in my postcode is £400k. Shared ownership is also not an option for many people as the service charges are extortionate.

Social housing is hardly Shangri la. The ones in my street are poorly maintained and have mould and other structural related issues.

I never claimed benefits when I was in my HA home. Paid full rent and council tax.

Access to Housing association/council
Housing should be available to all - with options & caveats. Even though my parents bought the house under a right to buy, the lower rent meant they were able to save a deposit. I don’t agree with a right to buy.

I find hard is as an example my Nanna had a lovely 4 bedroom house, the rent was covered. She lived with my Grandad the house was under occupied for a good 20 years. Eventually she began to struggle with maintaining it and the large garden. She put in a request for a 2 bedroom bungalow - there wasn’t enough. They offered her multiple 1 bedroom flats which wouldn’t work for my Grandads equipment that was needed. So for 5 years she waited for one to come up & eventually freed up her house. Though a lot of her friends on the estate didn’t want to move as it was (rightfully) their home but it meant blocking 3/4 bedroom houses with just couples or single people in.

The council/housing should have been building a mixture of housing stock (it seems just social housing flats here mixed with where they building private 2/3/4 houses).

I’m not sure I completely agree with life time tenancy, I do feel even though it may feel to people a home we shouldn’t have people under occupation a house BUT there needs to be the right property to be available to move into.