Page 24 | Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

RowsOfFlowers · 2025-06-26T06:46:22+00:00

Am I wrong or being unreasonable to think that this new policy that Labour are bringing in is very unfair? I come from a poor-ish background (as in no one in my wider family has any money). However, my mum and Dad did fairly okay and managed to move up the property ladder (through sheer hard work and sacrifice). My dad died a few years ago and so now it’s just my mom. We never received any benefits - and now my DH and I live in a house and pay a high interest rate (thanks Truss) and I don’t know if we will ever pay off our house (if I am to have children and go part time), so we will need to downsize. We don’t qualify for any benefits either but we are in the squashed middle, so we really feel it when anything rises in cost and don’t get any help. I feel really cross that someone can benefit from social housing for a lifetime, no matter how much they go on to earn, and then if they pass away, they can pass it down as an asset. I have a friend who’s parents came to this country, got given social housing, their children paid it off (40% discount) and now they all get to keep a £650k house in London. It doesn’t seem fair to me at all. I feel really disillusioned living in the UK.

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 13:31

mylovedoesitgood · 26/06/2025 13:25

But you could - potentially - be eligible for housing benefit to help you pay your rent if, say, you lost your job. If OP lost some of her household income and struggled or couldn’t pay her mortgage, she wouldn’t have any support from the government, as far as I know.

Show quote history

Exactly

OP posts:

Duckyfondant · 26/06/2025 13:29

As someone with a mortgage in a street of council houses, I agree that's it's very unfair. The council renters are so obviously better off than we are. It really grinds you down.

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:27

moofolk · 26/06/2025 13:21

You’ve got that the wrong way round.

It’s immoral for private rent to be so much more expensive than social housing.

Show quote history

At current property prices, you can’t set the rent lower if you have a mortgage. The mortgage company has a say in the rent. You need insurance. You need to maintain the building. You need to pay the mortgage even if the tenant isn’t paying rent, and if the tenant isn’t paying rent it takes six months and thousands of pounds to sort it out.

There’s no way I’d be a private landlord- I can’t afford the time or money.

mylovedoesitgood · 26/06/2025 13:25

Frequency · 26/06/2025 13:11

It's not social tenants fault op bought a house she cannot afford. I need to work fulltime to afford my house too. The difference is I won't end up with an assest worth hundreds of thousands after x amount of years.

My rent won't ever be paid off. I will be paying for my house until I die or move.

Show quote history

But you could - potentially - be eligible for housing benefit to help you pay your rent if, say, you lost your job. If OP lost some of her household income and struggled or couldn’t pay her mortgage, she wouldn’t have any support from the government, as far as I know.

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/06/2025 13:25

1apenny2apenny · 26/06/2025 13:20

Of course the system should change. The **it is going to hit the fan in a few years when those who have worked , don’t get benefits but rent because they can’t quite afford to buy are going to be up the creak without a paddle whilst those who have received benefits and lifetime housing subsidy will be laughing. Those poor workers will be stuck as they won’t be able to afford private rent on a pension because they used all their pension money to pay private rent. If those same people on benefits and in social housing haven’t saved anything to a pension they may also get pension credit and all the benefits that come along with that.

We seemed to have reached a point where working isn’t paying, no wonder so many young people don’t want to do it.

Sadly, I think you’re right.

Ironically, of course, most renters can afford to buy, mortgage payments are usually much less than private rentals. It’s the deposit they struggle with.

BurntBroccoli · 26/06/2025 13:24

OneSpoonyGreyWasp · 26/06/2025 08:10

Build more council houses that are not able to be bought. Succession is only for the other people that live there once the main tenant dies and it can only be handed down once.

This 100%!!!

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 13:24

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:21

But if you can’t work and need benefits, you get money towards rent. If OP doesn’t work, they lose the house. It takes years to pay off equity rather than just interest.

And these days, in my East Midlands not exactly fashionable and expensive area, it takes two people working full time to afford the cheapest house. It’s not about choosing one you can’t afford.

Show quote history

Exactly. I live in the SE and myself and my partner work ourselves into the ground most weeks. Everything is just too expensive.

OP posts:

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 13:22

1apenny2apenny · 26/06/2025 13:20

Of course the system should change. The **it is going to hit the fan in a few years when those who have worked , don’t get benefits but rent because they can’t quite afford to buy are going to be up the creak without a paddle whilst those who have received benefits and lifetime housing subsidy will be laughing. Those poor workers will be stuck as they won’t be able to afford private rent on a pension because they used all their pension money to pay private rent. If those same people on benefits and in social housing haven’t saved anything to a pension they may also get pension credit and all the benefits that come along with that.

We seemed to have reached a point where working isn’t paying, no wonder so many young people don’t want to do it.

Exactly this. Thank you for the useful perspective!! It’s not a fair system, it’s simply not paying off….

OP posts:

moofolk · 26/06/2025 13:21

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:09

It’s unhelpful for social housing to be so much cheaper than private. It’s one of the things making life so tenuous. If the costs were closer, more social housing would be built with the excess income, more people would be housed and all rents would then go down.

You’ve got that the wrong way round.

It’s immoral for private rent to be so much more expensive than social housing.

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:21

Frequency · 26/06/2025 13:11

It's not social tenants fault op bought a house she cannot afford. I need to work fulltime to afford my house too. The difference is I won't end up with an assest worth hundreds of thousands after x amount of years.

My rent won't ever be paid off. I will be paying for my house until I die or move.

Show quote history

But if you can’t work and need benefits, you get money towards rent. If OP doesn’t work, they lose the house. It takes years to pay off equity rather than just interest.

And these days, in my East Midlands not exactly fashionable and expensive area, it takes two people working full time to afford the cheapest house. It’s not about choosing one you can’t afford.

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 13:20

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:06

It’s not secure. It’s dependent on two people working full time, for longer than that is likely.

Show quote history

Quite.

OP posts:

1apenny2apenny · 26/06/2025 13:20

Of course the system should change. The **it is going to hit the fan in a few years when those who have worked , don’t get benefits but rent because they can’t quite afford to buy are going to be up the creak without a paddle whilst those who have received benefits and lifetime housing subsidy will be laughing. Those poor workers will be stuck as they won’t be able to afford private rent on a pension because they used all their pension money to pay private rent. If those same people on benefits and in social housing haven’t saved anything to a pension they may also get pension credit and all the benefits that come along with that.

We seemed to have reached a point where working isn’t paying, no wonder so many young people don’t want to do it.

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 13:19

batt3nb3rg · 26/06/2025 13:03

Did I? I assume you’re talking about me, and if so, I said social housing tenants are not to blame for you overextending yourself and taking on a mortgage you can’t comfortably afford, and that you should probably spend more time thinking of ways your husband can increase his income so you can have more than six months of maternity leave rather than wishing worse circumstances on other people because you’re not happy with your housing situation.

I know from personal experience with a person who thinks and expresses their discontent like you, that it’s very tiring to be around. They always have it worse than everybody, and so instead of spending their energy advocating for better for people like them, they bitterly wish ill on others who they see as having it “better” than them in a specific area.

Edited

Show quote history

That’s not what I am doing here - I’m not advocating for worse for others. I’m allowed to be critical of a system that does not work for me.

Also you don’t really have any right to criticise myself or my husband, we are doing the best that we can. Stop being cruel to me for no reason, I feel attacked by you and it’s not helpful to this discussion frankly. I am talking about the right to buy system, not attacking people in social housing!

OP posts:

Frequency · 26/06/2025 13:11

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:06

It’s not secure. It’s dependent on two people working full time, for longer than that is likely.

Show quote history

It's not social tenants fault op bought a house she cannot afford. I need to work fulltime to afford my house too. The difference is I won't end up with an assest worth hundreds of thousands after x amount of years.

My rent won't ever be paid off. I will be paying for my house until I die or move.

Lioncub2020 · 26/06/2025 13:10

Frequency · 26/06/2025 13:05

Why should I pay towards the council tax of people who own their own property?

If they don't like it they can always sell up and apply for social housing.

Show quote history

You won't be paying to their council tax. You would be reducing the subsidy you take from them.

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:09

It’s unhelpful for social housing to be so much cheaper than private. It’s one of the things making life so tenuous. If the costs were closer, more social housing would be built with the excess income, more people would be housed and all rents would then go down.

myplace · 26/06/2025 13:06

Frequency · 26/06/2025 07:50

You have the fortune of secure housing but want to deny others the same just because they're unable to save a deposit or secure a mortgage?

Nice.

It’s not secure. It’s dependent on two people working full time, for longer than that is likely.

Frequency · 26/06/2025 13:05

Lioncub2020 · 26/06/2025 09:36

I think council rents should be nearer to the market rents. Then council tax could be lower for all.

Why should I pay towards the council tax of people who own their own property?

If they don't like it they can always sell up and apply for social housing.

batt3nb3rg · 26/06/2025 13:03

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 12:12

She called me far worse.

Show quote history

Did I? I assume you’re talking about me, and if so, I said social housing tenants are not to blame for you overextending yourself and taking on a mortgage you can’t comfortably afford, and that you should probably spend more time thinking of ways your husband can increase his income so you can have more than six months of maternity leave rather than wishing worse circumstances on other people because you’re not happy with your housing situation.

I know from personal experience with a person who thinks and expresses their discontent like you, that it’s very tiring to be around. They always have it worse than everybody, and so instead of spending their energy advocating for better for people like them, they bitterly wish ill on others who they see as having it “better” than them in a specific area.

dejavoo · 26/06/2025 12:48

Portakalkedi · 26/06/2025 10:32

Agree OP, it should be for those who cannot afford market rent or a mortgage,. Once they can, then they should be made to do so and leave the subsidised housing for others in need. Lifetime tenancies are wrong, and there should have always been periodic reviews of tenancies. If I was given heavily subsidised housing at taxpayers' expense I would be OK with this. Right to buy is also wrong, particularly in that it also receives a large discount - that's bonkers, and funny how all those buyers could suddenly find the means to buy .... what hypocrites.

I’m not sure how this would work in practice though. Would it be based on income or savings and what would the threshold be?

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 12:15

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/06/2025 12:13

Rise above it.

I apologise but that particular poster has personally attacked me and my husband?!

OP posts:

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/06/2025 12:13

Rise above it.

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 12:12

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/06/2025 12:11

Calling a respondent “a div” is out of order, OP.

She called me far worse.

OP posts:

Original poster

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 12:11

Bumpitybumper · 26/06/2025 11:02

It is so boring to read responses like this. They simply aren't rooted in reality. It's like people saying that all children should receive a fantastic education, no person should live in poverty and that everyone should have access to excellent healthcare. It assumes that there are no constraints and there is infinite money and resource.

NIMBYism isn't the only reason why we don't have enough social housing. Not even by half. You might have noticed that not enough housing is even being built for profit, let alone social housing. We are a country that is an enormous amount of government debt. We pay 2/3rds of the NHS budget just to service this debt each year. We don't have the money to fund all the social housing that people want. We don't have the skilled labour require to build the houses. Landowners won't just give away their land for free, materials are expensive and skilled workers charge an awful lot. This is why I'm many areas of the country it is hard to get a developer to sign up to developing the land with a large amount of non social housing on it that they can sell for profit. Even in this context there isn't the profit margin in it for them. You are dreaming if you think we can just put up a load of social housing.

So in this actual real life context, what do we do with the limited amount of social housing we have? Who do we allocate it to? If we give it to someone for life then there are potentially multiple other families who will miss out on social housing when they most need it.

Show quote history

Absolutely agree with the last paragraph. I feel like it’s perpetuating a problem. If you can afford to rent or buy a house, you shouldn’t be in social housing. We just don’t have enough right now.

OP posts:

MrsSkylerWhite · 26/06/2025 12:11

Calling a respondent “a div” is out of order, OP.