Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

Yes, it's wrong and unjust, but it's been going on for years. UK is (still) a very rich socialist country with never-seen-anywhere else free health service and a very generous benefit system. But things will probably change gradually over the next 20-30 years due to the unstastainable budget deficit, the ongoing immigration and a growing pressure on NHS due to aging population.

I live in a HA property.
The area is terrible, my kitchen is falling apart as it’s over 25 years old and my house is very old.

My rent goes up every year but my tenancy is secure as long as my rent is paid.

I work full time and would love to move to a different area but I know that the private rental market is so expensive and fluid that I’m better off staying put.

My HA is prioritising building new shared ownership houses rather than making improvements.

If I owned I could make the improvements but I can’t afford to.

It’s not a ‘new policy that Labour are bringing in’ - the article you posted refers to policy in one London borough, which happens to be Labour-run.

Completely agree.

Duh - it’s a council house
he is on the tennancy
makes no difference if she goes into a care home
he is on the tenancy as a joint Tennant with his Nan
when she passes away he will be the sole Tennant of the property

he can stay there or exchange for somewhere else
but he can’t add or pass on this tenancy to anyone else
so if he was to marry a partner or let a partner move in they couldn’t be added to the tennancy

I think this country needs to decide whether it wants Austrian style social housing for all or red in tooth and claw capitalism. The prevarication between one and the other is frankly more harmful.

I know and I agree with them

MN is an odd place. On here, people who buy and live in houses that others deem “too big” for them or who own second houses are vilified. Selfish, greedy, ruining society. My house would definitely be described by some on here as too big for me, I also own a second home. But I have bought and paid for both, with my own money, no inheritance, no family wealth at all. I am the first generation in my family to own a home. I pay enormous amounts of tax both on my income and then in stamp duty, second home stamp duty, second home council tax etc etc. and my second home isn’t empty, we spend 3 nights a week there, every week, longer in the holidays. But I am criticised to death. But someone who remains in social housing, even when they can afford to leave, to free up a safe secure home for someone in entirely unsuitable temporary accommodation? That’s seen as perfectly fine. I agree that everyone should have access to a safe, secure home and we need more social housing to be available to more people, but the double standards just create more division.

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.

I just read on the Shelter website that as of September 2024, 164,040 children are homeless with their families in temporary accommodation in the UK - up 21,650 (15%) from last year.

This is one reason why periodic means testing of social housing should happen.

That doesn't make sense. If it's a HA/ council house it will not be turned into a 2 home unless it's sold. No need for passing on tendencies if the HA is able to give this home to another local family in need.

I agree, social housing should be for our most vulnerable people.

Once someone can afford private rent or a mortgage they should move on. Couples and single people who have outgrown a 3-4 bed home should be made to downsize.

Because there isn't enough social housing available, and whatever the reason, it's not changing the current situation.

As for people saying that a mortgaged home is an asset. It's only on paper as the owners will still need somewhere to live!

Passing on tenancies is done to ensure families with connections to an area can remain. Many areas are struggling to remain viable as second home owners move in and young people move out.

It’s the private rental market that’s the problem. More people should have secure housing, not fewer!

I’m in a private rented ex council house. My landlady lives abroad but owns several ex council houses around the city I live in and rents them out for 2.5 times what a council tenant would pay.

Her tenants can’t save for a deposit! We’re stuck. Many private tenants are stuck in a poverty trap as part of their rent is paid by benefits & they then can’t afford to work full time.

Your anger is misdirected.

What if she has to go into a care home?

Your opinion is based on a deep misunderstanding about the housing issues in the UK.

We were all better off, our whole society was better off, when there were far more council houses with security of tenancy. None of us had to fear losing our homes so much and our communities were more solid. Those who owned homes were still privileged due to owning the asset.

Your approach is irrational really. The better approach would be far more lifetime tenancies with solid mortgages for those in a position to buy.

If you want to investigate properly there's loads of info. The thing that makes me most angry is the fleecing of private tenants, which drives house prices, thereby reducing available cash being spent in the rest of the economy.

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.

Subsidise? What you mean is that social rents aren’t inflated as those of private rentals are. Or I suspect what you’re getting at is everyone in social housing is in receipt of benefits. More is paid in benefits to the working poor in private rentals. HTH

I don't see where she says she's in her situation because a minority of social housing tenants are high earners? She's just mulling/venting about something. People accusing her of "hating" social housing tenants are hilarious like I said my own mother has lived in her council home her whole adult life and I love the woman but hearing her moan when her rent goes up a tiny amount (still less than half what it'd be on Rightmove) you can see why people paying full rent/mortgage get frustrated.

Most men can't afford to financially run the whole household these days, you seemed to be implying she should of found one who could as if that's easy, he'd have to be earning quite a lot and men like that can sniff out women who only see them as an ATM from a mile away.

Absolutely. People always like to punch down. Sit there in their valuable asset whilst picking on others. Of course tenancies should be for life. Imagine the ghettos created if everyone was only allowed to stay briefly. People need to put down roots and create communities. What we need is more social housing but of course NIMBY

👏👏

Thats fantastic. Im glad you and your family are doing well. Don't worry what others think. You do right by you and your family. My daughter went through similar but didn't have to move 100s of miles like you did. That would have been hell for dd but thank God she did not. So I can imagine how hard it was for you. Dd and ger child. plus me and my children separate house. hold all had to be moved under life in danger. Although we didn't have to move 100s of miles like you did. Dd had to recently move again as some idiot told him where she lived.

Good luck with your degree I hope your enjoying it . Im sure you will smash it . Keep strong 💪