Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

This. ^

Once upon a time the story was 16 year olds having babies deliberately to obtain sicial housing. Now, according to you, it is making up false allegations of abuse by stepfathers to obtain social housing.

If you have any evidence to back up your claim, please post it.

Otherwise, Hitchins' Razor cuts a swathe through this nonsense.

If it were that easy, no one in London would be living in unsuitable temporary accommodations or bed and breakfasts.

Yes, subletting happens, and I am aware it was an issue in Grenfell Towers, but it happens when people who were in genuine need of a property at the time they gained it then move away for whatever reason, but do not want to give up their tenancy.

It doesn't happen by just asking for a London house and getting one because you told a few fibs.

Just Google “Grenfell Tower subletting” and a whole host of articles comes up - from Guardian if you like, and also a govt report saying illegal tenants would have an amnesty.

I could see that in places like my area, where there is enough social housing, quickly gaining and subletting a flat through deception might be possible (IDK why you would sublet when you can just go directly to the HA for less money) but in London where the average wait is 3-4 years, without any shred of evidence or ever stepping foot in temp accomodation or being homeless?

It feels a bit far-fetched, tbh.

@JenniferBooth - please do not shout. I’m sure I could find a link if I could be bothered.

Absolutely true. Something is not “bollocks”because it does not suit your view.

A young colleague had her own flat in a very nice street. She said that the way to get one was your mum said the stepfather was abusing you. She said loads of her friends did it. Then she just continued to live at home and sublet the flat

What a load of made up bollocks.

If there was no opportunity cost and it was an excellent investment then the state and private investors would be rushing to invest.

Please explain to me how a not for profit entity can be an investment opportunity. There is no profit to attract prospective investors.

I asked for a link not a further explanation of why you posted what you did LINK PLEASE!!

@JenniferBooth - indeed Grenfell flats were sublet. It made it difficult to identify the occupants. Some of those illegally subletting were claiming they had been in situ. An Italian couple - architectural students I think - who died had been subletting a flat.

One can only hope “lessons were learned” by the Council but as ever I fear not.

You have completely failed to address the cost of capital/opportunity cost point. I can only assume you either can't comprehend what I'm arguing or that you think because SH is run on a not for profit basis then this means that there is no opportunity cost. It's really bizarre!

An easy way to prove who is right is to look at the (lack of) social housing being built. If there was no opportunity cost and it was an excellent investment then the state and private investors would be rushing to invest. Heck, investors would be piling into the private rental market as this would be even more lucrative without the need to charge lower rents and yet we see landlords doing the exact opposite. So if it doesn't pay to be in the private rental sector why on earth are you convinced that SH isn't subsidised?

I completely understand the point they’re making and they’re wrong.

On another thread im on there are people moaning like fuck about how there is no community anymore. The cognitive dissonance is stark.

So a family in social housing. Working . Can pay their own rent due to be being lower than private rent ... the family start earning a bit more. get kicked out of social housing forced to private rent. Family now have to claim help for their rent as it's to much for them to manage.

1. the tax payer is now helping with the rent .

2. gold dust if a landlord will even accept the family.

3. landlord decides to sell a few years later. They cant get another private rent due to landlord not accepting the family.

4. family now made homeless in temporary accommodation for many years.

But that person hasn’t been proven right - it’s you who doesn’t understand the point they’re making and how the point differs from yours.

It is hilarious. To be so comprehensively proved wrong and still maintain you’re right would be sad if it wasn’t so funny.

Yes, how hilarious.

😂

Neither of these things change the fact that SH is de facto subsidised.

For political and social reasons we currently choose to make SH 'not for profit ' but this has a clear opportunity cost to the tax payer. It is therefore subsidised and comes at a cost to other services that will not be funded as easily with money made from the public equity/capital tied up in housing. Also the fact something is written in statue means nothing. Statue can and does change especially if political will changes.

The comparison isn’t valid for two reasons which you’re conveniently ignoring. The first is that a basic tenet of social housing is that it’s not for profit. The second is that all council housing revenue accounts are by statute ringfenced and local authorities are not allowed to transfer funds from the housing account to the general account or vice versa.

Money from social housing is ringfenced and cannot be used for other debts. That is what council tax is for.

Also, council housing isn't priced according to market rates; it is priced at the actual cost of letting a house, including loan repayments and maintenance costs. Just because the private rental market is over-inflated doesn't mean council housing doesn't pay for itself.