Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

Yep same here. First night we moved in bed bugs, we had rats, mice, the condition in general was awful. Some people have to share bathroom/kitchen with several other families. Some have a family of 5 in one room. Also on the day you need emergency accommodation you don't even no where your sleeping that night.

It's not free market gymnastics. Tell every homeowner paying interest on their mortgage or every saver receiving interest on their savings that they are only receiving this because of 'free market gymnastics'. Honestly, they really need to teach this stuff in schools because it is fundamental to how the economy works and why the government can't just knock up a load of Social Housing that will apparently turn a profit in just a few short years.

I'm happy to leave it there.

Social housing isn’t subsidised regardless of whatever free market mental gymnastics you might undertake in an attempt to prove it is. There’s not much point in continuing this, is there? Your definition of a subsidy is not mine.

No, the housing would still be subsidised. Cost of capital again is completely ignored and the benefits are hugely questionable.

Building any housing or any CAPEX schemes brings about new jobs etc. You would achieve a similar impact by investing on the beloved HS2 or any other major construction project.

The other figures are ridiculous. The assumption that crime is related to housing type as opposed to the people that happen to live in the housing is laughable. Moving a drug dealer out to a nice estate won't impact crime figures. The other figures are equally bizarre.

I think it’s you who’s being simplistic. Try reading the post above yours.

No, you are being too simplistic and not accounting for the cost of capital and opportunity cost. I hate to bang on about these two things but these things are absolutely fundamental.

Subsidy can come in many forms. One of which is providing capital at a huge discount or for free. When you consider that many mortgages are running close to 5% then you understand how expensive capital actually is. Equity tied up in housing is still capital. Owning capital will always bring a return and over many years will always deliver a multiple of the original capital value.

Something being 'non for profit' will inherently require some subsidy from somewhere unless it is taking into account the cost of capital within the calculations (which councils don't). If the money can be better utilised elsewhere and bring about a better return then the housing is indeed being subsided to some extent.

It's like me buying a field for a donkey sanctuary. I withdraw £500k from my bank account currently paying 5% interest. The donkey sanctuary pays for the upkeep of the field etc and a menial rent of £5K a year to cover my costs. I have obviously lost £25k in potential interest payments even though I haven't taken out a mortgage to fund buying the field.

Research from Shelter and the National Housing Federation, carried out by CEBR, shows that building 90,000 social rented homes [1] would add £51.2bn to the economy.

Most of this impact would happen quickly – £32.6bn would be generated within a year of building the homes, supporting almost 140,000 jobs. Within three years, the programme would break even, with the wider economic benefits surpassing the upfront cost of building, largely by boosting the construction industry.

The economic benefits continue over the longer term, through the management of more social homes, savings on housing benefit, and wider benefits including reduced homelessness, increased employment, and improved healthcare.

Within 11 years the initial government funding to build the homes would be fully paid back. Over a 30 year period, building 90,000 social homes results in a £12bn profit for the taxpayer.

National Housing Federation - The economic impact of building social housing

www.housing.org.uk/resources/the-economic-impact-of-building-social-housing/

It absolutely isn’t. You quite clearly don’t understand what subsidy is. There are thousands of social housing properties that were built around 80 years ago that have been paid for two or three times over by the rents paid for them. Every council has to maintain a separate housing account which has to wash its face and is ringfenced from the general account. The entire ethos of social housing is not for profit, that isn’t subsidised, it’s supplying accommodation for what it actually costs.

It absolutely is. Anyone suggesting otherwise isn't accounting for the cost of capital or opportunity cost associated with owning a high value asset with a very low return.

@cloudyblueglass
I don't agree. We need a private rental market with private landlords. We don't have enough public capital available to build or buy enough housing for everyone that needs to rent. It just isn't a realistic proposition. The cost of capital, building materials, land and skilled labour has sky rocketed for the state as well as private developers.

The idea that landlords are sat there snapping up loads of property to make extortionate profits simply isn't true anymore. This article gives some interesting information about the cost of capital and owning a BTL and why this often will lead to many BTL landlords entering the market today making a loss:
https://theindependentlandlord.com/does-btl-make-money/
This will obviously be area dependent and there will still be some areas where a profit can be made, but in the context where investors/potential landlords can put their money in the bank for 5% no hassle return and an uncertain housing market then it's easy to see why many private landlords are disposing of property, not buying more.

We need good quality homes that people can rent. We need people with money prepared to invest in this as the state doesn't have the money or resources to do this alone. The enemy is not the private sector, they are a partner to the state. There needs to be rules and regulations to protect the tenant and the landlord but there is no reason why you should view the private landlords as an intrinsically bad thing. The rents they charge will be higher but this often reflects the non subsidised cost of buying property and owning capital. They have BTL mortgages with extortionate levels of interest or they have a lot of equity that they could pull out of the property and put into a bank account and earn a tonne of interest on. SH has the same capital cost/opportunity cost problem but this isn't passed onto the tenant but is a burden placed on the taxpayer. That's why it can't really be scaled in the way you seem to think it can be.

It’s not subsidised.

Having lived it myself, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone - except perhaps to those bemoaning wgere yheir taxes are going.

The solution is to stop allowing things uk housing to be iver run by private landlords buying up multiple properties and renting out at extortionate prices.

Part ig the reason we have little to no sense of community ang more is bevause peopld are continuously being moved on.

Getting rid of lifetime tenancies only serves to continue the trend of moving peopld on.

Because you’re right - we don’t have infinite money - the vast majority of housing benefit is paid to private landlords buying up- subsidising their lifestyles and property portfolio and future financial security.

And the vast majority of benefits in general (if you remove pensions from the list) is paid to people who are in work.

That report is wrong about almost everything. The government no longer operating the Help to Buy scheme and lots of their efforts are focussed on helping low paid FTBs and key workers afford housing in London.

They also have misrepresented how SH is indeed subsidised, especially in London. They haven't mentioned cost of capital or investment cost because it doesn't suit their agenda. Having money tied up in housing costs the council money unless the tenants are paying a high enough rent that it matches what that capital could achieve elsewhere. It is likely in London that the accommodation is worth a lot of money if sold so that would be a lot of equity tied up in someone's home where they are probably paying a relatively small rent. I honestly think reports like the one you have linked should be banned as they spread misinformation and imply that SH can be easily built and scaled at no cost to other public services when this simply isn't true.

I'm not envious. I'm simply explaining that SH is indeed subsidised by the tax payer. For this reason we all have a stake in how it is allocated.

Also the waiting list for SH suggests that for many it is the best option. That is the problem. I don't want or need SH. My concern is about those who desperately need it and can't access it due to lifetime tenancies.

Except I never suggested this. I was simply explaining that all SH is to some extent subsidised. We don't have infinite public money so tying up so much capital in SH delivering a low level of return will mean we have less to spend elsewhere. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the wrong thing to do but many on this thread seem to think that SH isn't subsidised and therefore doesn't exist at the detriment to other things.

I suggest you reflect on the vitriol in your post and why you're unable to have a sensible, reasonable discussion about this issue.

What if I don't want subsidise people like you?

75% of the tax I pay which is dedicated to housing costs benefits private ownership, 25% is for social housing.

Who-gets-most-from-the-tax-payer-R2.pdf share.google/EkmedSM7e62Kfqp9q

This has always been a thing. Assured lifetime tenancies. I think only some areas do the five year fixed term.

And they don't get to " hand it down" as an asset! They get one succession. If two householders have lived there and one of them passes away, the tenancy going to the other person is counted as that succession. If a single person is living there, no succession. I don't know why anybody would begrudge anybody that.

I think those of us well out of the social housing system should be incredibly grateful we are, and leave the people who have to rely on it alone. Councils and housing associations are on their knees, managing lack of funding, overwhelming demand and no housing stock. And social housing tenants rely on those organisations for the standard of their home. That, amongst some really shitty pockets of asb at times, It's really not the easy street people think it is.

This is already the case, and as it should be. The article is really misleading. The issue is the social housing being sold off, and there not being enough of it. That’s not the fault of social housing tenants. Direct your ire at the people in charge and press them to stop “right to buy” and increase the investment in social housing.

I doubt they would cope with temporary accommodation. The conditions etc.

Im happy to swop where i am for where she is

If you’re so envious, I suggest you get yourself into social housing.

I work for a local authority - happy to take you through exactly just what being housed entails (trust me when I say you won’t like it)

Exactly! Each social housing property yields around £5000 to £6000 a year rent (on average) so 10 years worth of rent gives them £50,000 to £60,000. Often on homes that were paid for 35-40+ years ago. Go figure! These councils and housing associations do fucking well on rents. As I say on many houses that have been paid for since the 1980s/early 1990s (and some were paid off by the the 1970s or earlier!)

YES, let's sell ALL the social housing, so there is fuck-all left, and millions of people will be homeless. Let's put this to Parliament. What a stellar idea. Give @Bumpitybumper an MBE! 🏅

Gosh, a few posters on here really DO want people suffering, miserable, and in hardship don't they? Imagine being that full of bile that you wish so much discord, and misfortune on people who have done nothing to deserve the vitriol aimed at them, other than have the temerity to GASP! be not finanically well off!

Well @Bumpitybumper you will be pleased to know you havent had to subsidise me having a shower installed as i still have the 1980s bathroom including just a bath with two taps as in no mixer tap. Means using a HELL of a lot MORE water though especially during a heatwave but...........thems the breaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!