Hatred towards social housing tenants on here getting worse.

I don't mean to pry but I'm genuinely curious why you take the mini pill if you're on your 70s? Is there a side benefit to it? I don't mean to derail the thread, I'm just curious for my own health reasons

No one has actually said they hate council tenants. They have just explained why people paying twice as much in rent privately feel jealous (not to be confused with hatred)
I've been through some shit lived in homeless hostels and stuff the waiting list is over five years for the highest band. Someone leaving their marriage is highly unlikely to just get a council home

I think people forget that social housing is not just for the so-called ne'er do wells as some people call them, it's also disabled people and people escaping domestic violence; You know, like all the poor women who post on MN for help leaving their abusive marriage. Who get loads of support & encouragement to do so and to get their "name on the local social housing list" by the very same posters who give social housing tenants grief

Ah thank god. I'm paying more than twice as much for a one bed flat than my council housed friend pays for a three bed house but knowing I get less hate on Mumsnet makes it worth it

Yeah I kinda expected y'all to start implying I'm a snob looking down on people for my comment.
If you must know I live in a very small one bedroom with my partner and our kids and I STILL pay way more than my friends who have three bedroom council houses.
Did I say I hated council tenants though? No I just said most private renters are understandingly jealous. Why would they not be? Honestly what's the point in this thread get out and enjoy spending the left over money from having cheaper rent instead of complaining on Mumsnet that people are jealous.
I mean that nicely btw enjoy life and don't worry about the opinions of randoms online

@Giggorata I live in that area and I am not sure it got off the ground (although happy to be disproved)

In that area losing a bedroom and moving to a smaller property (providing they are both council properties) you get £1k a bedroom.

@MidnightMeltdown

You said that the cause of the resentment is people not on benefits being in SH, I was pointing out that people on low incomes but who aren't on benefits are on a similar income and not being entitled to benefits doesn't automatically mean you can afford private rent or a mortgage.

If I've misunderstood your post then I apologise but the way it was worded indicated that only those on benefits should be in SH because they're the most in need and those on a similarly low income shouldn't be entitled to SH because it's earned income. But apparently I'm not the only one who read it that way.

It would seem we agree that people other than benefits claimants could be in need of social housing, but your post certainly didn't come across that way.

On the different subject of passed down tenancies or staying in a property once it is exceeding your needs - I actually agree that neither of those things should be a given, and I'm not sure apart from legacy tenancies, they are any more.
I don't think my DD should automatically get the place we're in now in the event that I die, but, if she qualifies for SH and is already in place, can pay the rent etc then I don't think it should be an automatic no.

As for moving when the house is too big for you, elderly people living in large family homes alone etc, well people with owned homes downsize, so I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as an option, the issue is that at least around here, there are 1 bed flats that are supported living and (interestingly considering the discussion at the top of this post) you had to be in receipt of certain benefits and help to qualify because they're pretty much assisted/warden living. And then there's bungalows for the over 65's and then there's 3 bed houses. The one or two bed places are in the very popular areas that people don't want to move from because it's where the schools and work is, where the amenities are. I would happily move to one and give up the 3 bed place even now, as there's two of us, but they're not available.
The bungalows are like hens teeth to get, and then you've got your 3 beds. So if there's no bungalows available and people don't meet the qualification for the flats and the 1/2 bed places are unavailable- where are they going to downsize to? Even if they don't object, which I don't, I have nowhere (except another 3 bed) to go to.

Thinking of the carrot versus stick, I would prefer lone tenants in properties that are now very large for them to be offered incentives to move/swap to smaller properties, rather than be chucked out.
Those that take the offer wouldn’t feel resentment at being moved out against their will and there wouldn't be the precariousness of time limited tenancies, which lessens investment in properties and neighbourhoods, thereby reducing social cohesion.

A certain amount of family sized housing would be released through this, which would justify the cost by the improvement in living standards for families, thereby lessening the need for other social service input.

Those that are so emotionally invested in their family homes could stay - but for these, the offer of voluntary, well-financed and well supervised and contracted lodgings schemes, to house some of the singles, single parents, elderly etc, that opt in.
It might be successful socially too, creating alternative family groups.

BTW, how did that multigenerational council house in Margate work out? It sounded like a good alternative scheme, to house three generations of the same family, who would otherwise have had three separate council properties, in one large house. (I think they all had their own spaces as well as some communal space) Again, a voluntary similar scheme might be run… built in babysitters and support for aged rellies.

Building more social housing (on brown sites) should run along side this, as should conversion of a proportion of empty High Street and office properties into living and public spaces.
And no more RTB.

On another thread where i mentioned i had no problems in my area (mix of social housing and ex council) I was pretty much told I should be quaking in my boots, because once the lovely old lady who lives next door (council) pops her clogs, a feckless family of antisocial yobs will be moved in

Do you know what would happen if people were told that once they pass a certain income they'll lose their homes? What would you do if a promotion meant you would be forced out of your home? Well on the plus side everyone can then bitch about how those of us in SH lack motivation and ambition, so that'll be another stick to beat us with.

People in low paying jobs are in need of affordable housing. Where did the idea come from that SH is only for the non working?

Can you only be in need if you're on benefits? Most people who claim benefits are working!

I do see vitriol towards people in SH which seems very unfair. I do agree however with the housing crisis that lifetime tenancies and inheriting tenancies should be completely scrapped. Tenancies should be given on a short term Basis (5 years or so) and then people reassessed for need. More movement between houses to allow families in bigger places and empty nesters to downsize.

Hating people or looking down on them is never ok but I'd say its a bit disingenuous to not understand why some people might feel the system is unfair.
Previous generations had cheaper house prices relative to wages and social housing at affordable rent was available to a far wider section of society without meeting any "qualifying criteria". The current generation have neither of those opportunities.
Someone struggling to afford their rent or living in temporary accomodation and on a years long waiting list might feel aggrieved when they see people with secure, lifetime tenancies and (often substantially) below market rent for decades and they were allocated the house in the same circumstances that the person is in now

Is the person living in the SH house doing anything wrong? No, they are perfectly entitled to live there the length of their tenancy agreement. Does it seem fair that someone with the same set of circumstances ...but 30 years later...would no longer have a hope of getting SH? Also no.
Not the tenants fault, the fault is not replacing properties that were lost to RTB but it won't stop people making comparisons.

Well both her and her DH work but not in highly paid jobs...wha an odd attitude you have

In the area I live in a 3 bed house on the private rented market is about £2750 a month minimum rent. You'd have to be on about £100k minimum to be able to afford that as well as other bills etc.

I'm not passing judgement on her situation specifically. I'm saying the system that allows a single elderly person to remain in a four bed house forever is utterly ridiculous.

@Comedycook that's what I did. When two of my sons moved out I downsized my four bed two bath house for a two bed house. I think it's the right thing to do. There aren't many four bed houses in my area. I had help when I needed it and now someone else is benefiting.

Exactly...and I don't buy that argument at all. Elderly people who own their own property downsize all the time or even sell up to pay care home fees. We have such a housing crisis I don't think we can allow people the luxury of staying in their family home forever.

I don't see what that's got to do with it at all.