Hatred towards social housing tenants on here getting worse.

Yes, but you'll get the it's her family home argument as if living there = ownership.

I don't think SH need any sympathy, they are the ones getting cheap subsidised rents and laughing all the way to the bank. Mean while us homeowners and those renting privately are being shafted by high house prices.

On my road is an elderly woman who lives in a four bed, two bathroom council house with garden... obviously lived there when she had young DC. I also have a friend round the corner in sh which is overcrowded...three kids in a tiny two bed flat with no garden. I'm not necessarily placing blame on the tenant but this kind of system is so flawed and illogical and unfair. One elderly woman does not need such a big home and the children crammed into a flat with no garden would benefit immensely from living in a house with a garden.

As far as I can see, it's not the tenants people don't like, it's the system that allows very well off people to live in LA housing and pay very cheap rents.

No, I really don't. Care to explain how handing a lifetime tenancy to a problem neighbour turns them into a model tenant?

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry. But I think that council tenants should have, say, five yearly reviews of affordability. Tenancies should not be for life, nor be bequeathed, and if you pass a certain salary you should be given notice to quit. I'm not talking about low earners, or those in receipt of other benefits, but people who are clearly well above a "need" threshold. Peoples circumstances do improve, and they should make way for those more in need.

I said some people look down on SH tenants, which is fairly evident from various threads including this one.

@TheLocust

It was a question, not a conclusion. It seems very weird to imply that private renters want to look down on social housing tenants.

The system is clearly unfair and not fit for purpose, and that is the real issue.

A problem neighbour will be a problem neighbour regardless of whether they are on a 5 year tenancy or a lifetime tenancy. I don't know what your rambling about.

@Maverickess

But people in low paid work will often also be in benefits? I didn't say anything about people moving out just because they have a job, it's about means testing.

I agree that people in low paid jobs will sometimes need social housing.

@gamerchick I am obviously not assuming everyone in SH receives housing benefit since I actually wrote that a proportion of people do? And whilst yes, houses built in the 60s will have been paid off (it normally takes around 30 years) there was still a cost to build them and a further cost in terms of maintenance and refurbishment etc. Remember the Decent Homes Programme in the 90s and early 2000s? That was hundreds of millions of pounds and rents didn’t cover that upfront, public borrowing did. And there will soon be a further massive programme to make older social housing stock more energy efficient. And yes, social housing is still being built now, as it should be and it is funded by public money, via Homes England. That is simply a fact.

Obsession? One post agreeing with/expanding on something another poster said and you've decided I'm obsessed?

And how have you concluded I have an inferiority complex? You know nothing about me. You don't know what my housing situation is.

You seem to have an obsession with who is superior to who. An inferiority complex perhaps?

This isn't the issue. The issue is that it's a limited resource which should be distributed fairly according to need. Nobody should be on a lifetime tenancy in social housing, and I hope that we will see an end to these in the future.

But having a job doesn't make you immune to not being in need.

And we need and rely upon some of the worst paid jobs in society, and there's a demand for more (see the customer service is so shit posts) even though they're not essential.

People doing those jobs don't earn significantly more than those on benefits when you take into account everything that's included, and many of them are also on benefits because they can't survive without. They've got to live somewhere or they're not going to be able to do these jobs and as established the price of private rent is outstripping people on middle incomes, so those on low incomes, because it's earned and not benefits do what?

But as @gamerchick says, the working but low earning SH tenant doesn't fit the stereotype that people want to believe about those who live in SH, making sure that it's only people on benefits means it's even easier to have a go about people getting a free ride at the tax payers expense.

People can't stand that private rents are a step down from SH. Just doesn't compute at all.

Yeah I think there's some truth in this. It used to be the case that people in social housing were considered to be the "bottom rung" by many people. Now they're considered to be the fortunate ones by people who are paying extortionate rents or massive mortgages. So now some people resent those in social housing as well as looking down on them.

This is the crux of it. The whole attitude that SH doesn't really fit the picture inside people's heads, of free houses and benefits. People can't stand that private rents are a step down from SH. Just doesn't compute at all.

SH isn't and has never been linked to benefits. Hopefully it never will.

Alright I'll rephrase my question. People in a house built in the 60s, who don't and have never claimed housing benefit. Where is the subsidy?

You should have said you were on about housing benefit. Which is a subsidy paid in massive amounts to private landlords. You can't say SH is subsidised because of housing benefit. Are you just assuming everyone claims it just because they're in SH?

I think it's the opposite. I think it's the tenants who are NOT on benefits who cause resentment - because they are inhabiting properties which should go to those in need.

I think I get the impression the ones who bleet on about SH are private landlords themselves tbh. Happy to have people fork out a fortune to lay their little nest egg whether it's in the form or housing benefit or not.