Private renting so much more than housing association!

[Generationrenter]

Just moved to a new build and the rent is £1300pm, neighbours are HA tenants and paying £500 for the exact same house. We both earn around the same amount.

I’m not saying their rent should be more and think HA properties are great (I’ve been on a waiting list for 6 years as renting is bankrupting me so certainly not knocking it!) but surely efforts should be made within budgets that make HA rents so low to reduce private rents?

I know private renting has become so unaffordable but is there anything that can be done? £800 difference a month for the same house just seems insane!

Guess it is just a vent but it doesn’t make sense to me!

Housing associations are “subsidised”. They are part funded by the government as well as given other benefits (ie council housing stock at less than market value). It’s true that both lifetime tenancies and right to buy have meant that some have done quite well out of public housing while shortage of stock (at least partly as a result) means that lots are forced into housing poverty.

Private landlords will rent their property at market rent- this May or may not make them a profit but if it doesn’t they’re likely to sell (unless they want to keep the property for other reasons).

Gamerchick in a way social housing is subsidised because they’re not for profit. Therefore the Inland Revenue is missing out on tax and therefore tax payers are missing out on revenue

You mean the government is missing out? The government used to take a massive chunk of the surplus rent collected. Yes there is a surplus. But in exchange to cut council funding councils were allowed to keep it, hence the pay to stay crap that was dreamed up. They wanted a little slice of the pie from a different side.

The taxpayer does not subsidise SH. The subsidy that exists is in the form of housing benefit. I wonder what costs more, SH or private rents?

Still it's better than the free houses bollocks that used to be spouted on here.

I'm in social housing (council) my rent is reviewed every April & for the last 5 years has been reduced by 1% a year. Some of the flats in my block are privately owned & rented out for around £17 a week more than my council flat.

Gamerchick in a way social housing is subsidised because they’re not for profit. Therefore the Inland Revenue is missing out on tax and therefore tax payers are missing out on revenue.

1. The Inland Revenue doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for many years, it's HMRC

1. It is not subsidised. Council houses have paid for themselves many times over and bring in more money than they actually cost to run and repair, that extra money doesn't go into anyone's pocket as profit, instead it is used elsewhere in the council's budget (because councils are not for profit) and subsidises the local area such as schools, parks, roads, libraries, etc. and so social housing tenants contribute via their rent to the local area whereas the rent from private tenants goes directly into the pockets of their landlord

1. When a council is making enough in rent, they don't get additional funding from the government therefore social tenants paying their rent actually save the government money whereas private rents go into the pocket of the landlord

We social tenants are not subsidised by anyone.

Some may well be subsidised if you take into. Account their whole portfolio. Like the new builds for instance.
But some are shells. So paying the same
For a new build that needs nothing doing vs a shell that needs thousands putting into it?

I honestly think they offered me mine knowing I would get it off their hands and do it up. I won't make any money off it.

If I'd been on a lower income I think I'd of been offered a new build.

Gamerchick no matter how you look at it the tax payer is subsidising social housing tenants, those on housing benefit are being subsidised twice over.

@gamerchick we really need some kind of bingo card.

More money = more funds to build.
I’ve done a lot of work with the mum and child hostel near by. They’re all homeless for varying reasons, but the reason they are all still in the hostel is the same - because there are no houses for them.
But yes, let’s continue protecting those exploiting the system.
In less expensive areas I’m sure it’s fab, no waiting lists, pick of the bunch.

Here it is not like that. One of the families I see has 4 kids and herself sharing one studio in a hostel so remote with only one bus route a day.

But let’s continue to protect people with high incomes who want to keep their rents nice and low. They need it most.

You could earn £1million a year, you’re still entitled to your half price rent. And that’s perfectly acceptable on MN, despite the fact people are living in poverty and not worthy.

For me the number one reason to work is to have a roof over my head, followed by food/bills, then finally luxuries.

I’m in HA. If me working meant losing my home then sorry but that would make no sense to me at all. Get a job so I can lose my home? No thanks. Likewise if higher wages meant higher rent then what would be the point? As others have said, social housing isn’t subsidised. I pay more in rent than my mortgage paying friends. It’s just that private rent is so inflated. That is not the fault of social housing tenants and they shouldn’t be penalised for it.

I already help people who need it by working and paying tax. I don’t see why I should give up my home on top of that just because I didn’t want to live on benefits for the rest of my life.

I started out as a single mum on benefits with all the stigma that brings. So I educated myself and got a decent job but now I’m in the wrong because I’m taking away social housing from “needier” people. So what profile do people want for social housing tenants? Those on benefits? Well they get called “scroungers” who get a “free house” ok. So working people? Well no, they’re taking homes from the “needy”. So who should live in social housing?

Gamerchick no matter how you look at it the tax payer is subsidising social housing tenants, those on housing benefit are being subsidised twice over.

Housing benefit goes to the landlord, either a private landlord in which case they're pocketing the benefits or back to the council which paid the housing benefit in the first place.

The housing is not subsidised, one way or another the rent is paid.

You do know many social housing tenants work and pay full rent, don't you?

Gamerchick no matter how you look at it the tax payer is subsidising social housing tenants, those on housing benefit are being subsidised twice over

Yes you keep telling yourself that *pat's head"

gamerchick we really need some kind of bingo card

Yes, it might stop me self destructing

But yes, let’s continue protecting those exploiting the system.

you're suggesting exactly that. So you not see that?.

Instead of controlling private rents and people.that own property taking a hit, you want the hit to be taken by those with no property and without the means to get any.

As always, spare the private landlords, screw over the poor and those who've bettered themselves.

Nah, nah, nah, time the banks, mps, landowners, home owners and estate agents took the hit, not some family grafting their a ss to the bone and getting fucked .

You could earn £1million a year, you’re still entitled to your half price rent

They'd be paying full rent, not half rent, as they wouldn't be entitled to any housing benefit and the number of people earning that amount while living in social housing is vanishingly rare. You're deliberately looking at extremes to try and illustrate a not very well thought out point.

In my link HAs are selling off places as holiday homes. There have been auctions where HAs have sold places off. the usual suspects dont want to know about that though Theyd rather blame social housing tenants

Todays homeless person will be the social housing tenant that they are berating in 5 years time.

Instead of controlling private rents and people.that own property taking a hit, you want the hit to be taken by those with no property and without the means to get any.

Not true at all, I’ve said it’s in the hands of private landlords but I’m also saying that housing Assosiations must also be able to do more if they’re able to offer such a huge reduction.
I’m not talking about booting out disabled widows or people in vulrenable situations, I’m talking about people who are on a good wage, paying a higher rental (that is still well below the market rate) in order to generate more profit for HA’s so that they can build more.

@Birdsgottafly

I've lived in my house four years. I've spent 10k on it.

I earn a good wage. Should I be booted out because someone earns less than me?

MORE profit Thought you said they were not for profit.

• E.g Ha owns a house and is renting it out for £500pm, private rentals at £1300 Instead HAs buys multiple houses there and rents them out at say £1000 pm just to normal tenants on the open market as opposed to just those who qualify as in need*

This is the biggest load of shit.

Put the HA rent up because you feel bitter that a PRIVATE landlord rents THERE home out to you and its £800 more than your HA neighbour? Its great that your neighbour has come up in the world and could afford the same amount of rent as you could but id say 80% of people living in HA property would have to starve to pay that rent.

Also sounds to me like your AREA is the problem not the HA, there is around 5 new builds a week on the bidding site were I live.

I dont think the OP is listening, it's like the rigid thinking is on a loop and will need to be swayed

I'm assuming if you ever get your SH house you'll be insisting on paying more rent to make it fair to private renters then?

You could always move away to a better area, nobodies making you live in the south.

They won’t build more ffs you just don’t get it do you op. It’s nothing to do with money!

HAs shouldn’t be selling off homes but I guess it depends on the situation.
E.g if they own somewhere massive and desirable that would sell for £500k and they sell it in order to buy 5 further houses at £100k each... then I can see the logic.
I think RTB is a bit of a disaster, it’s helpful to those who wouldn’t otherwise be able to buy but I think most people that purchase via RTB end up becoming private landlords.. that seems a bit immoral.
I’m not berating anyone. If I could get a HA property I would jump at the opportunity but long term somethings got to give, the housing situation is dire and giving huge reductions no matter what your income isn’t going to help in the long run.

Sorry but again- housing associations are funded by the government to the tune of billions a year. It’s a subsidised home. And it’s right that they should be allocated only to those in need. There is a huge shortage and better allocation is part of the answer (the other part is building more).

The daft economics of some on this thread don’t help anyone. Housing associations don’t pay for themselves. In some cases if they were better run, they might but who knows. We are taxpayers pay for them to provide housing at lower than market rate.

It would be very expensive to build the housing stock we need. We have to be realistic about it. I think an overall increase in supply of all forms of housing would be the answer together with tax changes.

I’m also saying that housing Assosiations must also be able to do more if they’re able to offer such a huge reduction

It's not a reduction.

Social housing rents are what the correct rent is for any given property taking into account size, number of bedrooms, maintenance costs, buildings insurance, etc.

Private rents are inflated to take into account mortgage, buildings insurance, agents fees, legal fees, and profit.

You seriously think that lack of funds within HAs isn’t linked to the lack of new builds? I didn’t answer that comment before as didn’t think it justified a response.

From a HA first link of google regarding why they’re not building enough. Of course more funds will help:

*It found that on average the cost to build each home has increased by 42% – or £85,000 – to £285,000 per home in less than a decade. While costs have been rising, government grant has, of course, been heading swiftly in the opposite direction.

Today it receives an average of £33,600 in grant per home, compared with £102,641 in 2008-11. That translates to grant covering 12% of the cost of a home today, compared with 51% in 2008-11.

What this means, according to Network, is that each subsidised affordable home built today costs it on average £250,000 – paid for through loans, reserves and sales income – compared with £100,000 seven years ago.

“I think most developing associations would want to do more genuinely low-rent homes,” Mr Graham asserts. “But you have got to make some decisions because of the model that we are operating in. If the grant was available, if other ways were available of financing far more social rent-level homes, I think housing associations would jump at it. But we are working within the model we have got.*