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!

Generation i talk about housing a lot on here HAs are not selling homes to buy loads more smaller ones.

The fact that you are making excuses for them but blaming tenants tells me your way of thinking is class based.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/sanctuary-surplus-soars-to-72-million-37121

@Generationrenter that is a load of shit my HA new build cost them £63000 to buy, to buy 'privately' this new build would cost £160,000.

And op please ignore all the horrible comments. You’re right that the allocation of resources in this area is unfair.

OP. You are not understanding this. It isn’t a reduction. It’s a fair rent for the property. Private landlords are charging more because they are looking at profits. It’s not that your HA neighbours should be paying more. You should be paying less! Can’t you see that?

You seriously think that lack of funds within HAs isn’t linked to the lack of new builds?

What lack of new builds? Where I live, every new build estate has a percentage of properties given over to social housing. The most recent was 50 social housing properties on a new build estate, a mix of two and three bed houses and bungalows. Around the corner from there is another new build estate with social housing mixed in.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/clarion-boosts-surplus-to-306m-55919

Ewit what’s so hard to understand. SH is not for profit so subsidised by the taxpayer through loss of revenue. The tax payer isnt subsidising the landlord but is subsidising the housing benefit recipients i.e. paying their housing costs.

You might not like it but it’s true.

@Lizziespring

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/midland-heart-reports-record-478m-surplus-57950

Ewit what’s so hard to understand. SH is not for profit so subsidised by the taxpayer through loss of revenue. The tax payer isnt subsidising the landlord but is subsidising the housing benefit recipients i.e. paying their housing costs.

What's so hard for you to understand about my explanation above?

It. Is. Not. Subsidised.

You can stamp your foot and say it is as much as you like but it doesn't make it so. Maybe you should go and do some reading around this subject to make sure you have your information correct before trying to pass off opinion as fact?

And ewits what? “social rents are what the correct rent is for any given property”. What on Earth are you talking about? Social rents for new properties at least are usually set by reference to market rents (they are much less usually)

In England housing associations were given £8.4 billion in grants for the period from 2008 - 2011 for example. That’s not including housing benefit and other subsidies.

It's not a reduction. As pointed out to you repeatedly, the rent paid by social housing tenants more than covers the cost of providing it, to the extent that money goes back into public funds from it. Social housing tenants, as a cohort, actively contribute to the public purse. They are not net recipients but net contributors.

On the other side of the coin, private landlords as a cohort receive over £10 billion every year of public funds through housing benefit. The majority of housing benefit payments go to people in work to top up rent that they can't afford. £10 billion. Every year.

So who is being subsidised? And in what way is the rent that these private landlords charge a "market rent" when in order to pay the price demanded by them, we all as tax payers have to hand over £10 billion? Every year.

We don't hand anything over to social housing tenants. In fact, we benefit from rent receipts from them which continue in perpetuity long after the build cost has been covered, and are ploughed back into public spending. They, in fact, are subsidising us.

Your neighbour pays, what, £500 in rent every month. Do you contribute £500 in tax every month? If not, you pay in less than she does.

"social rents are what the correct rent is for any given property”

Social rents are what the rent should be when you take landlord profit, agents fees, etc out of the equation.

I'm going to bed to watch Shetland and Then if I'm still awake "I don't need a man I've got s spray tan".

This is getting silly now

Ewit - sorry but you are entirely wrong. Social housing is subsidised by the tax payers. You can be as rude as you like but you’ll still be wrong.

I didn’t make excuses for the HA selling homes, I said they shouldn’t be but if it was for the purpose of more homes I can see the logic - don’t twist my words.
It’s the average cost. Individual ones vary. As I say, further north and in lower populated areas it’s a completely different situation.
There is a huge housing crisis where I live, HAs need funds to build and buy. Housing people in need and creating more overall stock should take priority over keeping rents at half the private rate for high earning individuals.

sorry but you are entirely wrong. Social housing is subsidised by the tax payers. You can be as rude as you like but you’ll still be wrong.

It's been explained many times why you're wrong and why it isn't subsidised by taxpayers (many of whom are social housing tenants).

I dont think the ppl on here berating SH tenants give a shit about homeless people at all.

Again, housing associations are directly subsidised by the government. They are non profit making (so don’t pay corporation tax for example). So they don’t pay for themselves. They are paid for in part by the government directly, in part by their tenants (including those who receive housing benefit).

I’m not saying that they should not exist, I think social housing is a great thing (not all are well run of course to put it mildly). But they are subsidised so if we want to sort housing we need to be realistic and honest.

It wasnt for the purpose of more homes Generation but please provide the link you have that says otherwise.

No one is berating SH tenants, if anything is wrong it’s people like you wanting to make sure your rent stays low as possible over ensuring there’s enough stock to house the homeless.

Tbh no, I don’t care if someone earning £50k has to pay a bit more rent (but still below market rate) if it means the housing situation improves overall for many people who need it.

helena please read. I said if it’s for the purpose of new homes then I understand the logic orherwise it is wrong.

If they gave a shit about homeless ppl they would be just as outraged at the fact that homes are being sold off. they just want to use them ad a football to kick at tenants. Disgusting.

And of course as they are public resources they should be properly allocated in my view. And not allowed to be sold off at a huge discount.