Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

How do housing benefits work in the UK?

103 replies

Espressoroast · 26/09/2021 07:31

Trying again - genuinely not trying to be goady. I’m not from the UK and my home country has a very different system.

I am a nurse (band 5, NHS) and have a colleague who lives with her mum, both also Band 5, full time employment. They’ve been in a council flat for ages (10+ years) and been both employed that whole time. I would imagine there are others who need the housing more urgently or are less able to pay on the privat market?

In my country, housing benefit must be reassessed periodically so that if you make more than a certain amount you will pay market rate and be asked to leave funded housing. Is that not how it works here? What are the benefits of the system this way?

OP posts:
gingercatsparky · 26/09/2021 10:29

@Etonmessisyum

I’m a nurse band 5, don’t work full time however. Been in homeless temporary accommodation with my kids for nearly 4 years. So when I eventually get a flat/house if I earn too much you want me turfed out? It’s unlikely as I have a sen son and I can’t work more as he’s not suitable for out of school childcare. I’m a single parent and this is the second temporary home I’ve had. None of my own furniture or decor, can’t hang anything up. No shower etc It’s not a home it’s limbo. Yes it’s a roof. And I pay all of the rent here. Every penny as will I elsewhere. There are no houses. No rentals either,
It needs to be assessed on all aspects not just earnings.
sashh · 26/09/2021 10:59

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

OK, so you move in, single person, three kids. You work hard, you quite qualifications, you start earning more, your children start leaving home.

Is it still fair for you to occupy social housing under the same conditions and rent you did when you moved in? Wouldn't it be fairer to have someone move in who needs it the way you did when you moved in?

Not necessarily, you will still be paying the rent on a 3 bed place to a HA which is building more homes.

Just as someone paying a mortgage on a larger property still carries on paying.

One thing I do think that should change is that if you have 'the right to buy' the number of years you have been a tenant determines your discount regardless of whether the rent was paid by you or by benefits. Although if it's a mixture it might be difficult to determine.

One of my friends bought her 3 bed house under right to buy, she initially got the house as a young single mum.

She has been on a number of benefits over the years, mostly things like FIS or tax credits where she has been working and had benefits to supplement income.

JustLyra · 26/09/2021 11:07

This is why there is such a housing crisis for those in need

No, that’s because of the continual sell off of council housing and the complete failure to ringfence the money to build more social housing.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Benefits
gingercatsparky · 26/09/2021 11:10

@JustLyra

This is why there is such a housing crisis for those in need

No, that’s because of the continual sell off of council housing and the complete failure to ringfence the money to build more social housing.

We wouldn't have to build so much more social housing if we had a better system in place where those who weren't eligible anymore moved on and it was passed on to the next person. Better for the environment and the council budgets.
JustLyra · 26/09/2021 11:14

We wouldn't have to build so much more social housing if we had a better system in place where those who weren't eligible anymore moved on and it was passed on to the next person. Better for the environment and the council budgets.

We wouldn’t have to build so much if we paid people proper wages and didn’t allow the over the top inflation of property prices, but that’s never going to happen either.

Removing people’s security and their homes just when they reach a point of stability is quite likely to throw many into a vicious cycle of instability again.

LST · 26/09/2021 11:17

I lived in a council flat and then house from the age of 19 to 29. I never once claimed benefits apart from child benefit once I had DC.

tabulahrasa · 26/09/2021 11:54

“We wouldn't have to build so much more social housing if we had a better system in place where those who weren't eligible anymore moved on and it was passed on to the next person. Better for the environment and the council budgets.”

Nope... the issue is caused by a combination of the right to buy scheme having existed and that money never being used to replace housing stock, private landlords pushing the price of rent up and companies paying nowhere near a living wage.

It’s not because there are some people who could pay more for rent choose to stay in a secure tenancy and not pay more in rent just because they can technically afford it.

Bear in mind, rent in social housing isn’t subsidised, it’s just set at what it needs to be instead of the most they can gouge out of people.

Whiskyinajar · 26/09/2021 12:05

@Espressoroast

Apologies, I had them confused. I meant to ask about council housing and why it is a lifetime allowance. I don’t think anyone in need should be asked to leave but surely there are others who need it more? My colleague for instance lives with her mum - Both working adults on a Band 5 wage and no children or other dependents. I know another colleague, band 3, also in council housing, a 2 bed flat, with an adult daughter and 3 LOs, one with SEN. They can’t find a larger place to accommodate them because waits are too long. Surely if there were an annual review that would clear up space? Yes the private market is challenging but should the system not be supporting the neediest?
Quite honestly if your colleagues are key workers (and it sounds like they are) then a secure tenancy is actually quite important. Far better they have this than struggle with an unreliable private sector rent.

I want to see MORE social and affordable housing built rather than people quibble over who should have what.

Hwory · 26/09/2021 12:19

It's an interesting one.

When I was allocated a social housing property I was homeless (relationship breakdown & DV). I got a job at McDonald's then an apprenticeship which has lead to two promotions.

Whilst I'm on an OK salary I still have debts from being homeless and CCJ's so I don't think I'd even be accepted for a private tenancy. The increased rent would wipe my savings out for a house deposit so I'd be stuck renting. There's also the risk of being turfed out yearly and having to have a deposit and moving costs.

I'm not going to give up the security I have and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to do so. The pressure should be on the government and council to increase the amount of social housing. Not reduce by selling them.

timesachangin · 26/09/2021 12:30

Our local authority (and many others) have a period of 9 years temporary tenancy at which point youre assessed again. Thereafter it's yours for life as long as you earn less than 60k a year as a household, and have less than 60k savings at the time of the assessment.

timesachangin · 26/09/2021 12:37

I also had to carpet, paint and tile my council property which I'd have not had to do if I rented so I'd object to having it taken away from me just because my circumstances improved a year or two later

MrsRobbieHart · 26/09/2021 12:44

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

So you think people who already live in a council/ HA house should be turfed out once they earn too much?

You are framing this wrong. They are not turfed out, they are asked to leave if they no longer meet the requirements, just as people who buy a property move when they need to. There is nothing wrong with that, because it frees up the property for someone who needs it more at the moment.

People who buy a property move when they need to. Not just because they earn “too much” to keep living in the house they own/pay a mortgage on. They can choose to stay in their house forever as long as they can afford it. Your analogy doesn’t work.
gingercatsparky · 26/09/2021 12:45

@tabulahrasa

“We wouldn't have to build so much more social housing if we had a better system in place where those who weren't eligible anymore moved on and it was passed on to the next person. Better for the environment and the council budgets.”

Nope... the issue is caused by a combination of the right to buy scheme having existed and that money never being used to replace housing stock, private landlords pushing the price of rent up and companies paying nowhere near a living wage.

It’s not because there are some people who could pay more for rent choose to stay in a secure tenancy and not pay more in rent just because they can technically afford it.

Bear in mind, rent in social housing isn’t subsidised, it’s just set at what it needs to be instead of the most they can gouge out of people.

Yes agreed. It's not the only problem. Alongside this Right to buy at significantly reduced costs needs to end or that money needs to go into building more social housing. Plus there does need to be a cap on greedy landlords that exploit people. I still stand by my point though.
Becca19962014 · 26/09/2021 12:47

In my area HA reassess your right to remain in a property every twelve months. Because they aim to educate people into transferring into renting in the private sector. They don't offer anything longer term. If you're circumstances are unchanged you can stay, however if you lose your mental health nurse for example you'll be told to leave.

The process begins two months (I think) before your lease renewal date.

Like all good theories on paper it doesn't work in practice - if you need adaptions made the council won't do them again in another property for example; you can find yourself bouncing around the country (yes country) in temporary accomodation every year or so.

ChardonnaysPetDragon · 26/09/2021 12:47

People who buy a property move when they need to. Not just because they earn “too much” to keep living in the house they own/pay a mortgage on. They can choose to stay in their house forever as long as they can afford it. Your analogy doesn’t work.

What if they don’t be earn enough? My point is, a house is not guaranteed forever for anyone.

MrsRobbieHart · 26/09/2021 12:52

What if they don’t be earn enough? My point is, a house is not guaranteed forever for anyone.

Confused

You’re but making any sense. Not earning enough would be a “need to move” situation. You don’t need to move when you earn “too much”.

MrsRobbieHart · 26/09/2021 12:52

not making any sense.

JustLyra · 26/09/2021 12:56

@Becca19962014

In my area HA reassess your right to remain in a property every twelve months. Because they aim to educate people into transferring into renting in the private sector. They don't offer anything longer term. If you're circumstances are unchanged you can stay, however if you lose your mental health nurse for example you'll be told to leave.

The process begins two months (I think) before your lease renewal date.

Like all good theories on paper it doesn't work in practice - if you need adaptions made the council won't do them again in another property for example; you can find yourself bouncing around the country (yes country) in temporary accomodation every year or so.

I'd put a lot of money on that costing them more money in the long term - turfing people out because of basic improvements, they then get into problems, need emergency housing etc etc.

It's so short sighted it's unreal.

Kjr33 · 26/09/2021 13:01

There wouldn’t be any incentive to look after a council house if you knew that a few years/payrises down the line you will be asked to leave. I agree with rent based on wages though that seems more fair as long as it can go up and down equally incase someone hits harder times.

Becca19962014 · 26/09/2021 13:08

@JustLyra yep. The examples I gave were just some I'm aware of. When I was offered somewhere it was upstairs and £40 more than housing benefit would cover, just to start with. I'm disabled so told to use "all the extra cash" I get via dla and PIP to pay for carer to get me in and out and the extra rent. Zero concept of what that money is actually for. And the extra £40 is ground rent and water so not included when calculating the lowest priced properties in the county for benefits. They delibrately keep that figure at the current rate.

They definitely evict as I live by HA and see it happening. It won't be everyone but they do reassess every year.

And make it clear if you move in its a step up to private rental nothing more than that.

Becca19962014 · 26/09/2021 13:09

Unless you're elderly. Though I suspect they'll be next!

ChardonnaysPetDragon · 26/09/2021 13:13

There wouldn’t be any incentive to look after a council house if you knew that a few years/payrises down the line you will be asked to leave

You are being unfair to people who rent. Surely living in a place and keeping it nice fur themselves is incentive enough. People aren’t feral as you might think.

CiaoForNiao · 26/09/2021 13:15

@Waxonwaxoff0

There's no reassessment here. Once you have a council property it's yours for life, even if you become a millionaire.
Not always. My friend was told very clearly that she will be expected to downsize as and when her dc leave home. If she still qualifies for SH she will be offered a smaller place. If not she will be expected to privately rent.
OnlyFoolsnMothers · 26/09/2021 13:32

@Hwory

It's an interesting one.

When I was allocated a social housing property I was homeless (relationship breakdown & DV). I got a job at McDonald's then an apprenticeship which has lead to two promotions.

Whilst I'm on an OK salary I still have debts from being homeless and CCJ's so I don't think I'd even be accepted for a private tenancy. The increased rent would wipe my savings out for a house deposit so I'd be stuck renting. There's also the risk of being turfed out yearly and having to have a deposit and moving costs.

I'm not going to give up the security I have and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to do so. The pressure should be on the government and council to increase the amount of social housing. Not reduce by selling them.

So you get to squirrel away savings to buy whilst another homeless individual coming out of a DV relationship waits on a list. People really do pull up the ladder behind them don’t they.
OnlyFoolsnMothers · 26/09/2021 13:34

@MrsRobbieHart

What if they don’t be earn enough? My point is, a house is not guaranteed forever for anyone. Confused

You’re but making any sense. Not earning enough would be a “need to move” situation. You don’t need to move when you earn “too much”.

Well then you “earn too much to continue to qualify for this council property”- problem is every government would make the figure too low!