Social Housing - is there a limit for earnings?

[Dogreared]

So, I am asking as someone who was homeless for several years and earning minimum wage, working two jobs, and spent years blaming myself for the position I was in... Experienced all forms of homelessness during this time, was incredibly vulnerable with both mental and physical health issues.

Recently met someone who is a Band 8 salary within the NHS, and who's partner is earning 60k a year - they have been living in social housing (and now complaining they are not eligible for it in their new area they've moved to).

I guess I am really confused about the system and how it works. I was told there were no homes, it is the same area, and it has been through the same time period.

By the way - this isn't posted out of my spite, I ended up being incredibly fortunate and am now comfortable and have secure housing although on benefits and pay for it all from my benefits (I manage with very little to spare each month, but my house is long term secure).

I don't know if I just didn't fight hard enough looking back, or if this is how the system actually works? Are people allowed to keep social housing as they progress through their careers?

@Sarahcoggles , given that there’s such a dire shortage of decent, affordable housing, IMO you’re absolutely right.
If there were plenty to go round, it wouldn’t be an issue.

Try a bit harder next time, OP.

I'm not blaming the tenants - I find this set up weird, that's all.

They are definitely paying under market rate or being dishonest (though unsure why) - they said they pay 650 per month and this is inner London. The entire conversation was a bit odd.

Anyway, I have the answer, thanks for that.

Social housing rents aren't below market rate, they're realistic rents and any profit is reinvested in their upkeep whereas private rents are inflated to account for profits.

You don't have the answer, you don't know what tenancy they have!

So say your friend was paying approx £800 a month for 30years for her 4 bed, that's £288,000 she's paid to the HA in rent, £480,000 after 50 years. The person before and/or after her a similar amount (obv, give or take a bit of inflation!). Whatever the actual figures, surely that's a lot of money for HA per client not to be able to replenish some stock? It can't all go on admin and maintenance can it? 🤔

Totally agree and the PP who said that given the amount of time that your mum has lived in the house, she's probably already bought it twice over
is talking bullshit of the highest order. Yeah, that's how renting works FFS

So right but look at the reaction to the bedroom tax. What councils really need is to evaluate their stock and then buy or build what is required. Including flats or homes suitable for downsizers.

Came to type what @Lolreally said but couldn't say it any better. 👏
This thread makes me angry

The bedroom tax only applies to people on housing benefit, many social housing tenants pay full rent.

As it only targeted people in receipt of housing benefit it was essentially a tax on people who were already financially vulnerable and who were in a position where they were unlikely to be able to afford the cost associated with moving/downsizing, there was also the fact that there usually weren't any smaller properties available for them to move into.

You're missing the point.
The poster said she should be given the option to buy it.
The point is, the amount she's paid over the years in rent could have bought it twice over, without buying it a third time.

I'm a band 7, have been in social housing for 11 years.
My situation was very different when I was allocated my beautiful home.

Myself and 2 children were sleeping on mums sofa due to fleeing DV situation.i was a newly qualified band 5 at the time.

I'm now in a good position, decent money. My rent is £390 a month for a big 3 bed semi, very rural area. I have no intention of moving!

My relative pays £390 pm for her 3 bed semi, my own 3 bed is £800 pm (mortgaged) quick zoopla search suggests it would rent for £850-900 ish pm.
For those saying council/ social housing isn't rented below market value please explain why you think this is the case?
The rent also pays for any maintenance (relative recently had new windows, a repair to a radiator and a boiler fixed) which would have cost me as a homeowner a fortune.
I find it ludicrous that someone on 60k per year should be benefiting from the system to this degree.

@GeneticallyModifiedGrump those repairs might not cost homeowners so much if they pooled their savings over 40 years with 1000 other homeowners. Social housing repairs benefit from bulk discounts and long term savings/debt

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread. I work in housing.

I also have 2 small children.

This morning my 6 year old came to me upset telling me how his brother had had the last of the cereal. It was SO UNFAIR. I told him to look in the cupboard where there was 2 new packets of cereal.
My son had chosen to see the thing that was in front of him and blame his brother (because he got there first) rather than looking about how much cereal was in the house over all. Yes he could have had a bit of cereal if his brother had shared but is that the best way to sort out the situation in the long term?

There are plenty of problems in the social housing sector. Someone having a stable skilled job and paying their rent on time is not one of them.

I thought the rules had changed in the last 6 years or so and lifetime tenancies had been relegated to the past? Along with the rest of the luxuries allotted to baby boomers? It’s a phase-out though so there will be people on older contracts as everywhere. It’s always been the luck of the draw that matters though. Britain’s geographical postcode lottery is a byword that no one notices any more. Generational inequality, the new temporal lottery, is still something some blind idiots aren’t accepting, or don’t fully recognise the impact and implications.

When council houses were first built, mostly after WW1, the idea was that they would be available to everyone, not just the most in need. They were there to promote social mixing. Back in the 60s middle class professionals used them almost as much as the poorest in some areas.

@ThreeFeetTall yes I understand that, what I don't understand are posters that regularly appear on threads like this stating that the rents paid in social housing are not significantly lower than market rent!
Regardless of what the repairs actually cost the social housing provider, if the person living there had to pay for them independently they would have cost a fortune (for the repairs I mentioned in my relatives case, the boiler alone would have been a months salary for them)
I just don't understand a system that was supposed to help families with affordable housing allowing someone on 60k pa to benefit to this extent. Surely there should be a limit and once reached a time frame agreed to move on so other families waiting to be housed actually stand a chance of getting a home rather than being on waiting lists for years.
I'm sure this is not a common scenario, social housing is in crisis as the government didn't build the houses they promised after they sold them all off BUT allowing people to stay once they are capable of affording the rental/mortgage market seems really irresponsible.

You can swap your home and you inherit the tenancy of the person you swap with. So no you wouldn’t keep your lifetime tenancy when moving. Also you can’t just relocate any other way anymore. It’s swap or go through the whole process again which most people won’t get housed if they made themselves “intentionally homeless”. Even people genuinely homeless have a hard time being housed

Not sure if it’s different in different areas but where I am, the tenancy is with the house.
I have a lifetime tenancy (which can be taken from me should I break rules like non payment of rent, anti social behavior etc) but if I were to swap to one of the newer houses that have been built, I would get a 5 year tenancy and the people I swapped with would get the lifetime one.

@GeneticallyModifiedGrump
Whether social rents are much lower than market probably depends where you are in the country. But yes where I am (London) social rents are waaaaay below market rent. I used to work in Kensington and Chelsea and the difference was

But I'd say to look at it the other way round- the market is the wrong one, that is over priced, and lower rents should be the aim, or at least somewhere in between.

In my experience when tenants circumstances change quite a few of those people do choose to move out to owner occupation/shared ownership properties. And those people might be financially better off in the long term. But others choose to stay where they like/kids go to school/have friends/near job etc.

It’s interesting how some people think that if you earn more you should leave your home. Who would put themselves in that situation if they didn’t have to? The main thing for me is the security of my tenancy and the price rises are kept in check.
I pay half market rent approximately for my HA property. For that there are sacrifices. This rent does increase every year.
The property is maintained to a very low standard. When you need a repair they send along one of their contractors who frankly couldn’t give a monkeys about quality of work. I’ve been in HA for 20 years and not seen a contractor yet that takes pride in the finish or look of their work. It’s all function and no cosmetic consideration at all.
They don’t pay for upkeep of things like driveways for example and there is a massive list of things that we have to deal with ourselves that another tenancy would call the landlord for.
Anything large has to be fought for tooth and nail but probably refused unless obviously dangerous . Windows and doors are very old double glazing but no longer fit for purpose. There is mould everywhere. Kitchen is over 30 years old and of a poor standard. Bathroom is the same. Flat roof to outbuilding leaks. Boiler is so old they can hardly get the parts anymore so I’m hoping it is condemned next time it breaks. Asbestos - basically told to not disturb it.
Heating system generally isn’t up to par and this exacerbates the damp and mould. We use extra money to pay for things that another landlord would fix or improve. We don’t get to chose our home. We don’t get to chose to move to another home if things are not good here. Unless you count giving up the HA tenancy altogether or swapping with someone else. Swapping is very difficult. Almost impossible- there are thousands looking for suitable swaps and it’s luck. If you’re in an undesirable property you’ve little to no chance of moving.

I know I am lucky despite the above. Of all my worries like trying to heat this old cold home, and pay for improvements I know it won’t be sold from beneath me or my rent hiked in a big lump. I know it’s a home for life if I want it and don’t breach my tenancy. We were really hard up when we got this place and now we are not so much. I’m still on a relatively low wage but not on the breadline anymore.
If I could genuinely afford to buy my own place then I would in a heart beat and I would hand this house back but until something is done with the UK housing market I am staying put.

Being homeless for a long period, I'm surprised you didn't qualify to go on a waiting list for social housing. You would have been eligible for a temporary accommodation such as a hostel.

It's a fight to get heard and get placed on a social housing register. No one will approach you and offer you social housing, particularly inner city.

I gather from your posts that you're in central London? I think the wait for social housing is now around 4 years or more with some boroughs not taking more onto waiting lists, The compromise is to take social housing anywhere available; up north for example.

How did you go from homeless to affording a secure private rental?

All you say was you were "incredibly fortunate". It's not clear what your circumstances were.

@ThreeFeetTall I am in the deep dark north! The housing shortage isn't generally as bad where I am (relative was housed within a month or so of going into temporary accommodation) but I imagine London is vastly different.
I don't know what the solution is, apart from building more affordable housing (not just tiny new builds at ridiculously inflated prices) but I don't believe that will happen anytime soon.

By the way there are restrictions on tenancies for newer tenants now but us oldies get to stay without conditions on whether we still NEED our homes, until we die or breach tenancy rules basically. It will be many many years before people like me with secure tenancies are eradicated from social housing but one day it will happen. Oh and of course there is still right to buy on some places but the discount is low and I wouldn’t want to buy this place for approx 10k discount nor could I afford to.

@iminsocialhousinggetmeoutofhere please keep contacting your HA about the damp and mould. It should be an absolute priority since the Rochdale case.