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?

This is the government response and the mandate to HA.

www.gov.uk/guidance/december-2022-update-on-governments-work-to-improve-the-quality-of-social-housing

Your HA needs to get their finger out.

Doesn't this just show that the social housing model works better than market-led private sector? And that there should be more of it???

Housing Associations are clearly viable entities, able to function economically and sustainably offering long term, affordable and secure housing solutions. Residents who are working have more surplus income to spend in the general economy, which is what we need, now more than ever!

Families who are not shunted from pillar to post every few years have better outcomes, and that's better for communities and society as a whole. Better for employers to have employees with stable home-lives.

Selling off properties to those who can afford it, should be a choice, but only if the stock is replaced, according to societal need.

My HA home is exactly the same. Most tenants have given up complaining when you’re continually fobbed off and nothing is done.
What iminsocialhousing describes is standard.

As a single person in private rent I looked at joining my local waiting list and wasn't eligible to join with my salary

Instead of having the public squabble over limited resources, what government should do is increase supply (which they can do but choose not to) . Social housing is a long term asset and money maker for the country, not having enough is ideology. Social housing imo should be the first resort for the public, not the last. The only change I'd make is to encourage people under occupying to downsize. 'Rich' people in social housing shouldn't be a problem because it means mixed communities and not poor ghettos.

I say this as someone in my own house and a private landlord.

The system is wrong and needs a shake up. It absolutely does impact on the housing shortage, social housing us meant for the most needy and vulnerable who cannot afford private or owned. Once they are in a finacial situation thst sees them earning 60k then no they should no longer qualify and be made to relinquish. There's people out there in desperate need who wait years upon years

Why do you think social housing should only befor the most poor and needy? That wasn't the original intention of sh, it was built as housing for the masses. Why do you think it shouldn't be that again ?
Genuine question.

I understand that you will have been fobbed off in the past, but if you are in England Gove has mandated this as an absolute priority and the HA has to be addressing it.

Hear hear.

We should be focusing our anger where it's due. Not kicking people out of their (paid for) homes, when they've picked themselves up off their arses. Why not just ban buy to let? That would free up a few homes?

Using housing stock purely as a means for income generation when there is a shortage is far more a crime than any other. Let's not forget many waiting for social housing are there due to landlords selling up, purely for profit.

If you know you are going to be “removed” from your house if you earn a certain amount, there isn’t much incentive to maintain the property nor work. And what would the threshold be? One earner? Two earnings combined? Whole family?

There is no doubt some jiggery pokery in the system. London councils need holding to account for their sometimes questionable allocation of homes (believe me, I have witnessed some extraordinary ones) and their seeming lack of ability to stamp out sub-letting.

Where I live it is not that difficult to acquire a social housing flat; many have been built recently. BUT they are not prized properties. They look like soviet-era prefab blocks.

There’s no way that a single person was given a 6 bed flat.

Nice life for you, but not fair.

@SmileyClare Yes - your points are why I am now wondering whether I should have fought harder.

I don't think I need to explain why I got lucky, but I did, and I am grateful but the system still seems very weird to me!

I agree that the market is wrong too - that's big issue. As are all the obstacles for people on benefits getting onto the private lease market in the first place...

SH wasn't ever meant for the most poor and needy.

SH envy is not a good look.

How is it not fair that a nurse has a good quality, secure, affordable home?

Could you please describe what you think fair looks like for her?

Social Housing / Council or Housing associating homes should be the only option for rental. Ever.

No private landlording should be permitted at all.

It's not fair that more people don't have this opportunity, with that I completely agree. But I would not take it away. It's far fairer for those who have been disadvantaged to be able to make up lost ground, compared to those who gain ownership off the back of others, particularly those receiving housing benefit in an over-inflated market. Its a false economy with nothing but private gain at the heart.

Not fair that she has it so cheap whilst some poor bugger paying £1000+ pcm for the same. It creates resentment within a society.

So is it not sensible to reduce the excessive rents forced out of poor buggers rather than make everyone pay them? It's this that I really don't understand.

How is it a CH tenants fault that private landlords profit from charging extortionate rents?

I run a dehumidifier 24/7 and have to wash the mould off every couple of weeks. I have a window vacuum which I use every morning on the crappy double glazing throughout the entire house.
My HA are obsessed with condensation- they give patronising advice like “make sure you shut bathroom door when you shower” or “open a window when you cook” etc etc. I think a large part of our issue IS condensation but it’s because the double glazing is substandard and our heating system is so crap, it never heats up the house enough and the walls affected are icy cold all the time (north facing)even in milder weather. So when a bit of warm air does hit it, it does indeed condensate. I know the answer is to upgrade the heating which I also know 100% they won’t do. They will make out it’s our lifestyle and tell us to keep washing the mould off. We’ve been fighting the condensation for 20 years and we know we can’t do any more than we are doing. If I was earning more and could get out into my own home (without a huge unaffordable mortgage) then I would definitely leave this property.

I hate these threads, I am in HA property that we were given through the correct channels because we were next on the list for one of the areas I had asked for, we weren’t very well off when we were offered it but are slightly better off now. SH was built for everyone not just for those who were vulnerable/not working etc and that it is how you end up with ghettos. I am in Scotland so the home is for life but as soon as we no longer have extortionate childcare costs and can start saving for a home we will hand it back

I'm with you op, it doesn't seem right people can live indefinitely in housing that's socially owned if they no longer require the support. My solution though isn't to insist people move, instead I would increase rents in ha/council properties to the market rent then discount for those on lower incomes set to a certain percentage of their income max (unless savings over a certain threshold).

I don't think people should have to move from long-standing homes, but the extra income this would generate should be ring fenced to build new homes

So what shall we do?
A. Build more social housing so more people (including the nurse mentioned) can have a secure affordable home.
B. Boot nurse out to pay £1,000+ a month, reducing her to poverty so someone else can have a turn in a secure (not any more!) affordable home.