Council housing in the seventies

[rattymol]

In the seventies one third of people in Britain lived in a council house. Council houses were built because of the terrible way private landlords behaved and the poor standard of housing many people lived in. We are returning to those days
4.5 million households privately rent with 23% of that housing deemed not to meet the decent homes standard. We need council housing again.

Yes otherwise we’re back to square one! My parents bought theirs back in the 80s but they had no idea of the knock-on effect of doing so due to no new ones being built in their place.

City I used to live in the council took two tower blocks, renovated all the flats and put in adaptations for the elderly/disabled. Ground floor they made one flat a sort of community centre for the residents and one for a resident caretaker/manager. They soon filled all the flats and I assume that must have freed up about 90 family sized council houses and provided good adapted accommodation for those that needed it. That was local to me, they probably did the same in other areas. I thought it was a good idea.

Lots of grumbling on the council estate I used to live on about the lack of social housing, yet they were all planning to buy the houses they were in. It didn't seem to register with them that they were the people depleting the source.

My neighbour was planning to rent hers out once bought as she was due to inherit a property worth 4x the value of the council property she was living in so she was moving to live in that as soon as purchase went through. She didn't give a shiny shit that there were people desperate for that house.

Or it needs to be done on a very strict basis of - profit from sold houses can only be used for building more new ones.

Well usually they are either put in emergency accommodation or made homeless? So then aren't they one of those people needing "help to get back on their feet", thus qualifying for the very same place they've just been evicted from....where's the sense or logic in that?

75 years ago council housing wasn't available to everyone - my grand father was told absolutely not to get my grandmother pregnant again after one child for medical reasons - they were locked out of social housing and my grandmother worked several jobs on top of grandfathers full time job to get them on the property ladder.

If you buy a house it typically takes 25 years to pay off the mortgage, presumably the council borrows money to build council houses so the rent money might add up to the building costs in ten years but it won't have paid off the loans. Unless councils have lots of money lying around so don't need loans.

The thing about social housing is that it's alleged purpose has changed. All these people talking about bank managers and deputy heads using it are right - the part that is forgotten is that you had to apply, be assessed and then maybe you got the house.

Now social housing is considered to be for those who cannot afford a market rent or are vulnerable in some way. That is a world of difference from the time when it was built.

It's notable that some former social housing is bought privately, and is very well designed. It's desirable. The buildings are often really well done.

Social housing has to be for communities, not just those who can't afford market rent. The reason it declines is because you can just be a private landlord, offer a tenancy and get it paid by housing benefit. If the criteria is you can't afford matket rent, then that's housing sorted.

If you were a government, why would you change it? Would you want the responsibility of paying for and developing a very expensive process so people could buy their homes? Even the Labour Party won't restore this system because of the expense.

But who is going to pay for it? Also what is the impact of concentrating struggling families in one area? You just have to look at county lines to see what happens on some council estates which breeds generations of poverty. Private landlords having a couple of properties on normal estates helps to mix people and not create sinkholes like some council estates. What is needed is a cap on the number of rentals in one area and the ability for developers to build estates with no affordable housing so everyone is happy.

Yes we do. I strongly object to taxpayers money being used to enrich often unscrupulous private landlords. The problem is that now it will be Housing Association properties rather than local councils running it, I’m not sure the best interests of tenants are at the forefront.

Well.Thankfully you don't make the rules.

We're certainly reaping the results of the seeds of greed and selfishness that Margaret Thatcher sowed back in the 80s. Rich pickings for the better off; not so much at the other end of the societal spectrum. And I'm sure that was exactly her & her party's intent at the time.

@MaidOfSteel - yea. Buy your home. Kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

After all, if you think about it, why would a conservative government, that believed in private assets, put money back into social housing?

The answer is they don't. They create more circumstances for private assets to grow. And so social housing is nibbled away, year on year. It won't be changed any time soon.

That's interesting

Was that to do with blood groups & rhesus negative or you dgm health if you don't mind me asking

Why did they not qualify for council housing

My two bed council house is just over 426 a month and it's in a decent area. Put it this way- we have a butchers and a farm shop and on the outskirts of a small, desirable city. İt does need some decent decorating work and re-carpeting, but because of the low rent, if I am able to work full time in the future, it would be pretty doable to get it nice. The really big two bed ground floor flat I swapped for this place was under £400 a month and both on the commuter belt to London.

The couple who haven't bought their cheap council house may have another property somewhere that they've invested in, instead. Rules are, that you're allowed to still buy another property to rent out, and remain in your council house. However, some councils (not mine) are changing new tenancies from life time to five years and will assess your income every five years to see if you can afford to rent privately, before they decide whether to renew. So no incentive to improve your situation there.

@kitsuneghost No we dont We need to stop regeneration and gentrification Read Municipal Dreams The Rise and Fall of Council Housing by John Boughton He gives several examples of how social housing is demoilished only for more expensive places to be built in their place. THATS why much social housing has been lost. Its not caused by pensioners hanging on to four bedroom houses.

Google Balfron Tower but there are many examples like it

@rattymol Many housing associations also have a bad record on repairs

İ lived in a homeless shelter in the USA where people- a mix of single people who had been made homeless by landlords selling, losing jobs, single mums, families on low income, disabled people, mentally unwell people, war veterans, oaps, young people kicked out of home, immigrants and foreign victims of crime- were given a time limit on how long they had to sort themselves out. Let's just say a lot of them, including people in wheelchairs, were put out on the street at the end of six months or a year. Vulnerable people don't have that mental energy to transform their entire life in two years, to be able to afford market private rent, like they do in the movies.

Regarding the cost of council house rent. I know someone who lives in a gorgeous, detached, 3 bed new build on a nice estate in a desirable coastal town. They pay £380 per month rent to the housing association. This is in Yorkshire.

You're not allowed to rent out a council house after buying it, for five years. So she would have been doing that illegally, the system doesn't allow that.

Lack of affordable housing means council tenants have no choice but to buy their homes if they want security for their children down the line, for if anything happens to them. You can complain about the issue and still be forced to participate in it. İt's not the council tenants' fault.

If you buy a house it typically takes 25 years to pay off the mortgage,

That’s because you pay a usurious amount of interest and, in the case of a newbuild, a handsome profit for the builder is baked into the purchase price. It doesn’t cost anything close to the purchase price to actually build it.

Councils can commission houses from a builder at a lower cost because there’s no risk to the builder, they don’t have to rely on selling the finished product. Equally lending money to councils is risk free so they can command lower interest rates. I reckon ten years is about right.

You misunderstand. I am all for more council houses. Build more, buy back, whatever it takes. Would love everyone to have their own council house and remove right to buy.

Unfortunately we are not in that position and will not be in the near future.

What do they do with the people who don't have a council house and can't afford private rentals now. It is no different

But two years on these then now become the SH tenants you are "othering"

You do realise that people are not chess pieces on a chess board right? Actually no i dont think you do.

I would vote for any party committed to a mass council housing project. Every council should assess need and aim to clear lists. Homelessness and the associated problems are the responsibility and a reflection on every politican.

There were problems with housing in the 1970s too