Why do people look down on council houses

[Easystuff]

Just that really why do others look down on council/social houses. I don't understand. There's no special treatment. It's not unusual, it's been about for many years. It's now pretty hard to get social housing. There are thousands of family waiting lists, being made homeless. Through no fault of their own. It's pretty awful out there.

As much as I admire that ethos, the reality is , and always has been, social housing is for low income families. I grew up in one. You never ever got one if you could afford otherwise, and it is absolutely income dependent.

what ever it was intended for initially was never the case in the uk. Well not for at least 50 years.

In Lancashire

I assume that’s a reply to me.

That figure must be a fraction of private rental costs. I hadn’t realised that council rents were so very cheap. Interesting.

Social rent should be about 50 percent of private rent.

My last private rent was 2000 a month

If you buy a house with a mortgage the bank doesn’t own the property, you do.

The property is security on the loan, but the house is still yours.

Cmon now. Ok. 50 percent of the equivalent property private rent cost.

@Janieforever that's never going to happened

Cos if they're anything like the ones around here. The areas are rough as fuck. You couldn't pay me enough to live in one of them. Half of them are filled with druggies and there's no way you'd walk down there alone on a night time. I wouldn't walk down there during the day. The other rough as fuck area when I go to someone's house (thankfully during the day) my car was left parked up in supermarket car park to save having it's wheels removed.

@boboshmobo
Do you think your 'friend' has a life of luxury with her 'free' everything, raising a disabled child, what a horrible attitude.

I've been a council tenant for some years and I have had the distinct impression from some people that it is free to live in council housing! 🙄

They do, 'really need it'!!
They have a great income relative to their outgoings as they don't pay exorbitant rent or mortgage. It's the norm in many successful economies where some value is placed on society.

When my late DH was a child/teen, council estates were referred to as "reservations". This was the 60s/early 70s. A particular council estate in my home town, built way out of the main built-up area was nick-named the Ponderosa. Plainly the plethora of Westerns on the TV was responsible.

I was raised in council housing and detected no prejudice. Until I met DH, that is, and he enlightened me.

@PTSDBarbiegirl Yes, understood.

However, there is much greater availability in the European countries with social housing and it is generally available to all.

The issue here is that the Right To Buy scheme sold off a huge amount of council house stock, meaning there is a great shortage, leading to waiting lists years and years long.

This leads to the situation where people are ranked according to need. This means that somebody may qualify due to being deemed at most need. However, their circumstances may improve greatly over many years meaning that if they were go apply for social housing, they would never get it, however, as they are already in their house, they simply stay there. Which results in somebody who is in great need, being stuck in temporary accommodation whilst somebody on a "great income" enjoys the subsidised rent of social housing.

I have no skin in this game, I own my home, but it's easy to see why some people get annoyed and frustrated at people who have fantastic lifestyles, with lots of disposable income, due to enjoying the cheap long term security of social housing.

This seems very dramatic and built on fear rather than fact.

To be fair the government has tried to put a stop to this, and is forcing housing associations to stop the whole tenancy for life thing. Many now review after 5 years.

social housing due to the lack of properties v people in need should be seen as an interim solution if someone is able to get themselves in a position they can afford private rent or a mortgage. If they never can afford it then they should get to continue to have social housing provided for them.

And others might argue that there should be far more council-owned (and housing association) properties, like there used to be. And that private landlords are rip-off merchants taking advantage of people who can't afford to buy their own homes.

It is not the fault of many council tenants that they qualify to be housed by the council.

In any case, is this a thread about why some people view the houses on council estates with disdain, or why some people look down on the tenants with contempt?

Subsidised by what?

Umm, no actually: private rent should be the same as social rent.

That way, private landlords would still make a profit, which would unfortunately just go into their personal bank accounts (rather than to the public purse as social rents do), but more people would be able to afford to live and the housing benefits bill would be massively reduced.

Council rents make a profit that goes to the public purse: council tenants effectively subsidise the rest of us by paying rent that adds to the coffers for public spending.

Council homes aren't at all subsidised. This is a myth, hate speech, in fact, propagated as an attack on the less well-off.

Surely if people only stayed in HA properties whilst they needed them and were forced to move on if their circumstances improved it would create ghettos because absolutely no one would bother to take pride in their (temporary) homes. The tenancies are assured for life for a reason. The rents are NOT subsidised. It’s the private rental market that has gone silly with landlords charging what they like that it’s being compared with. These rents should be forced down to be in line with social housing rents. HAs are not for profit organisations that plough the rental incomes back into maintaining the homes. Some people are on benefits but then so are people in private rentals. I’ve had friends who had the social paying their mortgage for years. Mortgages have been heavily subsidised by artificially low interest rates.

Absolutely correct x

Mortgages have been heavily subsidised by artificially low interest rates

Very, very good point.

That’s a quite exaggerated way to right it. Housing associations are not for profit, any money made is predominantly invested back in the social housing itself , with other limited spends on the elderly etc.

housing is often subsidised, but so is private rent on occasion, by housing benefit where required.

I don't think it's exaggerated. It's completely normal in other countries in Europe: it's the UK that's extreme in its allowing private rents to go wildly insane because they're not capped like they are elsewhere.