High joint income and in social housing with no plans to buy. Celebrate or selfish?

[SocialHousedNHappy]

I’ve been wondering about for some time and completely understand the dire and desperate situation that many people and families find themselves in. But… I hate the way that social housing is seen as only for the most desperate, when it was introduced as a housing option for all.

My household brings in a healthy income and we pay less than 10% to our monthly rent. This means we get enjoy a modest lifestyle and put some money aside for adult DC for when they’re older - they can then choose to buy whatever they fancy, car, house deposit, uni, whatever as will be their choice.

I hate that people seem to think that I should give up my secure tenancy and move into private rent. Looking on rightmove, a comparable house would be around 3x what I’m currently paying in rent, and to be honest, I wouldn’t move to private rented ever again. But why do people react as thought I’m doing something wrong, in the same way as they think of benefit cheats? I think the govt should be put under pressure to build more social housing - proper social housing, rather than the current situation where people are pit against each other and blaming each other for what is clearly a government failing.

I don’t want to sound like I’m gloating, because I’m not, but I don’t see why I should feel bad and not celebrate the life and comfort that my social housing has allowed me to enjoy.

I’m genuinely interested to hear if anyone agrees and feels the same.

Mick Lynch defends RMT deputy living in council flat on £78k (July 2022).

"The problem is that the government stopped building council flats and houses so that we can't have that mixed environment in our inner cities, with people living comfortably side by side from all sorts of backgrounds.

"And what we need is a mixed environment with people of all income levels living cooperatively in council accommodation"

Upto the bit where you say it shoud be means tested, you're correct. Although "most in need" doesn't just mean the poorest, there could be other reasons like disability or being a care leaver or having children (because the children have to be housed no matter what and that means housing the parent(s) with them, foster care is more expensive). The means testing part is a matter of opinion.

As for why you don't do it, realistically if you're currently suitably housed you will probably never be awarded a place (unless your circumstances change) because there will always be someone in greater need than you. The exception is if you get lucky and perhaps nobody else bids on a particular property except you. It does happen.

Why you wouldn't want to usually comes down to wanting a bigger or nicer property than what you've been allocated or what you could be allocated. Some areas of a town the social housing there might be awful with damp problems or terrible anti social behaviour. The other reason is to be able to move anywhere in the country whenever you want, limited only by your ability to purchase or rent a property there. Not having to wait for someone willing to do a mutual exchange with you into a property you actually want.

If you want to go on the list for social housing you probably can. I think some areas might limit people on the list if they're very oversubscribed, refusing to add those who have almost no chance of being allocated a place.

hahahah, of course you do 🙄

How are you paying so little toward your rent if you have a high joint income?

Most local authorities have changed their application systems in order to apply for a place on the housing register.

So, first they expect 'Local Area Connection' (must be proven to a legal standard) and then they need to know that the applicant has 'Priority Need' and this generally means 'vulnerable / disabled in quite some significant way' - that is then also tested to a legal standard and in fact most people who make it onto the housing register have used expert advisors to assert their legal right. There is also a savings / financial threshold cut off. Also the local authority no longer accept applications from people who are in employment with decent salaries as their argument is that you are well able to ring around landlords and find your own private rented flat.

A lot of people were housed before the rules became so stringent and therefore there's long term social housing tenants who didn't have to meet those criteria. There's also tenants who make good money and pair up and end up being a double income high earning household. I do know that in the future the councils are looking to how to address this. In the social housing where I live, the shared ownership tenants can only earn up to £90k pa in total income. That's because the homes are aimed for keyworkers.

I genuinely don't mean this as a cheeky dig, I'm interested to know where I've gone wrong in my own thinking? Why am I paying a high rent or extortionate mortgage when I could do this instead??

@obje Simple! … Because you don't want to live on a council estate?

The council service boilers, fix electrics and replace pipes. They do not cut grass or supply carports or cookers,

People are given empty housing with no flooring and have to fully furnish it themselves.

I don't think you are understanding what I said.

The state can, theoretically, act as a landlord. In order to buy or build housing, they need some money to start - which will be from taxes.

But in a system like this, if people are renting the property, their rents will cover the costs incurred. Just like renters in the private sector are ultimately the ones paying for the cost of the housing. The money that they paid out initially they get back.

So the state is acting as a landlord. The difference with the private market is twofold: the state is not looking to make a profit, only pay the costs. And because of that, the state will only need to increase rents in order to cover costs, but won't do so just to charge the maximum the rental market will bear.

Or to put that second part another way, a private owner can charge whatever he can get people to pay. If there is a lot of competition for housing, say, he can ask a very high amount, and it may make him a big profit if his costs haven't increased.

Usually with socialized housing, that kind of thing isn't allowed.

That's all different than subsidized housing, where the state (ie taxpayers) is actually paying a portion of the housing costs of the tenants.

I have often questioned how people like you manage to get and stay in such properties. In theory, I disagree with it, but in reality I can certainly understand why you would stay. Do they actually still offer secure/lifetime tenancies? I do hope not.

That said, I've a friend who has a farm-tied secured rent regulated property that he grew up in and had moved back to some time prior to his parents dying, It's old and cold, listed but lovely, the rent is very reasonable indeed, and he'd never be able to afford a similar rental at market rates. He'd be insane to leave, and it makes me happy that he can do a job he loves that is really poorly paid, and not have to stress about the roof over his head.

@Gingerkittykat yes actually they do

Trust me living in social housing comes with its own special versions of hell. Also it's a trap. It's a luxury trap for the OP, reasons they stated. They won't / can't leave and would be silly to do so. So there's no mobility in it. For most of us who aren't well off, it's just a non-luxury down at heal difficult to endure trap.

I genuinely don't mean this as a cheeky dig, I'm interested to know where I've gone wrong in my own thinking? Why am I paying a high rent or extortionate mortgage when I could do this instead??

This. Me too, why are we working so hard if we can do this instead. Where do I sign up??

I have an assured (life long) tenancy, as long as I don't breach my tenancy and get evicted. I'm very grateful for it as I have a disability and also I'm a single person with no family and no partner (ie no real meaningful support), my life is already very difficult and my flat comes with difficulties inherent to living in social housing, so why would you want me to live in a state of terror that I'd be homeless in a few years?

Often now the housing associations offer periodical renewable tenancies - these are always renewed unless there's been a change in circumstances, ie tenant is under occupying as other tenants have moved out or passed away. I don't know if the review takes into account finances. It's more about whether there's been any difficulties such as ASB or non payment of rent.

You can't do it. You would need to meet the criteria set out by your local authority in order to apply for the social housing register and you've have to meet Priority Need.

If you're fairly healthy and have paid employment, there is no way you'd pass the 'Priority Need' hurdle. You could try though, each local authority must have their housing allocations policy published online and their application process published online. This can often be done online too. They reject the vast majority of applicants as things have never been worse.

Because it’s a set rent is my understanding. My parent is on an extremely low income and pays £350 a month in rent for their social housing. For the same area (but non council estate part of the town) my rent is £1800 a month just to give you an idea and my property is smaller, but I would NEVER take social housing from people who actually need it. My parent needs it and could never afford the rent we pay. Her home is lovely tho! I don’t understand the comments about ‘well you wouldn’t want to live on a council estate’ ummm most of us don’t get the choice to be cheeky fuckers like OP if we can afford to rent elsewhere. Oh to only pay 10% must be delightful! They should raise rent if your parent moved in too.

I mean, I get why you'd stay for sure.
The system doesn't seem fair though.

I was on the housing list, desperate for a place. I'm a single mother, me and my baby shared a single room in a house for 18 months and nothing came up during that time in my area and I can't afford to rent or buy a house locally.
I gave up waiting and moved to a small flat which costs about 70% of my monthly wage.

It's sad to think there could be homes near me that would be perfect for me and my young child but are instead being taken up by people on such a high wage they could comfortably afford other options.

Personally, I'd rather my tax dollars go to ameliorating life for hardworking people like OP and her family, instead of constantly rewarding imprudent, toxic people who keep popping out more offspring than they can afford to rear.

Sensible workers, not irresponsible moochers, should benefit from our social programs.

This is a really good point!

If OP is on a higher income they are probably paying in a goodly amount of taxes compared to a household in the situation you describe. Why shouldn't they benefit from the programs they support??

@LaurieStrode child benefit stops at three children or something

I think it's maybe that people tend to judge because you could afford to rent somewhere more expensive, whilst there will be people that can't afford private rent, but have to anyway.
But the truth is, you aren't Margaret thatcher, you aren't the person who changed the way the government and successive governments have treated the countries access needs to affordable housing.
You are just one of the people lucky enough that you have a stable tenancy at an affordable rate.
You'd be stupid to destroy the relative comfort you do have to pay 3x on the open market when you can stay where you are. You have to think of your own family first.

I haven't read the whole thread, but why are you in social housing ? We have a mortgage and are struggling every month:

Meh. Maybe that big family should have used contraception. No one forced them to have umpteen kids. Why should their imprudence be rewarded???

Aren't you just taking advantage of the system? All the hard working people who save for a mortage have to pay a lot a month and you pay next to nothing? I suppose you live in quite a dire area though

you are obviously not doing anything wrong legally. Morally its questionable - effectively the state is subsidising your life style.
I understand (and I grew up in a council house) that a council house is your home and you shouldn't be kicked out but the lifetime tenancy should be a right to live there not a right to live there at subsidised rents. If you paid market rent for the property that should go to the council and help them fund people who need it. Means testing is not a dirty word.