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.

My family member is in a 3 bed ha house. Beautiful sought after area. On her own since parent died and wants to down size. Has been on the list for a few years now and nothing yet. I don't understand it.

I've just recently bought my own ha property on rtb scheme as it was ending in my area so was last chance to buy. The way I see it I was staying here wether I bought it or not so no difference to me. Got a good discount too.

That is not how it works though. So for now, OP is doing nothing wrong.

OP is doing nothing wrong.

Nothing legally wrong. But what OP is doing is all kinds of wrong, morally.

She just seems a doughnut though. Hope she gets moved along to a shit house

Do you not realise that’s not how permanent housing works right? You don’t get ‘moved along’.

There's some really sick people on this thread.

I think you must be jealous or something. But do you not realise that in order to qualify for social housing, you have to be in a dreadful situation and it's legally tested by the local authority. However, once you've got a lifelong tenancy, it's yours to flourish from within -or- not, just be safe.

I live in social housing, no part of my life is 'tax payer funded' that's an absolute myth and lie. My rent is fairly high, my HA is a profit making organisation with fat cat salaries and shareholders. I was allocated here by my local authority when I was alone, homeless, disabled, extremely unwell, in and out of hospital care, had no money no job no savings, nothing. My life situation has been difficult as I wasn't raised by normal parents who looked after me and I was harmed and abused and a homeless child - this impacted every area of my life. Despite I have a high IQ and did well at school, my whole life crashed around my ears in infancy. I tried my best to keep on keeping on but M/H problems blight me. I have no partner, no children, no close family to turn to, I barely have any close friends. The place I live is OK but it's social housing so it's beset by 'issues' and ASB / criminal neighbours.

If anyone wants my flat what I say is this - OK you can have it but you have to have my entire life history, my state of mind and mental health problems and my life situation and disabilities. See how much you'd want my flat then.

People who are jealous of social housing tenants want to give their head a wobble. You're jealous of people who've had to go through living hell ? Tax payers are not paying in any way for social housing.

If you think you may be eligible for social housing, you have a right to view your local council's 'eligibility policy' and 'allocations policy' and sign up online to join the housing register. You will need to meet stringent criteria to a legal standard and probably need a legal advocate. They're not going to take you if you're employed, on a decent salary, and already housed unless you have a very exceptional high level disability need that can't be met.

For people with jobs or decent income you can still look at shared ownership schemes or key worker schemes run by local authorities and HAs. There are also over 55 schemes for the older people.

And morals are subjective... so a bit shit to judge OP on that.

Apart from the fact that this isn't how something like this works, this statement doesn't exactly put you on the moral high ground here!

Some proper ignorance on this thread now🙄
op will have option to remain in her home until she dies if she chooses….that’s what a lifetime tenancy is

Not according to my morals….absolutely fine in my book..this is how social housing works….a home for life

Lots of people on here explaining that the OP is paying rent and that clearly they are eligible even though they have said they have a healthy income and are able to put money aside but I don't understand how someone like this poster is not eligible, in terms of their income and their situation. This is where it seems grossly unfair

Well as ive explained my DH is also disabled and we really need a bungalow but im not blaming those already living in them because they arent the problem

@JenniferBooth but if it's based on eligibility, and the OP is no longer in the situation they were in when they applied, is that not unfair? Or a flaw in the system?

I dont have the wahh wahh its so unfair mentality particularly as a lot of it is the fault of developers.

I cant help wondering if the ones blaming tenants have a vested interest in keeping the status quo

My HA bungalow was actually purpose built for a disabled person. When I was given it I was told that it would be temporary as I was not really eligible for it but it was the only 2 bed they had at the time (I had young DD at the time). Fair enough, I thought, that's fine by me. I'm still here 24 years later (I was told around 10 years ago that I could now consider it a permanent home), as not 1 single disabled person wanted it. Why? because it's on the very edge of the village at the bottom of a very steep hill. There are no bus services and the village shop, community centre, school etc are all located about a mile away at the top of said hill. I have no idea what was in the planners mind all those years ago when they decided that building a disabled unit as far away from anywhere accessible as it's possible to get here was a good idea.
I feel no guilt in staying here for as long as I want as even those for whom the place was intended don't want it.

There is not a 'flaw' in the system. A history lesson:

Firstly the system being referred to is the old skool system - someone eligible could approach their local authority and be allocated a social housing home (either council or HA) on an 'Assured Tenancy' - which effectively means for life as long as you pay your rent and don't breach the terms of the tenancy. That's going back to the very first beginnings of social housing.

By the 1980s the Tories / M Thatcher had the crappest idea ever of selling people their council homes for next to nothing on vast discounts and not building any new social housing whatsoever. That's the point where the system went bust. This was IMO a betrayal of every single UK resident and tax payer. Social housing tenants of all political persuasions snapped up their dirt cheap homes. Many re-sold them as soon as possible for vast profits. This took many working class people into the ranks of the middle class - not only home owners but home owners making a vast swift profit on the sale of their home. This created 'gentrification' in areas that had previously been staunchly working class and filled with social housing tenants - a form of 'gerrymandering' to boot. Social housing has never recovered from this.

In recent history, the government and local authorities have sought to tackle the homelessness crisis by addressing unfairness in social housing - the first thing they did was seek to move 'under-occupiers' into appropriate sized homes and free up family sized houses for homeless families. They had a carrot and stick approach. The 'stick' was bedroom tax for excess unoccupied rooms. This is a worthy plan IMO but has failed on various grounds - the 'cut off' exemption age was very low, something like 62 years old. So most chronic under-occupiers are in fact older than that. Think little old ladies living in suburban five bed homes. There were also exemptions for people with any household member who had a disability (of which many did). The bedroom tax ended up being most punitive to younger people living in 2 bed flats that they had originally been eligible for.

Also in very recent history local authorities have sold off swathes of land to developers and insisted on being given part of the new builds for social housing - under management of HAs. This is at least something but the social housing aspect has now mostly collapsed in favour of 'key-worker homes' or 'affordable homes' which are literally not affordable.

Currently, HA tenancies are often granted on a 'renewable' system with reviews put in place. Usually every 2 - 5 years. This is to check that the tenant still has the same room need. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't include anything to do with work status or salary.

In the gentrified area I live, there's a mixture of social housing homes / key worker homes / shared ownership homes built in the last 10 years. I live in a staunchly socialist Labour stronghold borough.

All of the recent latest new developments (still going up within only a few feet away) are private residencies only and a flat the same size as mine is approx £1.5m. Also some new developments are furnished rentals only and are approx £4,000pcm for flat the same size as mine. None of these are going to social housing in any form but a tiny percentage are called 'affordable housing'. I'm baffled as to the label affordable housing as I already said it is not in any way affordable. I guess what they mean is it's slightly cheaper than the housing targeted for millionaires?

In 'old skool' social housing you are going to find little old ladies under-occupying massive houses. You are going to find the rich, famous, wealthy, and well off occupying homes they were given in the past. You are going to find people buying up their council houses for ludicrous discounts (altho they've been capped thank god there was a point where it was up to 95% discount). That's just how it is.

The parameters of 'unfairness' in social housing are nothing, a drop in the ocean, compared to the madness of commercial developments of millionaire apartments sitting 70%-100% empty and if anyone wants to take up arms and take up hate for anyone, I'd start directing in the direction of your local authority for giving away land masses hand over fist to these horrific development companies. One day homeless people will be living in these places, it stands to reason the government will have to 'go there' at some point.

I’ve since gained qualifications, changed jobs, and my partner has moved in. I don’t agree that I should surrender the tenancy because of these changed circumstances. I don’t see why I should feel selfish or shame either
So your eligibility was based on you being a single parent and really needing social housing at the time.

How do you feel that many single parents in your situation now can't access the same benefits because, in part, people like you who stay in the property that they don't actually need anymore.

A number of these women will stay in abusive relationships because they can't move, children growing witnessing violence but it's ok, you've got plenty of disposable income.

Ultimately, I just cannot get why the government offers permanent right to occupy to young single mums who are very likely to be in a committed relationship and wanting to move in together. That should not be allowed.

Ultimately, you either live with your conscience or your disposable income.

Very easy to live with both

“So your eligibility was based on you being a single parent and really needing social housing at the time.”

Yes, I was a single parent when I was housed.

“How do you feel that many single parents in your situation now can't access the same benefits because, in part, people like you who stay in the property that they don't actually need anymore.”

I still need the property to live in and all rooms fully occupied.

“A number of these women will stay in abusive relationships because they can't move, children growing witnessing violence but it's ok, you've got plenty of disposable income.”

What’s changed is social housing being sold off as right-to-buy and more people regarding houses as investments not homes. Why isn’t the outrage directed towards those who chose to benefit from them? At least my home will go back into the social housing pool at sone point in the future, for others to benefit from… unless of course some other scheme is brought to prevent that happening.

“Ultimately, I just cannot get why the government offers permanent right to occupy to young single mums who are very likely to be in a committed relationship and wanting to move in together. That should not be allowed.”

I wasn’t with my current partner when I secured the house. Surely you’re not suggesting that single parents should give up social housing when they form long-term relationships? Or perhaps you are.

“Ultimately, you either live with your conscience or your disposable income.”
I indeed live easily with both.

I think this has been an interesting thread and I have no more to add to what’s already been said. My appreciation and thanks to all who had the patience, experience and understanding to explain and try educate on the policies, practices, tropes and politics of social housing.

I do empathise with posters who have shared their personal situations. I am genuinely sorry to hear what others have and are going through.

Good job deflecting (again) from your own shitty behaviour, OP.

Our taxes are already extortionate and I would be adamantly against paying more, raising taxes is a stupid answer, using the money properly is a better one.

You’re not wrong to live how and where you’re living, but equally I don’t feel it’s something to celebrate. Not sure I could “celebrate” myself being lucky enough to be in that position, it’s not like you’ve done anything t to be in that position except be in the right place at the right time, but it’s not your fault the social housing system is fucked.

Why should it matter what people use the rooms for, it's their house? Nobody wants to live in a shoebox and everyone could use extra space. If you use a room as a kid's bedroom and I use it as a gym, what's the problem?

They should not be allowed a relationship? There is a word for someone who thinks they own someone else and its not a very nice one. You wanting to control what someone does is not that different from a partner trying to control her.

Puts me in mind of this thread.......https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4794878-first-ever-housing-only-for-women?page=3

You're not doing anything wrong or illegal. You qualified for it when you did, you bettered your circumstances since and now you have more disposable income. Good for you. The house is yours for life, if you aren't bothered with buying and happy to continue renting then keep it for life, that's your prerogative. Money is for having fun and enjoying life, not paying rent. Anybody here saying that they would feel bad and ashamed and blah blah blah, would ALL keep the house and their family secure given the same option, nobody would willingly suffer so someone else can benefit bc the system is broken and doesn't work the way it should.