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.

You appear to be suggesting that if single mums specifically want to move in with a partner they have to move out of their house and in with the partner, thereby putting themselves and their children in a far more vulnerable position than staying in a house where their name is on the tenancy.

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.

Just young single mums? Not older mums? Or mums in relationships? Or women without children? Or young single dads? Or any men? Just young single mums.

I don't understand how you can judge someone elses consciences with these views

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.

And the best way to stop this? Giving single mothers permanent tenancies so that if they end up in an abusive relationship they have the right to stay and get the man to leave. Exactly what you seem to be advocating against.

Off topic: Regarding social housing and people wanting to live together etc, in some regards (many in fact) social housing is a 'trap' - by which I mean compared to countries where average people have decent sized low priced good quality long term rentals (such as, I believe, Germany).

Once being allocated a 'home for life' as a single mother, you'd be very hard pushed to want to jeopardise that and move a bloke in. Many HAs and councils won't let a 'vulnerable' woman (and you have to be vulnerable to get housed nowadays) to let a bloke move in or go on the tenancy - rightly so IMO. However, this creates bizarre situations of tenancy fraud and benefit fraud and all kinds of complex scenarios.

Also as a single person with no children, I feel that possibly my mental health and physical health would be better served in a different location but losing my lovely social housing flat (it's nothing fancy but it's a new build and I've never lived in such loveliness before - ie no damp, no rotten window frames, no mold, no unsafe front door, no freezing cold).

What I'm trying to say is in some regards getting a social housing flat feels like winning the lottery when you come from homelessness, and then you get a bit clingy onto the flat itself and this feels trapping as you're too frightened to leave. Many people in social housing say this, not just me.

@LittleMissSunshiner 'many Ha and councils won't let a vulnerable women (and you have to be vulnerable to get a house nowadays) to let a bloke move in or go on the tenancy....

With all due respect I don't think any of that is true.

This is completely untrue….my DDs partner moved in and added his name to the tenancy…..he earns vastly more than her….and even when she was single she was never ‘vulnerable’

I doubt the ones on here showing faux concern to young single mums would want a change to benefit rules so things like this dont happen.

From the thread i linked. This was posted by LangClegsInSpace

If you can meet your own housing costs and bills without relying on the state then you have the luxury of forming relationships gradually. You can take your time building trust, you can sleep together as many or few nights as you please, and nobody counts, and you can keep both properties so you have your own home to go back to if it all goes horribly wrong. You can move in together, part or full time, and keep some or all of your finances separate, for a while or permanently. You can take 6 months or 20 years to fully share everything. You can go at the pace of your mutual trust and it's no-one else's business.

Women on benefits are not afforded any of those luxuries. You are either single or in a couple and there is no inbetween. If you are in a couple then you must share your home and all of your finances straight away. If you are single then you must share nothing. Any relationship grey area that normal people enjoy will get you investigated and may result in loss of income, including your rent, and so your home.

Women on benefits are normal women and so have the same relationship aspirations as everyone else but they are in a much more risky and precarious position because the benefit system forces them at an early stage into an all or nothing situation with any potential partner.

Then how did she get housed in the first place?

Surely by being a single pregnant homeless woman (or ditto with a young child) which is a state of vulnerability.

It's very high risk for any woman to add the name of a man to her sole tenancy IMO, many people feel the same way and many councils and HAs have strategies for this to safeguard vulnerable women and children.

@LittleMissSunshiner policies vary from LA to LA and can vary between HAs within the same LA. As I said up thread the only requirement the HA I rent from has is that you are eligible to live in the UK and you can pass an affordability test.

I was on their waiting list for two weeks. I wasn't at risk of eviction, I wasn't homeless or overcrowded. I wasn't unemployed or getting housing benefits. I was just sick of dealing with shady LLs and wanted a bigger house. We are technically under-occupied by one room in this house as my daughters should be sharing a room.

The shortage of social housing is not a national issue. It's a SE and big city issue. A lot of northern towns have plenty of social housing, although I am not sure how that has been affected by the "affordable" new builds going up in my town. The prices range between £250,000 and £1.5/2 million. The average household income is £35k p/a in my area so these houses are clearly not being built for locals.

Lots of people really need to educate themselves on social housing and eligibility. Everyone and anyone can go on a list for social housing. I received a property after 10 years, the only stipulation was that I had to be employed. That was it. I was in the 'adequately housed' band, hence it taking 10 years. New build house, assured tenancy. My income, marital status was not a consideration, apart from being able to demonstrate affordability. Those moaning should get themselves on the lists. Or maybe do some research!

@LittleMissSunshiner
Then how did she get housed in the first place?
SH is for all not just vulnerable and unemployed, honestly, educate yourself.

This! My friend and her partner and their 2 kids got a house quite quickly. Both employed and not vulnerable.

I have never heard of this. I thought there was a social housing crisis in every area.

I originally come from up north and there's a social housing crisis there too in the Tory Stronghold area I was raised as everyone bought their council homes and none were built. So they're in a far worse state.

But it's good to know where these other pockets of social housing exist that are accessible to the many with no restrictions - do you mind me asking please what area?

You would need to have 'Local Area Connection' too not just the right to reside in UK, I'm guessing? I'm asking for myself here as I'd like to get out of London

It is in most areas I know of. So I'm shocked to hear this. I used to help people with their housing cases and (I live in Lon but also previously up north) and I've honestly never heard of any place where you don't have to have 'Priority Need' and a long term Local Area Connection. I'm speaking as to within the last 15 years here when the rules changed.

If it's this easy to get a social housing place then it is not true that there's a housing crisis so what are we all talking about?

There's definitely no way in London anyone can just go on the register - you get filtered off it unless you meet the very high levels of criteria.

@LittleMissSunshiner The HA I am with are called Thirteen Group, they cover Teesside and Durham. You don't need a connection to the local area. You can find their requirements online. You literally only need to be able to afford the property and be able to live in the UK. You can be David and Victoria Beckham and you can still join their waiting list. Clearly, you'd be at the bottom but when I was on it around 6 years ago I was also at the bottom of the list, and like I said, I waited 2 weeks and was offered the first house I bid on.

That's outrageous as they're clearly able to pay rent or a mortgage so they're taking social housing from a disadvantaged family. Unless this is in an area where there's no-one else waiting and no housing problems and a lot of social housing? Maybe, but I've never heard of this before so I'm curious.

In my borough, they would not even be allowed on the bidding register.

If you are in a position to buy there are some actually affordable new builds owned by Thirteen Group that are being sold on a rent-to-buy basis. I believe they start at around £120k for a small 2-bed property, which is still not in line with house prices elsewhere in the town (we recently sold DH's 3-bed property for £70k) but is a lot more attainable than a £2 million mini mansion.

How do you know that they can afford private rent or a mortgage? You are aware that working people are also claiming UC top ups as the wages are low, yes? Or are you implying that no-body who is working should be eligible for SH?

There will be people in much greater need than you, with much lower incomes, who are in temporary accommodation because people like you are occupying properties which are meant for the needy. You know this.

They are not solely 'for the needy' lots of misunderstanding here about SH. Do some research. Sounds like all of Mumsnet think occupants of SH are vulnerable and on benefits. That is simply not the case. You're given an assured tenancy so that it is your home for the duration, it doesn't have conditions upon it.
Anger would be better aimed at the current government and mismanagement which has meant private rents have become ridiculous! If landlords charged fair rent then there would be no issue. It's ridiculous to say op should go buy a house if she can afford it.

I'm curious to know more please?

I (thought I) know a lot about Social Housing as I've helped many people fight their housing cases - ones that are administrated through Local Authority bid systems as I can check their published rules which are generally pretty much the same everywhere with only minor differences.

But obv I don't know about every single city and also not much about areas out of main cities and remote areas, or wales and scotland, this is true.

Also there are housing co-ops, charities, and HAs who do not allocate their homes via the housing bid system and sit outside of it (these are rare now but certainly exist).

There are different types of Housing Association tenancies. Many of these are not strictly called 'social housing', they're not administrated via the local authority bid system, but I suppose one could just about edge them under that umbrella - for example 'key worker housing' (where I live this is for anyone or couple with a maximum combined salary of £90k and the flat is rented at nearer to but less than market rental value) - goes without saying you need to be a key worker with a local area connection. I wouldn't imagine there's too much of a wait for a key worker flat even in C Lon as I see the ones where I live advertised now and then. Some people think they're a rip off, I guess they're better than being at the mercy of the private letting market.

Then there's shared ownership / part-buy schemes - again these are only offered to people with local area connection, a salary below £90k combined and the tenant can then buy percentages of the value of the flat and step this up in something called 'staircasing'. A lot of people also think this is a bit of a rip off, I think they are too compared to buying a property it's probably not worth it IMO as the rents, mortgage payments, and services charges are high for what you get.

I've honestly never heard of any area where someone can approach the local authority and say 'I'd like a flat please, I need somewhere to live' and be admitted on to the housing register without having 'priority need' (some form of vulnerability), local area connection, to prove that they have no alternative and are legally without a home / about to be evicted, do not have above 'x' savings, and cannot afford to find their own rental accomm. That's the test of it for most boroughs now and has been since the rules changed approx 15 years ago.

I would really like to know of areas and situations where this isn't the case for if I'm advising someone or even for my own personal knowledge.

I had to 'bid'. I was placed in the adequately housed band and bid on those I was eligible for. The only stipulation was being employed. I also know of a single man, same banding, he was allocated a house through the same HA and bidding system.
I know of people who own properties (plural) but are still on the list as you never know what might happen. I am on the list in case I have a need down the line (I'd be very low down on the list) but my point is that it's not just for the needy and find it quite irritating that people don't seem to understand that and then pass judgement on the Op.

No, I'm just commenting on the rules and how it works in the area I live.

Someone single working with an active incoming salary would not be assisted by the Local Authority to apply for social housing, sadly - I don't think this is right, it's horrific - unless they had extra vulnerabilities such as disabilities or being pregnant and were actually homeless. Because they wouldn't meet the test of 'priority need'. In my area they make you have already been served the final notice of eviction before they will define you as 'homeless'. Even then - if they were accepted for help, there is no way they'd get an actual social housing home without a long wait, they'd maybe not be allowed on the register as they'd be guided by the council to find a rental property with a landlord who will accept UC.

In many cities inc London this means the local authority can move you out of area to find that rental property. If you won't / can't / don't take it, they declare you 'intentionally homeless' as they say they've tried to help and you wouldn't take their help. They're gatekeeping the housing register like crazy.

I was housed 2008, as a single homeless vulnerable adult, the rules changed shortly after and in today's standard, I would never be and would have to either find my own rental or take their 'offer' of a private rental somewhere remote. So I'm v grateful for my flat and this is why I try my best to help people but I can only help within the parameter of the rules and people's legal rights.

Ah this is the type of Housing Association accommodation I was speaking as to above. There are some HA properties that are only for working people. Generally speaking this is a scheme come up between the local authorities and HAs to provide decent standard housing for working people at slightly better (or in London a LOT better) cost than the free market rental prices.

However, strictly speaking, I personally wouldn't call that type of housing 'social housing' as it's not part of the Local Authority social housing bid system. It's a stand alone system by the HA that is for working people to get below market rental homes.

In my estate, there's a mixture of all types of tenancies for social housing / affordable rent for working people / keyworkers tenancies / shared ownership. All managed by the same HA and managing the social housing tenancies on behalf of the Local Authority (via the bid system). Only the social housing tenancies have to come via the bid system.

The people who live in the non social housing flats wouldn't want to be called a social housing tenant, they'd be pretty upset about that.

@LittleMissSunshiner
I feel you struggle with comprehension, not in your borough not everywhere has a housing crisis, you do know that??

There is just one main HA who manage all properties. People who apply go in different groups according to need. Where I live is a mixture of shared ownership, owned outright, and rented. Some people who live here will be banded higher - I know of one refugee family down the road who were successful and assume they were in a higher band So it's a mix. All pay the same rent and service charge if the same size.

Actually no I didn't. There's a housing crisis all over the UK. I help people with their housing cases who live all over the place. The rules that Local Authorities insert into their bid system gatekeeping is actually led by Central Govt policy so it follows changes in nationwide legislation not just 'local rules'.

I already said I don't know about remote areas and also places like Wales / Scotland.

Homeless families and refugees are moved into social housing homes in areas all over the country where they come available. Vulnerable families are moved out of area out of their home cities in cross borough agreements because things are so desperate - they lose their school places, social workers, healthcare, and family connection.

So I am repeatedly asking you WHERE are the locations that you're speaking as to and you're not answering?

I am not asking to be combative, I am asking as this info would be helpful to know. I help people who can't get assistance from a lawyer or from a community law centre, often because they're just being repeatedly fobbed off. Any info is helpful to know.