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.

Thanks for all the responses, even the less kind ones. I do find it interesting to hear people’s attitudes to who deserves social housing.

I was on the waiting list for a long time before being housed. Interestingly, the affordability check at the time was to ensure I could afford the rent, and not a check that I couldn’t afford private rent, if you see what I mean.

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.

Affordable housing is not affordable, and there’s not enough social housing.

I agree that I wouldn’t qualify with my current circumstances, but that doesn’t mean I’ve played the system. If I’d not improved my lot, people would seemingly be fine with that. Strange.

OP - maybe if you explained why you were given a lifetime tenancy that would make things clearer.

Does your partner get a lifetime tenancy too?

That's what I thought too!

I think it's great and would do the same if possible.

We can't all live in social housing as it is subsidised. Somebody is paying somewhere along the line be it the government or the local authority and there isn't enough budget to build and maintain the supply that would be needed. I'm assuming your financial circumstances have improved since your were assessed as eligible so you are effectively quids in now. I'm sure lots of other people are too. As are the households who's mortgages are small but the value of their has massively increased. Its all just luck and timing.

Yup this! The OP would have to have rocks in her head to give up a tenancy for life with a social housing landlord with cheap-as-chips rent. No-one with a scrap of common sense would.

Of course people in social housing are better off financially than people renting the same sort of house privately for 3-4X more, but if they gave it up (like the 'patron saints of the poor and needy,' and the social justice warriors suggest,) they would be in the position of the 'poor and needy' person who has taken their tenancy!

Why the F would anyone willingly take themselves out of a secure tenancy (for life) with a cheap rent - to be in an insecure tenancy, in a home that is probably substandard, and with rent 3-4X more? Yes, the people in social housing have possibly £500-800+ a month extra spare income compared to private let folk (due to cheap rent.) But if they gave up their social housing tenancy, they would not have the surplus! It's the cheap rent causing the surplus income that enables them to lead a decent life, and not be penny pinching/struggling!

I can't believe some people cannot grasp this basic concept.

Also, in my experience, the vast VAST majority of people who have ever qualified for social housing will never be absolutely loaded. They will just be comfortable - or just getting by.

Yeah. I don't think you'd do that somehow. You'd stay put - in your cosy cheap social housing rental, with all the repairs and maintenance done, and rent paid if you become out of work. Everyone would.

Because if you hadn’t improved your lot then you would still need the house wouldn’t you? You seem quite irritated that people aren’t applauding you for hanging on to a social house you no longer need in full knowledge that babies and toddlers are sleeping in HMOs and hostels tonight because they have nowhere else to go. You asked and you’re getting honest answers.

No special circumstances for the lifetime tenancy, it’s just what came with the property.

@honeysuckleweeks yes if she puts him on the tenancy agreement i believe. You are allowed to do that once where I live... add one person.
My neighbour is in her nineties and she was wasn't on her tenancy when her husband died. They allowed her to stay but that won't be the Same for her son in his seventies. They have already said he will be rehoused when she dies as it's a house.
I do think if you are in big council properties and your Children leave you should be rehoused. Obviously they will have to build more though and different sizes.

I think you should do what suits you and your family. If you are happy with your lot in life and it makes you happy don’t worry about what other people think. Private renting is so tenuous why risk the upheaval you are not breaking the law.

I’m in emergency accommodation with my children have been for two years the wait for a 3 bed in my city if for 5 years I think if you have children and the rooms are all used as they should it’s fine I would want to work a successful job one day.

it’s when you get a middle class single occupant or couple is a beautiful 3/4 bed council house that’s there’s a issue

i

Assuming you were allocated the property fairly and squarely yoir doing nothing wrong.
IMHO more should be done about social housing fraud which I believe is rife in London (and probably in other areas as well) there would be far more social housing available if that was properly sorted out

I don't understand the system so don't see why you are allowed to live in a house when you don't need to effectively still be on benefits. It seems like the equivalent of keeping your blue badge just so that you can keep parking in a disabled spot when you have healed yourself. I feel that you are morally wrong and surprised that everyone agrees with you so please explain what I am missing. Just because the system allows it doesn't make it right.

Social housing isn't subsidised, it just has affordable rent levels and the amount by which the rent can be increased is determined and/or capped by the government. Often, social housing properties are not desirable if you can afford to privately rent or buy (other than the low rent) as they aren't usually high spec iyswim.

Personally I feel you should only get discounted rent if you're struggling. Being high earners and profiting from cheap rent whilst there's families in hotel rooms is wrong. If you want a secure tenancy, I'm all for that, but you should be paying for that tenancy in line with your earnings

Social housing should be for everyone but at the moment during a housing crisis with many families living in temporary accommodation who can't afford private rents, I do think it is selfish to take up social housing when you can afford to either buy or rent privately.

“Please validate the morally bankrupt decision I have made”

Collectively, we (anyone paying tax) is paying your rent and you’re asking us if we are okay with that.

What has this country come to.

I’m not irritated at all.

I do still need the house clearly, otherwise where would I live. I do however accept that my circumstances today wouldn’t qualify to go on the list.

I’ve no problem with honest answers; that’s what I asked for and expected.

Brilliant post.

No. Social housing is not about cheaper rent and less outgoings. It's about providing housing for people who otherwise couldn't afford it because it's subsidised. People who could easily afford private rental or a mortgage should not be allowed to continue to block opportunities for less fortunate people.

Why should people struggle in substandard BnBs so you can put aside money for your children and only pay 10% of your income to your property costs.

I don't agree with lifetime tenancies. It doesn't allow for changes in circumstances. There will never be enough social housing. It could never be available for everyone, so it should be reserved for those most in need. How would you have felt when you really needed social housing if none had been available because they were all being occupied by people like you.

Yep, I agree

You may have been given a lifetime tenancy, but it's good you keep savings as nothing is a given. The government could introduce a clever new tax that forces you to give it up. Or change the rules all together. Like the bedroom tax or raising the pension age. If they identify enough people like you, they are likely to do that.

The LA are not subsidising her rent. The private rental market is fleecing its tenants.

Housing should never be seen as a luxury. It should absolutely be something government steps in to provide.