The truth about immigrants and housing shortage

[Strawbal]

What is the truth? Is the country housing immigrants at the cost of our own housing crisis?

I'm bombarded with many differing viewpoints (on this and many issues) and I can’t sort the wheat from the chaff

Nothing wrong with immigrants, everything wrong with illegal immigrants.

Suddenly we can provide thousands of people with hotel rooms, phones, food and shelter, but not before, when British citizens were homeless, sleeping on the streets, starving. We STILL don’t house britains homeless, because their nationality is British, so they come lower than everyone else. We don’t help our own, but will house criminals with no paperwork.

Thanks @Supersimkin7 and for your other helpful post

But why must we continuously build over green land to house immigrants? Once it's gone; it's gone.

The problem is that many already have a roof over their head in their country of origin.

The council accommodation here is their second home. The flat or house in the country of origin is still there, it's either empty or rented out.

It this fair?

From a quick Google search I have found an article dated December 2023 - it's from the Spectator but it has links to the sources of the data, which I have not checked at this stage for reliability. The article says that in London, almost half of social housing is occupied by households that are headed by somebody who wasn’t born in Britain.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-mass-immigration-is-worsening-the-housing-crisis/

@Pandasandtigers I'm not sure it’s an immigrant v homeless issue, based on my experience of the homeless.

Well given the numbers that arrived who need a place to stay then yes of course it impacts housing along with many other things. That’s really just obvious isn’t it. Rightly or wrongly how can it not?

There has been failures in housing policy by successive governments (both Tory and Labour) for 30 years.

The right to buy was introduced 30 odd years ago but no policy was put in place to backfill those social homes that were bought.

There has generally been a lack of houses built to keep up with demand. The houses that are being built are of poor quality, unsuitable land and tend to be 4/5 bed houses rather than 2/3 bed starter homes.

Generally in the UK we have less flats and it’s less socially acceptable to own a flat. So other countries can take up less housing space and accommodate more people because people enjoy living in flats.

A number of government policies have artificially inflated the housing market such as the stamp duty relief during the pandemic and help to buy scheme.

People are less likely to live where they grew up and marry/cohabit later in life. So in the 80s someone was more likely to stay at home until they met a partner whereas now they are more likely to move away and need to rent somewhere by themselves until they meet a partner. Therefore, we need more housing for those people.

We have a lot of second properties and holiday homes. Enough homes haven’t been built to accommodate the holiday homes being taken out of circulation for permanent housing.

Immigration is a very small piece of the overall problem that has been growing for 30-40 years.

Councils are buying newly built homes directly from developers at cost price, specifically for refugees.
There is no equivalent funding for the British children spending entire childhoods in overcrowded, rodent infested temporary accommodation miles away from their schools and community links
https://www.standard.co.uk/homesandproperty/property-news/new-flats-afghan-refugees-camden-council-b1065173.html

But how will people react if they're told they now have to squeeze into a flat so we can fit in more immigrants? Most of us grew up expecting to have a house and private garden to raise our families in, just because it's perfectly possible to do so in less space doesn't mean people are going to be happy about it. Especially if they're not convinced by the merit of mass immigration. And where does it end? Tower blocks from coast to coast? At some point we are going to have to accept there is a limit to the population the country can support and work to build a society that can be sustained with the people already here.

The UK is overcrowded, I really think it's as simple as that. Most countries have reached or are reaching a point where the population is unsustainable. We can't keep building forever, we need farmland, we need open spaces for nature. Some land is really not suitable for building.
In respect of social housing if a family who have been granted asylum apply on the housing register then their application will be in the highest band and they will be housed. It's really that simple. Which is why many others get angry because they see people who are clearly not from the UK getting housed, when they have to wait.
It's not rocket science, more people anywhere means more homes are required. What is done about it will depend on your politics.

It is not just about building new homes though? It is school places, doctor appointments, translators in hospitals, ESL teachers in schools, child allowance, benefits etc. Rightly or wrongly people are blaming it on the amount of people in the UK. KS saying he is going to give amnesty to the thousands of asylum seekers already here has not helped.

The right to buy was introduced 30 odd years ago but no policy was put in place to backfill those social homes that were bought.

The right to buy was brought in during the eighties. The lack of new housing was deliberate. Councils were not allowed to build new council housing as the private rental market and housing associations were going to come along and provide better housing at lower cost to the renters. I think that the councils were even blocked from using the funds they amassed from sales in case they tried to spend it on social housing.

It took a while for governments to accepting wasn't working and were allowed to build some more.

There is data on social housing by ethnicity.

www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/social-housing/social-housing-lettings/latest/

In Northumberland, for example, there are 14,000 people on the council housing list, of whom 6000 are adequately housed (ie have no real reason to be on the list). They built 1,800 houses for social renting and shared ownership over the last 5 years.

www.hexham-courant.co.uk/news/24472231.14-000-residents-northumberland-council-housing-waiting-list/

Until recently council houses were not seen as only for the homeless and needy. Postwar the plan was that they would allow families to have stable housing and pay a reasonable rent and that they would be self funding. Families were expected to rent and stay there (hence the lifetime plus one tenancies).

More and more, because fewer are available (mostly due to right to buy) the council makes the decision that the most needy people get them, and for short term tenancies. So you tell that council your needs (medical, etc) and they put you in a band.

So there is a perception that they are "for" the homeless and those in distress and need.

But the vast majority of council houses are still occupied by people who have either lifetime or lifetime plus one tenancies.

See for example this article:

www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/council-to-reintroduce-lifetime-tenancies-after-changing-political-party-78269

I may have fucked up here. What I meant to answer OP I tried researching to ‘fact check’ and to counter argue when racists said about all the forreeinggers taking up the council houses. I was trying to reply to OP saying that I tried, and failed. I could only find ethnicity which doesn’t help answer OP or my own question. As in, councils do breakdown by ethnicity but not nationality.

I’m very interested in sociology and the idea of space and place. Why do certain nationalities settled in some areas of the city? Is it because they want to be surrounded by others from the same community or is it because they cannot find landlords to rent to them in the ‘nicer’ parts of town.

I work with lots of big developers house builders, lots of them at least in the south, sell off plan outside of the UK mainly to Hong Kong, Singapore etc. They thrn are rented back to British people once constructed or in times of price rises are left empty.

It is not just about building new homes though? It is school places, doctor appointments, translators in hospitals, ESL teachers in schools, child allowance, benefits etc. Rightly or wrongly people are blaming it on the amount of people in the UK

I think that’s the crux of it - is it right or wrong to blame the pressure on all services etc on the amount of people in the uk? Is it the problem, or a contributor, or minimal impact with the real causes lying elsewhere (as with the gov approach to housing over 30 years)

The UK host 1% of refugees with 76% settling in countries neighbouring the one they left and Turkey being the biggest host. Are these issues replicated in all other host countries?

This shows new social housing letting by nationality.

90% British.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/social-housing-lettings-in-england-april-2021-to-march-2022/social-housing-lettings-in-england-tenants-april-2021-to-march-2022#:~:text=Are%20any%20nationalities%20over%2Drepresented,common%20than%20inside%20the%20EEA.

Section 6.4

I suspect it is not possible to get overall figures on nationality and housing unless from the census.

There are so many housing associations and people change nationality (eg my Greek friend got British citizenship by marrying a Brit).

Not mentioned so far is the impact of relationship breakdown.
Very common on these boards, sadly.

But suddenly necessitating a "family" to effectively have 2 homes.
More of an impact than 2nd (holiday type) homes, I'd have thought

You are right it's become so polarised.

As with most political debates there is some truth in both sides but both sides spin the facts to suit their agendas.

1.2 million migrants entered the uk in 2023.
Did we build 1 million new homes (assuming most are single households)?
No.

But but but...

Since right to buy every government has failed to replace the sold off social housing stock. There would be a shortage even with zero immigration.

So the cohort of the population who's parents generation got a council house for life if they needed/wanted it are now stuck in private lets that take over 40% of wages in many cases facing council waiting lists of 20+ years.

If someone seeking asylum is finally approved as a refugee they have to move out of their asylum accommodation which is legally classed as 'unintentional homelessness'. anyone classed as unintentionally homeless goes to the top of the council waiting list. Therefore people do see refugees 'jumping' the housing list above the long term population who are in private lets.

But what is the alternative? Where do newly granted refugee status people live? They won't have been allowed to work whilst their asylum claim was being processed so they are unlikely to be able to rent privately or buy.

I don't know what happens in other countries that don't have social housing??

Where my DM lives they built a row of 4 bed social rented townhouses. Every one was allocated to refugees. It does sting. But the fault is with governments who didn't build more (and people who voted for these governments) not with the families themselves.

I have wondered this many times over the years, why Muslims in particular would not choose to go there, as countries which share their religious and cultural viewpoints. However I don't imagine they would be welcome, and would probably not be allowed to enter at all, as with quite a lot of other countries. We are not supposed to talk about this though, particularly in front of all the whinging liberals who think we should open our borders (that's a joke - they are pretty much wide open already) to anyone who simply wishes to come here.

We have plenty of homes. Sadly a lot of them are in poor condition (no legal requirement for them to be habitable, light touch new build regulation) and expensive (demand fuelled by global asset acquisition drivers largely propelled by a decade and a half of printing money, poor tenancy protections, subsidised borrowing mechanisms).

We could easily build more to replace the outdated stock - only 7% of the UK is built on, so there's space. But housing is a massive wealth driver, at a time when productivity is low. As a country we haven't really invested in anything else for a long time - just been passing the same Victorian terraces between ourselves for increasing amounts of £1000s.

None of this has anything to do with immigration.

They need to plough more resources into social housing fraud as well.Subletting etc
My friend was a social housing officer in London a few years back and it was rife then. I imagine it probably still is, or worse

The truth is there is no link between the 2 things, stop stirring up hate