Keeping a UK Council property for life even though you no longer live in the UK

[Vintlet]

This story has just been released
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyxkeny8x6o
It seems so unfair given the lack of social housing in the uk that the First Lady of Sierra Leone expected to be allowed to keep her London social housing property as a pied a terre. Surely we cannot be expected to house the world. No one in authority would have realised given that she was still paying the rent if she hadn’t boasted about keeping it on a radio interview. I wonder how many people keep and sublet uk council properties when they no longer have a right to keep it.

It doesn't belong to your family though does it? It belongs to the council or HA.

Disgusting level of entitlement. Absolutely vile attitude

Don't worry about it, its not possible!

This.
B&Bs and hostels are the short term.

Why do you think you’re family is entitled to it? for clarity, I don’t mean entitled per the rules but in a moral sense.

Should housing should be help those out in a time of need. Not a blanket entitled to subsidised housing for all for life.

Asking out of genuine curiosity to understand a different perspective.

Of course it's not acceptable. The system is rotten. Folk should absolutely not be given a council house for life. It's madness.

Round here I think pretty much all properties built in the last decade or more are affordable rent, offer limited length tenancies and don't have right to buy. I believe the only homes that have lifetime tenancies and right to buy are really old and inherited the right, so it would be legally difficult and prohibitively expensive to remove. Plus the housing association are often keen to get rid of them anyway as they're old, poorly made and therefore costly to maintain. So once the dwindling stock of old crumbling properties have all been sold off, most all properties will be limited tenancies at near market rates, without any option to purchase. Is that not the same everywhere?

It’s disgusting corruption. Doubly upsetting because she was a destitute 16year old who benefitted from Britain’s generous asylum, and now she’s is married to someone worth millions and living overseas, she still signs up to the UK Electoral Register (illegal) and keeps a council flat (fraudulent and corrupt?)

Her older kids Mohamed and Tide are mid-20s and older so should be earning their own salaries not bludging of their mum’s ill-gotten gains.

If he was teaching (and not a volunteer) he was no longer an asylum seeker who arent permitted to work.

Again noone is given a council flat...he RENTED one

Well that’s just bollocks, isn’t it? Think about it. Look up the rules.

And yes, what @Backedoffhackedoff said.

I don’t think the OP’s story is hanging together in respect of ‘no recourse to public funds’ and council property!

In the news recently in Belfast a girl was evicted. She lived at the house with her grandmother and wasn’t able to keep the tenancy. Not sure of the back sorry but I believe it’s becoming more difficult.

Yep, these stories come up a lot. Followed by outrage about it being their home etc... when it never really was.
There are rules.

Good. If she’s genuinely in need she should be housed. But not in a family house, in a studio or one bed flat.

Nothing to do with the size of the house, and more to do with the fact she would not have had right to succession.
My DM had right to succession on a 3 bed house.. and she lives alone there. Totally within the rules.

She got this impression because lots of people do it- what is skirted over is these properties zre never empty they will be being sublet and providing the first lady of Sierra Leone with an income.
Of course it is not acceptable , it's immoral, corrupt, and although no one has mentioned it illegal- it is stated quite clearly when you enter social housing that you have to inform the council or housing association immediately if the people living at the property change- they will be asked to leave and the housing realocated as only those on the lease are allowed to live there.
You can't be evicted if you are not actually living there- they will have taken her off the lease and reallocated it-no negotiation necessary.

I don’t think you’re asking a relevant question. People often want something without believing they’re entitled to it- they just want it.

I’ll tell you now if I had a Nice social
housing tenancy and it was possible to succeed it to my brother when I moved out I would do it.
Because I want to, not because I feel entitled to. I might even do it with a little guilt, but I’d do it.

however , they key point is no one can move out of their social rented property and succeed it to their brother. So it’s irrelevant

The if your area allow this to happen
In my area you can't pass the property on to a family member any longer, you are not able to put their name on the tenancy without a very good reason. This has lead to some families having to vacate a family home after a death. The have been rehouse swiftly (if they are the offspring of the deceased) but not in the same style of property or in some cases two properties if that is what they have wanted.

It doesn't bother you conscience. That another young person won't benefit like your daughter did?

you're a good example why a tenancy should NOT be allowed to be passed on.

It's so selfish.

He arrived with his Albanian family as asylum seekers. They arrived by train and destroyed their passports on the way over. He was granted asylum and given a council property. He worked here for a number of years before returning to Albania. He passed his tenancy to his son.
Compare this to a young friend of mine who was in care for much of her teens and left school at 15. She was given a council studio flat. She now has a seven year old son and they are still in the studio flat. She is determined to give her son a better life but the housing association has still not rehoused her because the HA claims there are no suitable properties.
I think social housing allocation is not fair. It is perfectly legal to be given a council property and then acquire other owned properties. I have a friend who inherited both her mother’s and her aunts houses when they died. She certainly does not have to relinquish her HA home.
I have just looked up The Kings Cross development. 35% are social housing. I have a young friend who was allocated one or rather his mother was given one. He has lived in it for five years and they have now bought it at a discounted rate. I think the agreement is that tenants have to live in them for 5 years before buying.Those affordable houses will be privately owned before long.
I would love to think that social housing allocation is fair. It is not.

Ah come on, it's not at all because she is black!

Fucking hell, have you no shame.

I know someone who owns outright a property in the north and has social housing in a different county…

She got this impression because lots of people do it- what is skirted over is these properties zre never empty they will be being sublet and providing the first lady of Sierra Leone with an income.

From the article, I believe she was there some of the time, but Sierra Leone was now her primary place of residence. Nothing about sublet. Also possible that one or both of her sons was in the property.

He was granted asylum and given a council property.

But have you missed out several steps where he lived in temporary accommodation, got the right to work, got a job as a teacher and then rented a council property?