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.

Yes, exactly. People in private rent do claim housing benefit because private rents are high. So even working people often need extra to make up the difference. Or they would be homeless.
The problem is. Person A receives a council house originally built to help people have decent, affordable housing and pays a reasonable rent on it. Person A becomes wealthier, is able to save due to having an affordable rent. They buy a house which they then rent at a much higher rent on the private market to person B. Because of the higher rent person B needs housing benefit from the state. That housing benefit goes from the tax payer to the state to person As pocket. If person A had moved out of their council house to their new property l, person B (or someone like them) could have moved into the council house, paid the lower rent and no housing benefit would have been needed.
So person A has profitted from the system by being in the right time and the right place. Person B has lost as they are paying higher rent. The tax payer has lost because they have to pay part of that higher rent.
It might be legal, and make rational business sense for person A to do. But it feels unfair. Like pulling a ladder up. And then people complain about the welfare bill and the implication is person B is the one taking not person A.

They both were, but when one dies it is still classed as being passed to the other.

On behalf of me and my children who were made homeless, have lived in Emergency Accommodation and are now stuck in Temporary Accommodation with no idea when we will ever get our own Council Home, thanks a lot to you and everyone else who is doing this so you could benefit when you needed it and are now blocking the same opportunity for so many others like us.

Shameful behaviour

Ok well I am not classing that as passing on.

If you signed up for a tenancy originally then it’s not passing on when 1 tenant dies.

If you marry you can add a tenant. But you will be reassessed to see if you would be eligible as a pair.

Thats it.

No other tenants added for any reason.

I'm not usually one to wish misfortune on anyone but I sincerely hope this backfires.

They were married, many people aren’t married and may have moved in with a do after the tenancy was signed. Then they’ve lived there 7 years and the tenant/their partner dies.

so now the 3 bed house becomes available as the tenant has died, age isn’t a barrier to asking the other people to apply for their own housing in a one bed flat or retirement flat for over 60s

I know of a woman who came to the UK in the 90s and got a flat near St Paul's Cathedral for life after she cited mental health issues.

I haven't heard about her for a decade but last I heard she was subletting it out for three months of every year via Air BnB so she could travel the world.

Her flat was worth over £1 million in 2016 and I don't think she's done a day's work in her life.

It's terrible this is allowed. The rest of her family hasn't needed or been awarded it. It's people like your family causing people genuinely in need to be raising kids in bedsits/hostels/temporary accommodation.

I dont think people who are no longer in need should be removed from their council homes when they are no longer in need. This would have a negative effect in people wanting to strive for better, also for kids living around them having examples of people working and doing well. But I massively disagree with tenancy passed on. People who have worked hard, bought their homes dont have this luxury. If they need care in old age then there is no home left to pass on. But coucil/social housing tenants can pass their homes on to the next generation if they move in on time. What a way to demotivate people

Edited to add i dont actually blame people like your family for taking advantage of this. I hate the game not the players

If there name isn’t on the tenancy and they aren’t married, they don’t have a claim on the property. Housing office will work hard to get them something more suitable- but yes people do get told the terrible news that they need to vacate that property - it’s harsh but happens

I don’t think that’s the rule everywhere. It took us 6 weeks to clear out my grandads council bungalow 2 years ago.

AFAIK if you were single when you signed the tenancy, you can still add someone else... can be a partner or an adult child. They have to live there for at least a year, and before 2012.
Some people sign up to housing as a single parent with a child too.

Good info here...
https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/council_housing_association/can_you_inherit_a_council_tenancy

I agree it's right they're taken back from anyone found doing it.

It's related vely easy to check with Royal Mail as a regulator where mail is being delivered. Of course, the housing provider could/should carry out random spot checks too.

Then report them to the relevant authorities, if they exist anywhere but in your mind.

Oh god just piss off.

“Thieves prosper”

I saw a bit of a programme where a woman was being shown a Westminster council flat - brand new - and turned her nose up because it didn’t have a parking space. A parking space! And what’s worse she didn’t even have a car - she wanted to rent it out!

To get a council property in London is winning the jackpot. Imo properties should be for workers . In Tower Hamlets the unemployment rate is huge. Zero excuse. It’s London. If you don’t fancy working, then you can be allocated a property where there’s no chance of a job.

I think the person on the OP is an outlier here... she was not living in the property, and I am pretty sure you have to be to still be eligible for the housing.

As I have said a few times now, tenancy must be allowed to be passed on once otherwise you have widows/widowers being evicted.

SOCIAL HOUSING ISN'T SUBSIDISED

Social housing isn't a 'benefit'

It not only pays for itself, generating long-term revenue for the council or housing association; it creates income and employment for the community from the very beginning.

The Thatcher government really did a number on this country's perception of social housing. After the sell-off - when the government sold houses that we all owned to private individuals & companies, without paying us back - they imposed ridiculous conditions on local authorities, preventing them from making any money on properties they owned. This is why most of them got rid of it all.

The ridiculous conditions are still being unwound. But they are being. Housing associations are finding ways around/through them.

Here's Shelter on what a new social building programme will add to the economy:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/investing_in_social_housing_could_add_over_50bn_to_the_economy_

So unfair on you and others, yet what’s being done about it?

I'm not sure that she can cede the tenency to another person, it's not her property and not her business who lives there. I have always felt that the occupancy of Council houses, or whatever the current name is, should be reviewed regularly to see if the need still exists, I grew up in a Council house and there were houses with 3 or 4 adult 'children' still living at home and taking advantage of the system.

@SomeGarlic No need to bellow.

But social housing is a huge benefit to someone who secures one. And also we’re talking about the abuse of the system: subletting and those with no entitlement somehow getting a flat or house.

Yes but social housing shouldn’t be more favourable than private conditions.

If a widower has not paid off their private house and/ or can no longer afford to live in it then they have to sell it.

I appreciate we have to wait our turn but the braggy posts on here really boil my blood I'm afraid

My father reckoned that if you could afford to buy a house, you should, thus leaving the social housing for those who couldn't afford to. This was 1970s. I don't remember private rental being a thing then. Every one I knew either bought a house with a mortgage or rented from the council. Often council tenants had better housing, as the 1950s/1960s council houses were bigger and better built than the 1970s/1980s private houses. People wanted to avoid living on a council estate if they could.