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.

Why do you think people can afford private rent just because their social
Housing is in a desirable area?

I used to work for a large housing association, they run annual tenancy audits & credit checks on tenants so I don't think people will get away with scamming for too long especially nowadays with AI.

I think the suggestion is the current situation is assessed each time. I.e. if your mum is very wealthy she can afford another place. If she isn't, she can stay. The issue is where people are allowed to stay regardless of their situation changes.

Update to my policy - anyone on disability benefits is exempt. 👍

You don’t think it’s because she’s an actual First Lady, one of the most prominent women in Sierra Leone and boasted about it on a BBC interview then?
Would an individual pensioner from Tenerife be as newsworthy do you think?

Are these the ones in Bournemouth? If so they weren't actually in a nice location and not all of them were going to Afghan families just some of them to those that had served in the war.

But budgets are set annually. A decision is made taking the whole amount of income, how much will be spent on housing. The costs of things like maintenance and repairs have sky rocketed due to hyperinflation in construction and materials. Rents have not increased by the same level, so the additional costs must be covered from somewhere.

Affordable rent isn’t the same as social housing rent, it’s much higher, and the tenancies aren’t the same as they don’t offer life time security. You might have new builds that have a mix of affordable rent and social rent but the social tenancies have more security.

If you want to pass property on you need to own it. Tenants don’t own council property

The accounts are separate. There’s no cross pollination. There is no allocation for housing from the general account. All the costs of maintenance are covered from the housing account and the money comes from rents. Remember the original cost of most properties has been paid off. By the way, you can check the housing account on your council website if it still retains housing stock.

Swings and roundabouts

And for once a LL is not the villain.

I don’t think people should have to move if their income improves but rent should be increased accordingly and up to market rate.

These are homes In a civilised society everyone needs a home and that's builds a community.
The problem is houses shouldn't be portfolios or investments.

So if rents are set at a certain level and prices for maintenance and repairs have sky rocketed who is picking up the short fall ?

Exactly

This is disgusting! So sick of hearing about people playing the system whilst others struggle.

That poster reminds me of the mum grabbing an armful of swimming pool toys with her 3 year old and refusing to share them. I'm wondering if there are lots of threads on MN now that are stirring up that feeling that people are entitled and selfish in regards to communal property. Could be a tactic.

I think if one of you had never left home or had maybe given up their own home and moved back to care for parents for a few years it would be fair enough that it’s passed down but not otherwise obviously . you make a very good point about people who own their homes having to sell them for care and not being able to pass them down .

I dont think it is ever fair enough it is passed down. The council house was given to help out in a time of need. In even if like in your example the child moved back in from wherever they have been living before then. I'd the person who needed care owned their home, then it would be tough shit, got to be sold, adult child has no right.

If the person needing care had a council house, then why does the child moving in temporarily mean they need a home for life?

Yeah i sound harsh. I have also been just as harsh in real life. My parents have recently complained about the bedroom tax. I pointed out that back when you was allocated your council house they were more plentiful, that they are in a privileged position to have 1. They tried to argue how are they privileged when they are paying the extra bedroom tax and they have lived there their for decades and have spent to make the home nice. I argued they are privileged in a way that the house is cheaper than those around them who have private rentals. Also back when my mam 1st got allocated her house as a single parent, that was expected. Now there are so many children being raised in temporary accommodation just waiting and hoping for the change as it is so much harder to get a council house now. Meanwhile there are OAP living with spare bedrooms they don't need and if they put their child on the tenancy,they get the house no matter what. Even if they have no need whatsoever

Yes you are right !

She’s the 1st lady of Sierra Leone she doesn’t need a council house. She lives in a Presidential Palace…pretty sure that excludes you from a council house

Her primary residence is not the council house, but somewhere else. My understanding is that is the breach of the rules of the tenancy, rather than the fact that her other residence is a palace.

There isn’t a shortfall. Rents are set at a level that covers all the costs. As the cost of maintenance has increased so have the rents. Most social housing rents increase annually.

Oh I'm sure she'll have it all in hand to advise her adult kids. Such as the brother living with the sister for a year or two first etc