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.

There is not enough housing stock. People who abuse the system in this way will make politicians think social housing isn’t worth while. People on this thread will think social housing allocation is corrupt and unfair.

I disagree. You will not establish a cohesive community if people are moved on every 5 years.

I agree @BoredZelda. Hopefully there will be some people involved in organising social housing reading this thread and realise how unfair the system is.

This.

It's very difficult to prove that someone is subletting or not living in a property - actually getting evidence together and taking legal action. I was a housing officer at a housing association years ago and we'd get reports every once in a while that a property was being sublet. This is frustrating, because I knew properties were needed, and I didn't want people taking the piss. But it's very hard to get evidence and, if you do, they can just move back in. We were much more likely to get back a property which had been abandoned.

I always had far more to do than time to do it in, and dealing with things like anti-social behaviour and complaints about trees were just higher priority - it's not that you don't want to do something about it, just that it doesn't make it to the top of the 'to do' pile.

There is no ‘probably wrong’ about this.

Well if they don’t want to move they are free to start paying full rate, then it’s their own choice.
It’s simply beyond justifiable given the current state of the housing system that someone could live in subsidised council housing for life when they are now a large two income household because at one point many years ago they used to be a broke single mum.

That’s pretty shameful…

Imagine boasting about this. So wrong.

I hope that the next government reviews this policy and lifetime tenancies or family transfers will be banned

But renters are expected to deal with this at the complete whim of their landlords often every two years or so. We’ve just been told we have to move in 6 months because the landlord is ‘selling up’. Who even knows if that’s genuine? Yes renters rights bill but it could still just be a lie and excuse to hike the rent for the next tenancy.
I’m not saying it should be every five years, but nobody should treat massively subsidised housing as a given and feel entitled to it forever

Full rate? If they are working and not in receipt of benefit they will be paying the full rate. This is what it was like before Thatcher sold housing stock off - proper, stable communities with families living round the corner from relatives giving mutual support.

If they still have an entitlement, they can still live there. There will be undoubtedly be some who are there longer than one tenancy.

The average duration of home ownership in the U.K. is about ten years. People don’t tend to live in one house all their lives any more. You don’t need the same people to be in a place for community cohesion.

No quite the opposite.. The press and agencies usually keep schuman about stories like this because of the current political unrest

Where do your sons currently live?

Hopefully you’ll get reported. I used to work with an (also absolute arsehole of a) woman who tried to nab her nan’s prime central London flat when she died. She bragged and someone reported her and she lost it. We all laughed

You could have to confirm you are still resident every year. Don't people complain if a property is obviously not being lived in? I mean someone might have died in the house and be left for years.

I thought there were rules about moving other people into a council house, does a tenant have a right to just move someone in and then pass on the tenancy to them and move out? People would be selling that option, I'm moving out £10,000 gets you the tenancy I'm sure there would be lots of takers from people who have some money but can't afford to buy, cheap rent is a great second option, and they could get their initial £10K back when they want to move.

People can do that at their own expense, it’s farcical that OP’s son receives long term stable housing at the expense of a vulnerable person all because his sister used to be a young single mum.

You are a disgrace to social housing if you say you used to work there. You know the problems there are and the poor people who are living in dire circumstances as they cannot get a social housing property.

I despair of the selfishness of people like you.

The system need a major overhaul.

If you set conditions such as salary, then naturally it will discourage people from seeking work or earning more. Plus you want people to look after their homes, not view them as a temporary measure.

BUT councils need to do more to root out fraud. I have heard of several cases of people owning property abroad. In fact even the other way round: I know someone who got a social housing flat in Italy when they own a house here in the UK!

Dn sub-lets a very nice Peabody Trust flat in London. The official tenant collects the rent in cash and has some bills in his name at the flat. Why don’t councils have a sort of flying squad to do spot checks?

watch out if Reform ever get in, you won’t stand a chance.

Good.

It’s not ‘fudging the system,’ it’s fraud and if they get caught (highly likely when people get pissed off) they may well go to prison.

And that sums up what’s wrong with our country in one mumsnet message! No shame!