To think lottery winners should not be able to stay in a council house?

[Hammy02]

It was in the news today that a couple that won £4 million in the lottery a year ago won't move out of their council house! Surely council houses are to be used in times of need? With thousands of people on the waiting list, it incenses me that they are allowed to stay there. I know there will be thousands of other cases where people are in council accomodation that shouldn't be but this is the most extreme example I've heard of.

I suspect they will be kicked out shortly then?

Remember a story about an old guy who won a bit of money on Deal or no Deal then lost all his benifits.. Don't think he won a forutne either

if its been brought to public attention im sure they will be moved soon. i have big country house aspirations for my lottery win so i dont really understand wanting to stay in a council house... maybe its really lovely where they are :)

Well you either say they are a tenancy for life or you don't. Studying for 10 years and working your way up to being a consultant in a hospital would mean you were no longer 'in need' - would you expect that person to move out of their home?

I agree to a certain extent that the system should be overhauled, so many underoccupied homes and so many people in need - not to mention that subsidised rents for people earning £££££ doesn't sit right. But I'm not sure how you do it. DC's bright idea of kicking people out into private once they earn a certain amount is pretty stupid, and TBH with private renting as shit as it is I don't blame anyone for wanting to hang on to their home for life. Private rent needs changing seriously to make it a viable alternative to council. I have friends who live in tiny overcrowded flats and would love to go private but they are too scared of the system. That's wrong.

My mother's next door neighbour won a prize on the lottery about 10 years ago (she won £250K).

She stayed in the HA house. There was a load of muttering in the town (rightly, in my view).

If they now own their council home Eric northman then fair enough.. but if they are renting it from the coucil at a subsidised rate.. I would be very unimpressed.

Should say if they already owned.. As I dont think they should be allowed to buy it now either.

The shortage of council housing isn't caused by council tenants. It's caused by flogging council houses off cheap and stopping councils spending the money building new houses.

Lottery winners sound very odd but presumably they really their neighbours and the area? Maybe they have very strong links there, grew up in the area or something?

If they love their home and have worked hard to make it nice then it is their right to live there for as long as they want. There aren't so many lottery winners in council housing that this becomes a genuine social problem.

I am very wary of ill thought out ideas to make people move from council housing once their house is considered too big for them or if they earn enough money in the future to buy a house. Lots of council tenants improve their homes and spend a lot of money making it nice. It is their home and noboby should force them to have fewer rights just because they are in social housing.

The solution is to stop selling council houses, so they remain in the system and to have more shared ownership schemes.

Council houses are not subsidised AFAIK. The rents are cheaper because the costs are lower - in private rental, landlords are buying houses at full market value and have to recover the inflated costs from tenants, as well as making a profit.

Could you means-test for council housing?

Trying to get a council house these days is almost the same odds as winning the lottery in some places :)

sorky, they are essentially means-tested when people move in. You get a number of points on a ladder and only those at the top of the ladder (i.e. in most need) get council housing.

yes exactly what edam says.

Maybe they will buy their home and maybe yu should stop reading the sun :o

They have lived in the house for 27 yrs and are secure tenants, although their financial situation has changed, their rights remain the same as any other council tenant -according to the council who own the house, so i doubt they will be moved on

I think 'need' should be reassessed, on what basis and how often I'm not sure. I don't see why those most in need now should lose out just because someone was in need 27 years ago.

I always assumed council houses were for those in need? If your circumstances change then yes, you may have the right to the house removed. Including someone who has worked up to be a consultant. Personally I couldn't sleep at night knowing I was taking a home from someone who genuinely needed it. There should be a periodical review of each individual's circumstances-every 5 years. If you want stability, buy a house. I have rented privately for about 10 years. Often having to move due to the home-owners wanting to sell up etc. I've even shared a house with 3 strangers due to being unable to afford rent on my own. I wasn't earning much either. Under £20,000. But never thought I was in such desperate circumstances as to ask for a council house.

We ahd the issue lcoally a few eyars ago so know what happens next

Mum moved out into new house (goodness knows why, purpose exec estate within 10 yards of mortorway- yuck! We call it the fume-a-geddon estate, but anyway (she's guaranteed to be here now isn't she LOL?)

Off spring child wouldn't shift; friends on estae etc. Council gave him a while to adjust then booted him.

But it was probably teh shift in tenancy that made that possible.

Edam's right of course as to why tehre isn;t enough council housing but it's a hard one. My aprents are in council housing and we were discussing this at the weekend. There was a brief period where they could have been moved out under current ideas with income but then we'd have all ahd to move schools and it would ahve been very brief anyway- redudnany meant Dad's good job 9and it was) lasted until he hit about fifty then he took on a rubbish one (and I do eman that in an actual way- cleaning out hte machines in a meat proicessing palne, nice) to work and would never have coped with a mortgage; now as they approach retirement at 70 the pensions went AWOL and collpased (legal loophole wrt sales of company ownership) and they will for the first time ever be penniless and on benefits so would be in need of a HA home again.

Am not sure a brief glmipse of income is enough to make judgements about the long term.

laso, Mum tells me there is no shortgae of schemes to get older people to downsize but what they do not offer is a guarantee that you will stay in yourr community. Grandad is ninety, not suffering from dementia but tbh always has been confused, IMO clearly asd before we had the label. He copes outside a nursing home because 3 different sets of neighbours check on him (Mum has him twice a week but can't drive so can't do daily checks- he drives to her, different town). Every time one of these 'why not downsize' leaflets comes through he gets reallys cared and thinks he is being evicted to somewhere where he knows nobody.

And you know, mum and dad would happily downsize if they could stay near Amureen who waters the plants or Mavis who takes in the post..... the people thy have known for fifty eyars. As someone who moved areas with a caring responsibility I entirely grasp that.

OYTOH we also coudl really do with council housing and will need it when this landlady decieds to sell up if it's before DH qualifies and yes, the situation is shit for people who need a home for their family and of course something ahs to be done, and I suspect combining the ending of lifetime tenancies based on size (eg moving people to smaller premises when possible) with an undertaking to mainatain communities and provide adequate housing (so nothing in those horrid estate come new towns for older people whoc an't drive, and no third story flats for people whose moblity ois starting to go) but that won't happen. It'll be the penalty- smaller house- without the security,

'If you want stability, buy a house'. Oh, so the poor don't deserve security of tenure? Stability is only for those who can afford it?

Have you not heard about all the repossessions of houses sold to people who couldn't keep up with repayments?

I agree that council houses shouldn't be for life. They are an extream example, but there are cases of older people who's children who've left home who still have family size houses, and people who have much improved finanical situations who could quite easily afford decent private housing for their families which they couldn't at the point they got the council property.

I do think it's one of the government's better ideas that they are looking at reviewing this. It would be nice to give people a house for life, but we just dont have enough council houses to go round - I bet if you're close to the top of the housing list in that area it must be v annoying to hear "ah, but they have a right to live there forever no matter what their income".

It has to be a new thing though, it will be included on new tenancy agreements so people know what they face. Which is fair enough. ATM people invest huge sums in council housing- Mum just spent £2k on new carpets- and if people know that when kids elave home they won't get the house anymroe and will be downsized then they ahve an opportunity not to spend on the house but save to ahve a bit of say in where they live, eg refuse a completely inappropriate placement in order to privately rent.

And yes it probably has to happen but people will have to accept there will be fall out. Luckily it won't affect them but based on my aprents were they to be downsized they wouldn't be able to provide overnight care for sister's kids (she works shifts and her DH does also) and Dad woudln't be able to access work based on where most people end up housed. And people like Grandad would end up in care.

Probably not enough to override the upsides of the proposal but something that people will need toa ccept and society will have to cover the financial ramifications of. Whetehr in tax credits tot hose who can no longer do tehir jobs or the provision of care to those whoc an't manage without their community.

Edam - surely if you are still poor and in need, then you will be reassessed and still be entitled to stay where you are, so have stability...

And why don't we have enough council houses to go round? Because of the ruddy Tories and RTB. Bit rich of them to turn round and say 'it's all your fault' to council tenants. David Cameron's never had to worry about where he's going to live, has he?

This new government has a really spiteful attitude - all their pet projects seem to be kicking the poor or vulnerable. It isn't the working classes who caused the financial crisis, nor are rape victims a threat to society, nor are women suffering domestic violence, nor are children on free nursery milk.

And reassessment isn't exactly an incentive to achieve, is it? Try and get promoted at work or study for qualifications and they'll take your home away. Especially worrying as work is so insecure these days, we all know we could be made redundant next week.

oh the free nursery milk thing really pissed me off tbh. But don't worry they are increasing the healthy start scheme maybe in line with inflation so those that cannot work will be able to buy milk (quite rightly) but those that are working poor may struggle to afford healthy food etc.

Like you say edam, DC and NC have never had to worry about such things.