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 haven't heard anything about pain being inflicted on those over the middle income bracket at all. There was a two page spread in The Sunday times a few weeks ago explaining how to get out of paying capital gains tax!

The problem is there's plenty of families in private rented accommodation with no security of tenure who are poorer than those who moved into council housing two decades ago.

It's not that I don't think the poor deserve the security more that those most in need deserve the most help

This is a funny issue, because for every answer you come up with, there's a genuine con to it.

Take away a family sized home from a (for example) widowed elderly lady and you take her out of potentially the only home she's ever known and a supportive community and sometimes ease of access to other family members. Is that fair?

Set an income threshold for having a council house. Young couple with two kids hit said threshold (say £40k for example) and have to move out of their council house and buy somewhere. Quick search on Rightmove for my town shows a total of 2 properties to buy (within potential mortgage limits) and nothing under £1k per month to rent. Both pretty unrealistic when you factor in childcare costs. So you leave them homeless because they dared to hope for a life off of benefits. Hardly seems fair when an unemployed couple could get the house free and clear without contributing a single penny to the economy.

I realise that the ratio of available properties to the number of people waiting for them is so severe that something needs to be done, but there is no solution that is actually going to be black and white fair. If (to be more loyal to the OPs point) you say you take away the properties from people who no longer need the support of an HA or council, it sets a worrying precendent. A childless couple on £40k may be able to afford to rent or even buy in some parts of the country, but shunt them down South to where I am and they won't have as much, if any, choice. Throw in a couple of offspring with nursery costs and they really are up shit creek. My point is, you can't really look at people's situation and assume that what is doable for one couple is doable for 100 others who on the surface look identical. It is too hard to form a fair policy when it comes to taking someone's home away from them.

Like I said, I quite agree there are problems with social housing in the UK but I'm yet to see a good solution.

ANd I get that Tyler

But a crucial issue is that a lot of the people in council accom right now, even if they do get a payrise, won't be able to sustain that long term as they don't have pensions etc

So will end up being back in most need soon enough anyway.

We're in the sort of bracket where we could need a house any time- privately rented with a lovely landl;ady but if she sells, well in past few eyars dh's income has gone down by 4/5 from the recession, and I am a carer.

But if housing DH and I means someone is moved out for ten eyars after having theirr child elave home before they agin need somewhere due to retirement where is the point?

ANd as Edam says, it's a disincentive to work.

It needs to be a ider focus: yes, free up the council houses but look at what people will be moving into. What makes my aprent's lives worth living- a small agrden (half used for vegetables and fruit to keep grovery costs down), access to town and their friends (and work whilst it still alsts- have a feeling Dad will ahve to give up soon, he is 68 mind).

All things easily provided for really, but only if this is focused upon as a whole: simply shoving people into bedits (the only type of one bed accom many councils have) won't cut it, and will mean those least liekly to be able to self fund will end up in hugely expensive care settings sooner rather than later.

Now, if funding were out there for councils to build community located approp[riate housing it would be good, cheraper than building big houses and save a fortune wrt to extending life before care costs arise. There's an excellent estate near Mum's where the houses are all small bungalows with small gardens and a centrral unit acts as a base for a warden if needed, but becuase they took from fifty all the tenants bought thir palces meaning they now will never see council tenants again.

More like that and the scheme will work.

Never works like that though.

well, the tories might have started RTB - but labour didn't think to scrap it in the 13 years they had power. Or to build replacement housing during the boom.

It does rather annoy me that the Labour party are supposed to to be party of the working poor, yet managed to ignore the waiting lists for council houses for 13 years and didn't see an issue with a house price boom that took the average house out of the price range of the average worker without thinking that they had a duty of care to such people. At least the Tories seem to look after the people who vote for them...

I think it's right with limited houses we have now, that they are targetted at those who need them the most, rather than people who might have needed it 10 years ago, but not now.

Good for them. It's not just a 'council house' - it's their HOME. Just because it's not their name on the deeds doesn't mean that they have any less of an emotional tie to their home than an owner-occupier would, or than they might have done pre-lottery win. Imagine spending years getting your home the way you want it on what money you do have, and then having a bit of luck and winning the lottery but someone saying 'ship out now, never mind the time spent on your garden or the fact that all your friends/family live here and your children go to the local school, you've got too much in the bank'

What angers me is the 6/7 blocks of boarded up council flats just up the road from me which have stood empty for years now - 2 bed maisonettes, 4 to a block, just being left to fucking rot. 24 empty dwellings pisses me off far more than someone who had a bit of luck on the lotto not wanting to leave their home.

Well in fairness I think you eman the Governmental labour party- I am in Wales and in fact the Assembly is trying to end the RTB for new tenants.

Took too long of course but it is happening.

The thing is, if there was an easy solution it would have already been done. I'm actually more inclined to think there needs to be a number of approaches

The government needs to stop propping up the over inflated housing market.

The rental market needs to be dramatically changed so it's more like in Europe where renting is a long term feasible solution for families.

And they need to stop selling off the council houses and build some more to cater for those in need of more help.

Quite right of course Tyler.

And the Government should compel insirance agents who incure rents not to pull tenacies from those who lose their work; if someone doesn't want someone on HB in their house then up to them, but ATM if a very good payer loses job or becomes ill then they are forced onto HB, and their landlord is foten forced to evict under the terms of their insurance contract.

What is the point of that? tenats don't get eprsonality grafts the day they lose their work!

And yes it's mainly redundancies at,m but i;ve seen that happen to cancer patients as well.

So they should be kicked out? Then all the families living in council houses, who have a change of circumstances improving their lot (i.e 10 years on & both partners have good jobs now) should also be kicked out & forced into either buying or renting privately? That would solve loads of problems with one blow wouldn't it - free up council property, improve housing market, increase rents for private landlords.

Isn't this the new Tory social housing policy?

I live in an ex-LA flat on an estate and there does seem to be a lot of unfairness in the system. There is a huge problem with overcrowding, yet at the same time, middle aged couples whose children have left home and have 3 bed houses to themselves. Also that there are so many families living in awful temporary accommodation, yet the man who quite openly deals drugs (no resources for a CCTV camera) is allowed a council house.

YANBU I totally agree with you op. If you win so much money on the lottery that you can afford to buy a home of your own, be it a modest one than yes you should be made to give up your council house. Social housing is a benefit and you do not own it, your name is not on the deeds than it shoudl be given to someone who really needs it.

I don't know the answer to this one but something needs to change. We privately rent and are low priority on a ten year waiting list in an area where prices are so high people on a modest wage have no chance of buying. Our rent alone takes over 3/4 of our income so there is very little chance of saving for a deposit and not many landlords around here will accept hb. Some friends of mine live in a one bedroom flat with 2 dcs, they have been told they can be rehoused when their oldest (currently 18mo) is 12 years old! Yet council properties remain empty and single people stay in 3 bedroom houses while the list gets longer!

As has been said before, tehre is no prospect of chyan giung rules for current tenants within the law

It should change for new tenants but that will mean years before anything happens

So the first big focus should be on encouraging unused council homes to be released, and people to take lower incomes tenants- so many refuse people for eg on p[art HB (working poor).

But you can't force people to accept tenants they don't want, so why not incentivise it? A discount on any CHT incurred through the sale of your rental property if you rent to soeone on HB (part or full) for a five year term?

Nobody is forced but suddenly it becomes more attractive and waiting lists become restricted to those with a more long term need- a lot of those on the list in a year will have been made homeless temporarily due to redundancy etc, those could be managed in a mroe flexible renting environment, and council houses being mainloy a resort for those who won't ever work- sick, disabled, elderly.

Social housing should always be temorary for emergencies whilst the person works to get themselves into a better position, not for life, that is part of the reason as to why we are short of council housing stock.

does anyone think a couple with a monthly income of £2450 and no car to run should be given a newly built house by the council with rent of £75 a week in a area where PRIVATE rent for a 2 bedroom flat is £100 a week or £125 a week for a private 2 bedroom house???

Actually piglet very much social housing is used by the sick and disabled- you almost need to be now in order to get the points to get a aplce, they will usually be long term leases.

Bossy that would depend on a lot of things- 2shoes for example has her council house becuase it was adaptable for her dd's disabilities and their existing home was not. That's why they use the points system I think. So all teh factors (of which income is but one) can be taken into account.

piglet - that is not how social housing was intended. It was for the workers who didn't earn enough to buy their own homes or rent expensive property. And it would be a pretty daft idea as you'd create ghettos. And be a disincentive to try to secure better employment as you'd lose your home.

Apart from all that, go right ahead...

No Bossyboop - they shouldnt. Disgraceful isnt it?

And in a few years time, they will be given the option to buy the place at 40% off price. Once they have it they will lease it back to the council longterm, pocketting lots of rent, while putting themselves back on the council house list for a new place.

Social housing cant be reformed quickly enough IMO. Its just another scam on the taxpayer.

I think a council house should be for life its a home ...

The petty jealousy and ignorance on MN renders me almost speechless sometimes

quite, usual. Am always confused by people who are jealous of the poor. Surely if you want to envy people, it would make more sense to envy the rich?

I envy the fat cat bankers in their big fuck off houses ..or lord and lady snooty in their 24 bedroom rambling country retreats ...not someone in a 2 bedroome council house

Depends how much they win, IMO. If they have won as much as they have in the OP, then yes, they should be asked to move - though tbh, I can't believe why anyone would not want to if they'd won £4million!! If its around the £200,000 mark then its questionable.