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.

My local authority has an embargo on the Right to Buy scheme for new tenants (of which I am one) who moved in after a particular date around three years ago.

Doesn't bother me because I will never be in a position to buy a house (illness which makes mortgage application nigh on impossible) and not really sure I agree with the sale of council housing stock after been officially homeless and having to apply for acceptance onto the list.

"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."

Why on earth should council tennants have more rights than private tennants?

Morally, they should go.

My mum once said if she won the lottery she'd buy her council house. I'm afraid I came over all Disgusted of Tumbridge Wells.
It irks me she has a 3 bed house to herself while families are in B&B.

FWIW, Dave's idea of chucking people out once their children leave will just mean people won't want to spend money on and maintain their house. Why would you put a new floor in or do the garden if your children are off to Uni soon?
Older tenants should be incentivised to downsize. (I believe they are in many LAs.)

Widow, private tennants should have more rights.

Exactly the private rental market is a disgrace ..more long term private rents instead of 6 monthly contacts would help for a start

My parents live in a HA house. They have worked hard and put what money they had into making their home and garden nice. When they first got the house it was a complete shithole (toilet blocked with toys/doors hanging off and full of holes/absolutely filthy dirty/damaged walls etc). Why should my parents be penalised because they couldn't afford a mortgage? My dad was injured at work and is now barely able to walk. Not that DC gives a fuck, after all these are just poor people so it's perfectly okay to screw them over. Are they going to compensate people like my parents for the flooring they've replaced and the decorating thats been done etc? To force people out of their homes is like a return to the feudal system where people were effectively owned by the ruling classes.

Widow - I don't think that council tenants should have their rights removed. Private tenants should have their rights increased to match. Why must everything be reduced to the lowest standard rather than raised to a higher one?

"Oh, so the poor don't deserve security of tenure? Stability is only for those who can afford it?"

Well basically yes. While the whole (council) housing issue is a complex one, fundamentally I think if you're in the position where you have to rely on the state for your housing then part of that is that you should expect that you're not going to have everything your own way.

It's like getting a dental filling on the NHS and then complaining that it's not white. Just be grateful you're getting the support from the state in the first place...

Nice attitude, look. You'd have got on well with Maggie T. So, only the rich deserve to be treated like human beings and accorded some basic human dignity?

Be careful what you wish for. Poverty could hit any of us at all time. All it takes is some bad luck - especially with the economy as it is. And riches have very little to do with moral worth. Maggie's husband got rich doing business with dodgy regimes like apartheid S Africa - but you seem to think people like him deserve more respect than everyone else.

Why should I have more rights as a private tenant?

More than HA I eman: I nkow the private amrket needs some work too( am waiitng to hear in next 8 weeks if we have aroof over our heads so I know)

fingers crossed, SMA!

"Nice attitude, look. You'd have got on well with Maggie T. So, only the rich deserve to be treated like human beings and accorded some basic human dignity?"

It depends on how you how you define dignity and the like doesn't it?

Dignity would be a roof over my head. Living on my own in a four bedroom house would probably be something else entirely.

Given how LA Housing is in incredibly short supply it's only fair to utilise it to its maximum effectiveness.

As I said, its like being admitted to hospital and then complaining that you've been served toast with margarine instead of butter.

If I'm ever in a position where I have to rely on the state to assist with my housing needs then I'll consider myself bloody privileged to be getting it at all before twisting that I can't change the wall paper.

"Be careful what you wish for. Poverty could hit any of us at all time. All it takes is some bad luck - especially with the economy as it is. And riches have very little to do with moral worth. Maggie's husband got rich doing business with dodgy regimes like apartheid S Africa - but you seem to think people like him deserve more respect than everyone else."

Please, if you wish to engage in debate then please do so and address my point, don't start these idiotic ad-hominems. You have no idea of my view of any political figure. Going on like that just makes you look stupid.

and yes alrma, my aprnets the same wrt to what they have contributed to the house. The agrden is incredible.

WRT to the it's a benefit- what is different now is the state of LA housing from when many tenants took it on years ago; I am pushing 40 nd my aprents moved in a few weeks before my birth. back then, 80% of our town was council hoousing: apart from buying* there were very few options once you needed something bigger than a starter flat- typical industrial town really, each big factory / docks developed with a massive council estate around it.

*That was the plan, but Mum lost a succession of babiues to stillbirth and had to give up her career- legal sec in the days when that was a real achievement (well it is now but YKWIM, we're a lot further down the equal ops line) - and stay bedridden to have me. Women now are so much luckier with out maternity pay etc, even the 9 weeks we had with the older boys- when the people who are older now were making their way the world was very different.

We used to own BTW, then DH got ill and we had to sell to clear the debts and cope with Dh working reduced hours until he was well. Then he went back, we rented a nice place, moved and rented this nice place, then the boys were diagnsoed with ASD.

You make your own luck to an extent and I made I think good luck in that I picked a DH who stood by us and keeps fighting nack, but if we end up in LA housing it would feel as if we reached the end of being able to keep a good face. It's not something most people woudl actively choose, not people like me anyway.

Look - no, spitefulness and sneering at people will less money than you is stupid. Demanding that they crawl on their knees in gratitude is stupid.

If you want to begrudge someone, trying begrudging the rich - they have more for you to envy and are better protected against attack.

"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?"

Yes. Why should theybe entitled to a council house, which are supposed to be for the needy? It's crazy that lots of people are housed in unsuitable conditions in B&Bs while other people use council houses that could easily afford to buy or rent on the private market. I think it's outrageous actually that tenancies & circumstances are not reviewed.

And if I couldn't afford to pay my mortgage I'd have to move out of my home so as far as i'm concerned, that's a non-argument

Housing in this country is completely fcked up. Like SanctiMoanyArse*, I grew up in a council house in a town which was 80% council houses. The idea of it being 'social housing' is still one I'm trying to get my head around. To me it still just means the landlord is there for the long-term and will deal fairly with you, not just some profits-driven tightwad who refuses to keep the property in good repair. After all, didn't council housing come into being because private landlords just didn't provide enough/good enough housing?

The cost of housing has skyrocketed in recent years. Gone are the days when two and a half times one person's salary was enough to buy a house. Rents have increased in line with mortgage costs. Housing of any type nowadays is so much more expensive than in the past, and instead of dealing with that we jealously guard what we have and cast envious eyes at what others have.

FFS, the most important thing about the house(/flat/barge) you live in is that it is your HOME. Why should winning the pools change that? Going back to the OP (wasn't that a long time ago?), maybe these people want to stay in their council house despite their new-found riches because they value their home and community more?

People have to rely on the state for their housing because house prices have been so unreasonably high that lots of people simply can't afford to buy, no matter how hard they work. Don't see why people should have to be eternally grateful for having a roof over their heads, that to me is the very least you should be entitled to. To those of you who think it is okay to shunt people out of the homes they have lovingly cared for just because they are poor and need a bit of support, I hope you get to experience this policy first hand and see how you like it.

read the thread, look, I made all those points already.

And then you might want to read the MN rules on personal attacks.

I have two DC's under 3 and owing to the recession my DH was made redundant last year. To date he has not been able to find another job. Due to this we can no longer afford to privately rent and certainly cannot afford to buy. So we will be homeless, but hey I shouldn't worry about that when there are people who may have to give up their memories .

Sorry if I am somewhat unsympathetic here but I do not believe people should be able to withhold something from someone in greater need simply because they grew up in a particular house.

'You utter fucking moron' you kinda lost the argument there

I see this thread has gone the way similar ones are all going since the new coalition took office.

Man, money brings out the worst in people.

depressing, isn't it, expat? So much for the Tories claiming they had changed. Five minutes back in office and they've already targetted rape victims/victims of domestic violence/school milk/council tenants - straight back to the 'good' old days. They'll be sending out search parties for any miners they can still find next.

(Although to be fair abolishing contactpoint was A Good Thing and IIRC there's another attack on civil liberties by new Labour they are reversing but I forget which.)

krldt I understand, I truly do (landlord refuses is evicting us so he doesn't have to pay for any more repairs and we cannot find anywhere nearby to rent within our budget - so we are guaranteed homeless soon)

However it is about more than memories. These are homes that people have invested in. I know that if I was somewhere that I'd spent a lot of money and effort on I wouldn't be happy at being kicked out for any reason other than not being able to pay rent.

For us, we need more landlords to be given incentives to take on HB tenants (and therefore accept the HB amount).

The other thing I think they should do is, as those in social housing do pay rent, I think it would make sense to make it more means tested (as I believe it is when you first apply for it) and rather than kick them out, raise the rent accordingly. Which should then mean more money to go towards new social housing and repairs to existing (unsuitable to live in) social housing.