To continue to live in social housing

[dealer]

Think I probably am unreasonable, but also think I'd be crazy to do anything else.

I have been previously in severe need, hence why I'm in social housing at all. I now work full time, self-employed, earning approx 17k per year, dh earns 6k part time, and also is doing an ou degree. This means that while we are by no means living in luxury, we could in theory support ourselves in private rental. Obviously we're nowhere near being able to buy.

Our rent is about half what it would be on the open market. If we moved, we would definitely have to move to a cheaper area, which would be doable for work, but the children would have to change schools. The social housing that we live in is just one row on the edge of a private estate, so few social problems compared to large city estates. The areas that we might be able to afford to live in have much higher levels of problems. These are areas that I would happily have accepted a house in, when desperate, but now I feel I'd be stupid to move my 3 settled dcs there with the added risks involved.

With my rent doubling, we would have to get rid of 1 car. We have 2 because I have to drive for up to 10 hours per day for my work. Therefore dh would have to go without. He works in the more expensive area so would have to use public transport to get in, he does shift work, so not sure how feasible that would be. I would probably have to collect him at midnight a lot. With having to change all 3 schools (secondary, primary and nursery) I suspect their travel arrangements would be a problem too. The schools in this town are very full so they would probably end up all over the place. Of course many people manage this sort of thing all the time, but again I'd be daft to do so if not necessary.

I believe that social housing, and cheap rents should be for those in great need, as I once was, so feel I should vacate this property. However, I don't feel I would be doing my best for my children if I did so. I also don't trust the authorities to prioritise those in greatest need. I waited 5 years to be housed adequately although homeless with a young baby, while my severely disabled first husband had to live in a residential home. He was also terminally ill, and I believe that the council dragged their feet in the hope he would die before they had to house us. A friend of mine was housed within 6 weeks because they classed her as overcrowded because there were 4 generations living together. They were living in an enormous 5-bed house with seperate annexe.

So AIBU to stay in this very cheap house, 10 mins walk from the beach, which saves us at least £5000 a year?

I got my council flat in similar circs, when I was 19 and a LP. I am 33 now and on a higher salary than you, but we are in central London so it would cost me much more to rent privately (and would be a bigger % of my salary). I have no plans to leave my flat - my DCs would have to move school, leave their home and community, and we'd have to move far from family.

We have a lifelong tenancy and the DCs would also be able to inherit it, so there's more security in keeping this tenancy than even buying (if I could afford that!).

I had quite a struggle to get this tenancy, had to push the council to accept my priority and I've put a lot of work into maintaining my property, so I see no reason why I should give it up. I don't think you should give up your home out of a sense of duty, OP. You would simply be trading a lot of security for an insecure rental, and have to spend more of your income on housing costs when it could be spent providing better opportunities for your children.

I realise I'm lucky to have it, especially as many of my friends aren't eligible - but that's mostly because they're not in the desperate circumstances that I was in when I was given it. In a way, they're luckier because their situation has always enabled them to rent privately and they recognise that.

I think it is fair that people pay more social housing rent if/when they are financially able, and i note that OP would be agreeable to that.

However, wouldn't it be virtually impossible for the housing associations to assess income because many people would not declare accurately? And, there is clearly a dis-incentive to 'do better' financially/professionally if the extra income will be swallowed up by increased rent/tax.

It really is a dilemma. Perhaps what is 'fair' on paper for the country's citizens/residents is unaffordable and unsustainable long term.

Perhaps what is 'fair' on paper for the country's citizens/residents is unaffordable and unsustainable long term.

It's perfectly sustaainable the trouble is that house prices would plummet and people wouldn't have to work until they drop to pay for housing costs, the banks would loose millions and we can't have that can we ?
It makes me sick when you drive around the country and see just how much green belt land there is whilst people are packed like sardines into the cities.

why would you think you're being unreasonable? my grandparents spent their entire lives in council houses; they raised 4 kids, my grandfather always worked, and my grandmother worked after the kids went to school. Never owned a thing, but that's what social housing is for; it gave them security and stability in their youth and their old age.

You've got me singing Billy Bragg songs now:

'Call up the craftsman, bring me the draftsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave...
And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage'

just get on with living there....and anyway,doesnt your dh have a say in all this??

YANBU - your income is very small. If you were a high earner I would actually say YABU, but you are being very generous to even think about leaving your social housing when your income is so low. And you have children too...stay put and enjoy the better standard of living. Renting privately is tough!

Just to clarify, I (we) have absolutely no intention of moving, I just thought I was being unreasonable staying here indefinitely.

People keep saying our income is very low, and I know from being on here that people consider it low. But actually day-to-day I think we do well.
We run 2 (newish) cars, pay for plenty of stuff and extra-curricular activities for the kids, go on holiday at least twice a year (maybe abroad this year for the first time), eat out about once a month, buy clothes when I need to (not a big shopper though) have computers/consoles/a phone and dh smokes and drinks, although not a great deal.

The only thing we can't afford is a house, but for this area we'd have to be on at least double what we are now, so it's out of the question.

Dealer, these things are about attitude. I've always felt comfortable although we've never been high earners and have rented privately in London. At the moment I'm on maternity pay and DH gets a small salary for doing several part-time jobs (not as hard as it may sound), but we still feel very comfortable and lack nothing.

People on much higher incomes than you moan about not having enough money. You sound like you are clever with money. Which is what it's all about: financial savvy and attitude.

Earlybird assessment is coming in though

I think that's bad news however; maybe if it were ten years between assessments, but tehy prposed five and have dropped that to two which I would think willa ct far more of a morivator for people not to forward themselves than anything else.

I mena if you could get a promotion or palce to study but know that as soon as the benefit comes in you will be out on your ear (and potentially faced with losing the support system that got you the chance in the first palce!) then you might say sod it; OTOH if you knew you'd get 8 years to grab together a deposit, get the kids through childcare etc you might well make the step.

Your responsibility is to your family and dc, so stay put, because you can! If 'society' believes this is wrong in someway then government should change the rules so that you or people like you have to move when your circumstances improve. Until that change in law, society is based upon rules, which back your decision up!

Yanbu. this is the very reason social housing was created. Successive governments have made it (by accident or design) a legacy. You and your DH are working, studying moving up, if you like. Why shouldn't you be entitled to this accommodation? You are feeling guilty about a perceived need. Unfortunately selling social housing in the 80s and beyond hasn't helped the stigma or not of living in LEA housing. Once your DH has qualified, you both move up the professional ladder then consider moving on. Personally my only reason to leave LEA housing, other than buying it myself, would be for schools, family or environmental reasons.

Im pretty much in the same situation as OP except im a lone parent (didn't start that way).
I don't feel that I should move because I work, my wage is pretty low and I pay all rent/council tax.
House prices are out of reach as much now as they were when I was growing up and that is why almost everyone I knew was brought up in social housing as will ds and a lot of his peers.

There is something to be said for mixed income accommodation. If everyone who gets a job moves out, there is a risk of social housing becoming stigmatised, postcodes redlined,communities isolated etc. Of course we need to keep building more social housing to help those in need...

Mixed-tenure accommodation isn't really all it's cracked up to be. I live in affordable housing on a new build block, with some quite expensive flats which were privately sold in the same building. There is no real contact between the expensive flats and the affordable part at all - they even have their own entrance and postcode.

The families I know in the affordable section shop in the local precinct and get involved in community activities, but you only ever see the wealthier owners when they're on the way to the station to get out of the neighbourhood. It's still segregated, but on a micro-scale. But politicians like the idea because it pays lip service to mixed communities and breaking down social barriers, when in reality that doesn't really happen.

You sound like my mum, dealer, who tried to convince the benefits guy who came to assess her for disability benefit that she didn't need it when she is nearly totally blind and my dad has to do most things for her. They are both in their 80s. She gives it all away to her children and grandchildren (though my dad bought a huge tv with his carer's allowance).

What you have is what the system is for OP. You are still not on a high wage at all and, as you say, the disruption to your family if you moved and had to pay private rental would be enormous, putting you right back to struggling just to have a basic quality of life. The only thing I would suggest is that you get on the shared ownership scheme, if you can, to buy your lovely home in increments.

I also don't think you are being a martyr at all - you have a conscience but in this instance I think you need to tone it down and enjoy what the state has put in place in order to ensure families are able to breath a bit and enjoy their lives.

But how will properties be available for other people in more need if everyone stays in council house and passes to their families.

I think social housing is for those most in need and when people are in better situation they should rent privately or buy.

choccybox

Do you really? these are peoples homes ,not just bloody houses

You know people just like you

So I can earn 50k and still pay 30% of market value rent!! Stuff those waiting in temporary accomodation or in unsuitable housing.

Building more social housing and stopping the right to buy is the obvious solution.

Apparently in the 1970s a third of the population lived in social housing - it wasn't just for the most desperately in need, housing was a right just like education or healthcare.

choccybox - how many people living in social housing do you think earn £50k? High earners can buy somewhere.

yanbu

DH earns 25k and we live in a HA house, a large 3 bed semi with a big garden. we could afford to private rent. but we have no intention of ever doing that. the only way we will give up this house is if we can ever afford to buy. (which we ARE aiming towards) we love this house, we have spent thousands doing it up and it really is beautiful. and we are secure here, no one is going to throw us out on a whim and the rent is affordable. we get no HB, we pay it all ourselves. its £81 a week and to me thats a fair rent. its the private rents that are over priced rip offs. if we rented the same house in the private market it would be about £700 a month.

Think it's perfectly reasonable for you to stay where you are while the system is what it is.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the system changes, given the chronic housing shortage in the UK. It is where I live - the idea of social housing for life is on the way out - now it's all about duration of need. It wouldn't be a shock if social housing in the UK was eventually means tested or similar, and people expected to move on once they had got themselves sorted.

Not passing judgement here btw one way or the other, just noting that it may change.

Rita Stopping the "right to buy" would solve nothing. Because, as this thread has shown, when people's personal situations improve - they don't "give it back" to a family more in need anyway.

Alpine - if someone's situation improves to the point where they can buy a house, then they move out of social housing. Plus, people do die eventually and not everyone has children who want to take over the tenancy.