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?

There is no need to 'give it back' We as tax payers could own as many properties as we wanted and rent them out. The profit (which need not be huge) would be ours and would not go to someone out to make every last penny out of the tenant.

I see no downside to gradually making all or most rented houses the property of the tax payer.

I think confusion arises because some people think that social housing is free and that it's therefore a drain on resources.

I haven't read all the responses but I think OP is admirable in asking a question which I suspect too few do ask. Personally I would stay where you are for now, not least till your DH has his degree and you know what sort of income he is likely to have long term. I think if it were me I would not do anything that would reduce the standard, or location, of your family's home unless you had no option.

Clearly if you find yourself at some point with a joint income which would get you a house in at least as good an area which would either not mean moving schools or moving to better ones then that is the time to move, but I certainly wouldn't move based on the situation and earnings that you describe. If you were banging down £70K then I might take a different view :)

YANBU. Stay where you are. It's not like you're on £100k and spending the spare cash on crack and Ferrari's

The dearth of social housing is the curse of the UK. Right to buy should NEVER have happened. It was the worst Tory policy ever, and a cheap vote buyer at the expense of the long term good of the country (in fact, on a par with Labour's feckless expansion of the public sector).

Lack of social housing is a key factor in why UK housing costs are so insane. They are a major component of living costs, and high living costs drive up the minimum wage which makes the UK uncompetitive on a global basis. It also means that families who can't afford to buy and have to rent privately have no ability to plan long term as most private tenancies are 1 year.

Basically, the government had loads of houses, sold them off for peanuts, and now has half the country on tax credits so that they can afford to put a roof over their heads. great planning. Well done governments.

yanbu, I think SH is for low income people too and IMO 24K is a low income

I live on a new estate where there is a mix of private and social housing. In one of the largest social houses there is a family who have a newish car which is worth in the region of £50k. Now ok it could have been a legacy that it was bought with or some such thing. I find the whole bidding system baffling.

YANBU. Our household is on about 23k and in social housing and will continue to be, don't have a car or a flat screen TV, haven't been on holiday in over six years. Used to be in private rent with HB and ended up on less than benefit money once travel and other work costs were taken into account. This way my family can at least eat more fresh food and have the odd day out.

Blimey OP, I thought you were going to say that you were earning megabucks - stay as you are. I once knew someone who earned £60k+ and had a lovely council flat near Hampstead. IMO, she really was taking the piss and living in a cheap home that would have been a Godsend to people who really needed the low rents and security that social housing provides.

Dealer - you are falling for the Tory propaganda which is trying to make people believe council housing is there for people in short-term crisis. However, it was always envisaged as low cost, secure housing for working families, and if people stay longer in an area, you get a much better sense of community etc.

I watched a programme the other day, which said that in the 60s, 1/3 of the population lived in social housing - after the post-war building boom when there was council housing in every village.

Come on dealer this thread was meant as a wind up, right?

Just to make it clear, social housing was the norm for many years for most of society until Thatcher privatised everything and invented the right to buy..

Everyone is entitled to social housing but there is a major lack of it in some areas, therefore it is prioritised on a needs basis.

Your wage, income, job has nothing to do with eligibility. Stay put. I am highly jealous, I wish I could move into a council house in my local area.

YANBU to stay there - your income still is not high enough to buy or privately rent easily.

IMHO the only people who should consider buying are those who have an extra income to rely upon if they lose a job. Anyone else will be out of a home. I am fully in favour of much more social housing for those who need it which tbh is anyone dependant on a wage and who could not pay a mortgage without that wage.

I am in a 2 bed HA house with a garden. It was in a state when I moved in and I am still decorating as the previous tenant trashed the place. I pay £88 a week in rent for this so it's not free, it doesn't come under the right to buy scheme either so it will always be social housing (good to know). When I have spent money turning it back to a decent standard I will live here feeling guilt free - even if things do massively improve (which I doubt) financially.

Stay there, enjoy it and feel thankful for it.

It is not your problem that there is not enough social housing and that private rents are unaffordable (leading to humungous housing benefit bills and people being trapped in benefits). It is the fault of successive governments. You know that YANBU really though so not sure why you asked the question in the first place

Agree that social housing was the norm; in the town I come rom the majority of housing voer 15 years old started life as social housing and only ceased to be so after the R2B came in.

WRT to inherited tenancies that a few people alluded to: these vary on where you are. Where Mum is 9the only ones I know in detail) you must be resident for ten years to inherit a tenancy. That makes sense; pretty much everyone I know who qualifies either has low level support needs or was the LT carer for the parent so would almost certainly simply be rehoused anyway. I/m not a fan of auomatic inheritance as some areas have though.

'There is no need to 'give it back' We as tax payers could own as many properties as we wanted and rent them out. The profit (which need not be huge) would be ours and would not go to someone out to make every last penny out of the tenant.

I see no downside to gradually making all or most rented houses the property of the tax payer.
'

Won't happen becuase the powerful voices are so often those of the landlords but absolutely agree in principle.

Although we've fallen on our feet here for the moment- house is ours as owner died and left it to grandchidlren too young to want it so rented and funding uni etc (not really a youngster's house). One day they will want it back but LL isn;t a B2L landlord in terms of the worst strereotypes- she's a decent person with a spare property.

I live in a council house. Our rent is £79 a week ATM.

A couple of years ago I was on just over £20k, DH was a SAHD so our income was not much difference than yours and the rent was cheaper than it is now. We live in a 4 bedroom house (OK so its not a really nice house in a really nice street, but it does have 4 bedrooms so is more than enough room for us well until DC3 arrives in sept anyway) We had quite a bit of money to play with each month too. However, I was made redundant in 2008 and have not been able to find a full time permanent job since. Ive had a few temp jobs, but have found it difficult to find myself another job. Though now I do work on a permanent contract, but its nowhere as close to what I was earning.

Now I could no-way afford to rent privately even though I could then. You dont know whats round the corner, and unfortunately things happen. Someone said to me, most of us are only a couple of months away from being homeless (ie large mortgage/rent on a nice house and the job goes, a couple of months later no payments to be made and homelessness it is). Basically you could move and then something could happen and you could no longer be able to afford to privately rent and then would have to apply so social housing again and this could take years (as you well know)

Of course if I was ever to win the lottery I would be out like a shot, but its unlikely to happen so I am set to stay here.

Ive only read the first page, but wanted to tell you my story as I was in the same situation as you so sorry if Ive repeated what someone else might have said.

'' 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..........We have a lifelong tenancy and the DCs would also be able to inherit it ''

I would like to hear what others think of this. Is it right that council flats be inherited by dc? Shouldn't the properties go back into the council 'supply pool' when the original tenants die? The ability to pass on a non-privately owned council flat as an 'inheritance' to one's dc does not sit well with me.

Should this rule exist? And if so, why?

No it shouldn't be inheritable, especially when so many of our parents will have to sell their family homes to pay for care home fees, it's just another example of punishing the responsible and savers.

EB I wonder how many councils really do apss oj to DC?

As I said before, where I come from (Somerset) there's very extensive criteria (including ten years being named on the tenancy) for passing on. Is Somerset the anomally, or is it a norm how they do it and aplces with direct heritability are the odd ones?

As it happend I cannot think of anyone back home who will inherit their house; not ne person, everyone moved out. Even those with SN. The only exception I an think of when really racking my brains is a blind and deaf lady and I think it would be pretty mean to ask her to go elsewhere (not least becuase the area I hail from moves anyone outside the town now if needing less that 3 beds so she'd be reliant on social services to do anything at all, at th usual cost of ££££.

Other than that thought can't think of anyone. Those who woudl qualify for social housing are all in their 'own' places long before parents pass on, usually from what I can see near enough that they are on the doorstep for care needs in older age.

The onlyn exeption actually is people like Mum: in her day only the man signed the lease, that was how it was. So whilst she is in all actuality effectively a joint tenant I have a strong inkling that's how it came about as a rule? They are saying there's no inherited tenancies to dcs in the normal thrust of things, but the old system of only male signings is easiest dealt with this way rather than having to resign all teh contracts.

??

mama do you think all in social housing are irrespoinsible non savers?

Dad ws caught up in this (I checked he's OK with link); ATM after 40 years very full time work saving for a pension it looks as if he will get £2k to retire on. He's already pushing 70, partially disabled and having to do a truly crap job just to get by.

The inheriting thing is intended for certain situations. Such as if you live with your parent and they die and you are not thrown out on the street. It doesn't mean you own the house from then on.

Imagine if a family rented privately and the one whose name was on the rental agreement died. The other/s would want to be able to keep renting the place surely? This is not currently illegal is it? why would it be?.

op

Im on waiting list for housing due to ds3 sn and now to what is high possiablity of me being permantley disabled to some degreewhat degree dont know yet .and im struggling to top up my hb for my home and am pretty desperate to get into council or Ha place

And your income it would not even begin to cross my mind about you being to well of and to give up your accomidation .Its not like your making even enough to be able to rent private or to buy and to still be able to afford to live

It's also worth notoing that in many areas a new tenancy automatically begins a maximum of ten days after the bamed occupier dies: so if say you are still with your Mum becuase maybe you've got a low IQ and she needed care that you were able to give, you are not going to find a new place in ten days are you? Esp. now social fund is closing so the costs of moving can't be covered by thso temporary loans any more.

I do know of people made homeless from adapted hosuing within 10 days of their lvled ones dying and having to move into B&B accomodation with small chidlren grieving for a parent / spouse. That's pretty damned harsh by any standards. Also of one person who received contact from their council whilst her hubby was having a serious op remnding her of the need to shift within ten days if he died . I geta dapted accom is in short supply but there are limits as to how possible it is to find somewhere else!

There's an argument (not so much for adapted hosuing due to need) for a mid lrngth term of 6 months for people affected this way; during which they would be aplced on the housing list. if they reach the top during that time they just keep where they are, if not then cheers off you go... but moving somoe family from their home, into B&B at a cost of megabucks then into an identikit house 200 meters away seems nuts.

yep peachy maybe they could be put at top of list when that happens so they have time to grieve and to make plans and to then be able to move into another accoimdation ( and yus probably Ha as top priorty means have high chance when bidding ) and then that frees up the adapted house.

I can see that and understand that even when we are waiting for adapted accomidation ourselves

I'd stay put. On that income, being self employed in this climate and with all the tax credit freezes/changes and child benefit freezes, you'd need to have a very healthy savings nest to go back to private renting.

i rent privatly, 17k is not enough to rent a house on. depending where you are of course.

most private letting agents will have a minimum income bracket for you to earn. from where i live your income falls short for 8k a year