To hold on to my council house?

[Memoo]

10 years ago I fled a very abusive marriage. DD was 2yo and ds was 3 months old. I lost my home, my savings and all dc's clothes and toys. Basically dc and I were left with nothing.

After being homeless for 3 months I was given a council house and I slowly built up a good life for the dc and I. I went to college and got a job. I supported myself and my children and I was really proud of that. Not being dependant on anyone was the best feeling I've ever had.

6 years ago I met my now 2nd DH. He moved into my house and although things have been tough at times we have got through it. I've also had another baby and dd is now 2.

The problem is we live in a really crap area. Crap schools, anti-social behaviour, drug dealer a few doors down, you get the picture.

DH is adement that we should give up this house and try and rent privately in a better area. I hate the idea of this. The way things are at the moment I know whatever happens with dh and I, this is my house and no man can take that from me. It gives me a sense of security knowing the dc and I have a home for life. If we rented privately I would once again become dependent on somebody else and the thought of that scares the crap out of me.

• Do NOT pay council tax!

Not everybody who has a housing problem is on benefits.

ok, thanks MrsOzz - good to know not all my illusions of human decency are groundless!

So I could be a millionaire, but without my own home, and get a council house with reduced (compared to private rentals) rent!

I suppose theoretically you could, but it would be unlikely to happen unless you were in circumstances that fitted the criteria on the housing lists. If you were a millionaire you wouldnt be in dire straits.

But those earning money with a house problem can sort themselves out.

People like Kellog are in genuine need, yet other couples who earn good money are also taking up council housing.

Madness!

Definitely do not give up your house! How about putting in a request for an exchange out of the area (still council!)?? Keep everything you have worked for - keep your independence!

I think that may be where my earlier assumption came from, the dearth of housing meaning that in many places only those in dire straights are likely to get a house without years and years of waiting.

People like Kellog are in genuine need, yet other couples who earn good money are also taking up council housing.

But at one time, it is likely that those couples were not earning good money. Also, they will be paying full rent and council tax.

You cant just kick someone out of their home because they have managed to get themselves financially a bit more secure.

What if they can't?

What if they too were on the bones of their arse when they got the place? Should people be evicted for getting a job or a promotion? That's hardly an incentive for people to improve their lot.

Actually, the biggest group 'taking up' council housing unecessarily are pensioners. There are many, many elderly people underoccupying family homes.

What we actually need, as opposed to squabbling about who 'deserves' a home, is more bloody council houses. I heard the other day that York council are actually building some - bout bloody time!

I do understand that kicking someone out once they are financially secure, is ethically wrong. But I can't help but feel it's worth it to give a family who really need a home somewhere safe to live.

Times have changed and I think the 'home for life' system needs to change to a 'home for when you need it.' As in the state will help (to whatever degree) make sure your family has a home whilst you need it, for as long as you need it. But once you're earning good money, or have no dependants, then you need to make way for families who need it. At least until this type of housing is in abundance.

I must add I would no longer need a council house, I now earn a very good wage and I hope I would only have used the house as long as I needed it - probably two years.

However I agree that we need more council houses.

The OP needs a council house.

When new housing is built in certain areas, a proportion of it now has to be allocated to social housing, or the developers will not get planning permission.

The problem you have though, is if you build social housing in an area that already has high unemployment, and overcrowding, you are adding to the issues in the area.

You cannot just "build more houses". If you have more houses, you need more schools, more hospitals, more GP centres.

It's not just ethically wrong - it actually creates a huge incentive for people not to get a job/improve your lot.

Why bother, if you're going to be made homeless?

I would hate to have to bring up my children in a run-down anti-social area, but actually I cannot argue with your logic. I understand it. It's up to you to decide which pull is strongest and most useful; the need to get away or the need to have that security. Only you can answer that.

My solution would be to make it easier for people to buy. The part buy/part rent schemes are very good, but only available to people who work in certain sectors as far as I know. One of my stepchildren works in the emergency services, so was able to get on the property ladder this way.

Really Squeakytoy, I thought they usually allocated it as 'affordable housing'? I didn't know they were making them build social housing. That's great though, as most 'affordable housing' is anything but.

Presumably all of the badly housed people in this country already use services? So demand would move, not increase. There is loads of brownfield sites that could be built on too, no need to hack into the greenbelt.

Because they wouldn't be made homeless, they would just have to move to the private market, as and when they could afford it.

I do hate our country's sense of entitlement!

I think people want to better themselves. To suggest that people in council housing would not want to improve their standard of living because they might lose their council house is patronising.

I am certain that I would be in the position I am in now, even if I stood to lose a council house at some point in my life. Yes I may have needed a period of grace in order to save the deposit and to get ready for paying a significantly higher amount of rent.

Having said that I am uncomfortable with forcing people out of their homes, it is better if they recognise that it is time to move on. I think it is also good if you have estate which are very mixed in terms of income and career choice.

I wouldn't touch those schemes with somebody elses bargepole! I can see why people do it (desperation) but they have their problems. The ideal is to own in the normal sense or social housing, an increase in the latter is desperately needed.

Sense of entitlement! Bingo!

Fuck off

I love our countries sense of entitlement. I thinks it's great that people have the courage and to stand up and demand a decent home.

I'm not going to argue. But the F**k off response kind sums up the type of person you are. Classy.

Why would anyone get a job then Mrs Ozz if they were going to be booted out of their home and have to pay double the rent to a private landlord. Nevermind the logistics of finding a private rental near their work/childs school and a few grand for a deposit! What would be the point. They would just stay their whole life on benefits surely. There would still be the problem of a council housing shortage, but you would have the added problem of most of the council housing in the country being paid for by benefits!

No they demand decent home when they need it. They pay for a decent home when they can.

One thing I will say, and this may not go down well. If you have a council house, and you continue to have more children, you should not be automatically given a bigger house just because you chose to make yourself over-crowded. That to me is where a sense of entitlement does seem to come into it, and it is something that I have personally witnessed.