To think: if you can fly first class, you shouldn't have a council house?

[Mexxo]

Facebook friends of mine (friends of RL friends really) making lots of comments this week about their impending holiday to Mauritius on which they'll be flying first class and staying in a 5 star hotel.

This couple have lived in a council house for many years (no kids yet), though this year so far she has got a new (not brand new, a year or two old but still v nice) BMW and he has a new Ducati.

One of their friends has commented on FB "Wow, did you win the lottery?!" and the wife replied "no we just saved a long time for our dream holiday".

First class flights to Mauritius are £4k each. A week in a 5 star hotel must be at least £2k and probably more. That's £10k for a week's holiday. AIBU to think that if people can squirrel away that much money for a holiday, they shouldn't be living in a bloody council house subsidised by taxes from the rest of us?

But often the jealousy is misplaced.

Often a mortgage is close to or lower then the social housing rent.

Its a bit of a myth now that anyone can get one the council lists. In theory you can apply but some councils e.g. Westminster will only take priority applicants

"As a result those within a priority group will be placed upon an allocation register, the priority housing group register. Those who do not qualify for a priority group will be informed in writing that their application will not result in an allocation of accommodation because they have not been placed on the priority housing group register and there is no accommodation available for them now or in the foreseeable future."

and may refuse a priority applicant where

"Whose household‟s total gross income from all sources exceeds the threshold for the higher rate of income tax (currently calculated as income of £35,001) or whose household‟s total savings and capital assets exceeds £64,893.
Applicants whose household has capital assets of up to £64,893 will be assumed to accrue a pro-rata income of £5 per annum for each £100 of asset. This assumed sum will be added to other income (Supply and Allocation of Social Housing and Low Cost Home Ownership 13th March 2006)."

transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Housing%20Allocation%20Scheme%202011%20correct%20version.pdf

So Bob Crow would be very unlikely to get on to the housing lists in Westminster, if he were to apply now.

SirGOLD. If you've been where Terra has it will never be an easy thing to return to or risk returning to.

OP, YAabsolutelyNBA.

Council houses cost the taxpayer money, they should be for people who are in need of them, who don't have the money to pay market rents.

Given the holidays, cars etc that you described of this odious sounding couple, that is clearly not the case for them. It is beyond absurd that they are living in that house.

Not to mention vulgar and abhorrent of them, to gloat all over facebook about flying first class and staying in a five star hotel (why does anyone need to know those details?)

goldship why would I go back to short assured tenancies, when you can be given 2 months notice at any point after the first 6 months?

What would happen if DH lost his job? Should we forevermore bounce between council and private rentals, depending on our circumstances at the time?

GoldShip. Where is that posters incentive to work hard and earn more if doing so means losing their home security for themselves and their children?

They want to do better for themselves, so they do, but then they end up worse off so that someone who hasn't put in the effort they have can benefit? How can that be right?

My rent in social housing is £91 a week. Something similar in the private sector (just checked) is £85 - £90.

Mine is certainly not subsidised.

You are right only the rich of the rich deserve anything nice ever .

Often a mortgage is close to or lower than the social housing rent

Yes, it can be. But the difference is that an owner has to pay for house maintenance themselves. A tennant can just make a phonecall to the council when their boiler breaks, or their bathroom needs replacing.

Council houses cost the taxpayer money, they should be for people who are in need of them, who don't have the money to pay top market rents

Why should they only be for people who can't afford anything else? Why shouldn't they be equally available for anyone who pays income tax?

Even where council rented properties do not appear to be subsided, their tennants are still luckier than most to have a secure tennancy.

terra you don't have to. But just imagine if that's what everyone did. You wouldn't be sat comfortably in your home now would you? I thought you'd be more sympathetic to the cause because of your original circumstances.

outraged 'so that someone who hasn't put the effort' what's that all about? Did you mean someone who may be homeless, or running from abuse, or many of the other factors that render social housing the only choice for people.

Some people have a choice. A lot of people don't. Those who have used council housing when they were in need should move on when they are stable so those who need it can use it.

That's my opinion anyway.

Terra - yes, why shouldn't you go back to private renting if you can afford to? It's what everyone else who rents has to deal with - why not you? You acknowledge you were lucky enough to be given the council property when you were in trouble and needed help - but what if that house hadn't been available because the previous residents mob longer needed it but fancied staying there as they didn't want to deal with the same issues the rest of the renting population has to? Renting is a pain, but that's life! Your situation is very different from the other examples given about elderly people and those with specific needs.

There are people that are running from abuse or whatever who are in need of housing, I'm not denying that.

I'm saying that it's not right to penalise people because shit hasn't happened to them. If they pay tax, they have as much right to consideration from the system as anyone else.

outraged in a perfect world yes, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and we don't have enough housing for everyone.

£10 a week for 10/15 years is a lot of money. Maybe thats what they did to afford their holiday.

As for council houses. I think something needs to be done about private rents as they are far too high. Someone may be financially comfortable in a council house but if they moved to a private rent they may struggle.

That is exactly it outraged, it's the security element of a council tenancy, having been made homeless in the past there is no way (barring a lottery win or significant inheritance which would allow me to buy property) I will be moving my family back to the uncertainty of private rentals.

Clearly some here feel that is selfish on my part. I disagree.

terra you're ignoring the fact that if everyone thought like you, you would not be in tht house in the first place.

HKat - yes renting is a pain. I honestly don't think I could 'go back' here again if I get my secure tenancy. It may seem alarmist or 'poor me' but I couldn't do it to my kids.

Maybe once they are in their own homes. Maybe then.

It's so easy to underestimate the need for secure housing when you've not packed up/sold/given away most of your belongings to move into b&b. I'm sorry if it's selfish. But I won't risk it again. Because believe me - no one else will be looking out for me when it comes to housing. Not a private landlord. Not a mortgage company and not the council should I need to go to them again.

YANBU op. Considering the amount of desperate people on waiting lists who really need council housing, it should be means tested IMHO. The rent might not be subsidised but the building of that house was.

And for those of you arguing that they saved the money, what nonsense. Most people on a low income could never hope to save that much money, however much they denied themselves. The ability to save that kind of sum at all makes you fairly well off in my book.

Housing in this country is such a mess, but until such time as there is a plentiful supply of council housing, it should go to those in the most need. Totally shit for those losing their homes, of course, but they can at least afford to privately rent, unlike families who can't and are stuck in b&b's.

Although a better solution would be a fairer and cheaper private rented sector, but that's never going to happen in this country - have you seen how many mp's are private landlords??

I'm with Goldship.

There is a lack of social housing. There are families holed up in terrible b&bs waitin for a house and some need to be freed up.

They should just be for those in need. I know that people can have a council house on a ridiculous high wage... It doesn't mean that they should

The previous elderly tenants died, having lived here most oftheir lives.

So in a few years when my circumstances Have improved I should give back my house, then if they change due to job losses etc, I should ask for a house again?

No, we don't live in a perfect world with enough housing for everyone, which is why we have to have a fair system that doesn't encourage people to create a need by having children because they think that's going to be the easiest way of getting housing.

I don't think you are being selfish at all Terra. You have as much right to your house as anyone else.

Err yes? I don't understand what you are not understanding.

outraged not sure how it's a fair system.

terra

Basically yes.