Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

841 replies

Mexxo · 19/09/2012 22:32

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?

OP posts:
lisad123 · 20/09/2012 10:21

£10k wouldnt buy you a house you know Grin

Kayano · 20/09/2012 10:22

Might get a nice deposit though

DelhiCalling · 20/09/2012 10:22

OP Yanbu. These people sound highly immoral. Council housing is for those in need, no wonder there are long waiting lists when there are scroungers like this taking housing.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 20/09/2012 10:22

If council rents were means tested, then more people would be paying market rent. If there were more people paying market rate, then the councils and HAs would be able to afford to build more housing.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:22

10k would put a deposit on a mortgage.

frasersmummy · 20/09/2012 10:23

40 years ago living in a council house was the norm.. my parents were given a brand new 3 bed council house when I was 2..

They scrimped and saved all their days to give me everythng they could... I know there were times my mum was really worried about money and was doing without to make sure we didnt. Just when they were thinking they could buy the house Dad was made redundant and they were back to scrimping and saving

Once dad regained employment (a miracle at 50) they mananged to put a little away ... enough to make sure he can live out the rest of his life without worrying about money but certainly not enough to buy a house

Mum passed away in December and Dad has decided to take some of his rainy day money and treat himself to a lovely holiday in the states
so should he give up his council house ???

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:23

Kayano - beat me to it :o

EasilyBored · 20/09/2012 10:24

Since you generally need a 15% deposit to get a decent mortgage, I would like to know where you are house shopping!

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:25

Easilyboard - depends where you live. There's loads of decent houses in my area for less that 100k. And 5% mortgages are back now in lots of places.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 20/09/2012 10:25

It's fair because in theory, everyone has equal access to housing.

The fact that people only tend to get housing nowadays when they are high priority ensures that the housing that becomes available goes to those who need it most, which is fair.

But it wouldn't be fair to tell someone that the system they pay to contribute to is one that they are completely barred from. That is the way madness lies.

Quenelle · 20/09/2012 10:27

10k would put a deposit on a mortgage.

No it wouldn't.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:28

outraged

It isn't fair at all

There's people living in hostels and with abusive partners because they simply cannot get a house of their own. They don't have the means to save up for a deposit. They are at the mercy of social housing.

There's people living in the council houses who could quite well afford to private rent or get a mortgage. But they stay there because they are comfortable and 'secure'. Which they have every right to do, but it isn't fair.

kim147 · 20/09/2012 10:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:29

Quenelle - tell that to my partner then Confused

EasilyBored · 20/09/2012 10:29

But a 5% mortgage usually comes with shite interest rates. And as someone said upthread; their are a lot of hidden costs with buying. So you'll need another few thousand for solicitors fees and surveys etc. Ten thousand is not that much when it comes to house buying.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:30

Easilyboard - it can be done though.

kim147 · 20/09/2012 10:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GolfOscarLimaDelta · 20/09/2012 10:30

It's not as easy as saying "give it up and find your own house"

Most people given social housing over the last couple of years have either faced homelessness, temporary accommodation such as hostels or b&b or have waited on a list for years and years.

Do you think they will willingly give up the security the worked hard for?

I don't think they will.

So what then?

The two choices are force them out or build more housing for then next on the list.

The difficulty in getting social housing these days is breeding a "hold on tight" culture.
I appreciate that people holding onto their houses when they can afford alternatives are making the situation harder but can you blame them?

I think peo

sixlostmonkeys · 20/09/2012 10:31

If people in council houses just ensured that they never earn a good wage, have lots of children instead of buying cars and holidays, then there would be no problem :)

GolfOscarLimaDelta · 20/09/2012 10:35

I do agree that when people in social housing earn more then they should start to pay a higher rent.

But really, could we be sure the councils would pay that money back into building more houses? I wouldn't bet on it.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 20/09/2012 10:35

GoldShip, I understand what you are saying. There are people in desparate need of housing that can't get it. But you are missing what I'm saying about a system that encourages people to create a need.

How many people live quite happily at home until they are ready to Kobe out so their loving parent who they have a close relationship with 'throws them out' so they get to have priority on the list?

Why should someone who has worked hard to get themselves to the position where they could afford market rent be thrown out of their house for someone else?

If everything is just handed out to people because they need it, then they have no incentive to work to get what they need for themselves.

There might be losers in that system that really don't have any opportunity, but we can't base a system that is supposed to work for the entire population on a few people that have had bad luck.

GolfOscarLimaDelta · 20/09/2012 10:36

Six :) I have two children. Can I stop now please? I don't want anymore!

HKat · 20/09/2012 10:36

I genuinely understand why someone would not want to give up their secure tenancy. But I'm afraid I'm never going to be convinced that it's morally fair.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:37

I understand what you're saying too outraged. I think maybe the whole system needs to be rethought.

GoldShip · 20/09/2012 10:38

Same here hkat