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?

There's uproar about people being 'forced out of their homes'. Well that's what happens to people privately renting.

If private renting were more secure then it might solve a lot of problems.

Yes goldship. And is brutal.

The OP is at work now, Golf.

I see what you are saying, it's not their home. But if they were given a choice to pay average market rent for it, and they are paying tax, then it actually is as much theirs as it is anyone else.

I really do think we need to start making social tennants pay Market rent. The housing benefit scheme could be reformed so that those who genuinely need a subsidy get it, but those who dont need it don't get it.

As has been pointed out, the biggest issue for most people is security of tennancy, not the price they pay. Everyone has as much right to secure housing as anyone else, no matter how lucky or unlucky they have been.

Agree, Goldship, that's the bit I'm struggling with here. Unless the occupants have a genuine need for social housing, then why shouldn't they have to deal with the same hassle that everyone else who privately rents, or maybe owns but can no longer afford their mortgage has? You have to move. It sucks, but it's what happens.

If private renting were more secure then it might solve a lot of problems.

I agree with you I also don't like think private landlords should rely on their tenants to pay the mortgage that is why a lot of landlords have to sell ,

Hkat so what would you do in my situation? Not being inflammatory here, just looking for your opinion.

You've privately rented for years, pillar to post with all the expenses that moving incurrs.
You are made redundant whilst on maternity leave, then three weeks later you are given notice on your rental property. You would not get nor can afford a mortgage.
You are given a council property, lovely street, good neighbours, near the good schools.
In maybe 5 years time, you are jointly earning an extra few hundred per month, would you honestly move out of the home you have brought your children up in, into a private rental?

Wouldn't a system that encourages more people to have secure housing be better than a system which encouraged more people to have less security?

In social housing you don't 'own' the property but you do own the tenancy..... Which can be moved around to downsize or use it to move to other parts of the country

I have a HA tenancy.... Recently moved from a 3 bed to a 5 bed, now I'm considering downsizing again. Or I could have a lodger. My rent ia only £140 a week. 5 bed new build. first house nobody worked, now some of us work. But where should we move to op? After years on benefits and low paid work my credit score won't be anywhere near good enough for a mortgage. Have no guarantor for private rented. Or deposit .. My circs have changed, and in the time it takes to 'move out' as you seem to think people should, our circs could change back just as easily

I dont think UAB. Obviously a lot depends on their personal circu,stance

Goldship I'm sure Wigan is very nice. And I wouldn't mind a change of scene.

Where I live you need £30k+++ to get a mortgage on a house. If it took me ten years to save £10k I'd spend it on the holiday of a lifetime, not carry on saving and doing without for another 20 years.

Agree with Outraged too! And Kim. You can't afford to live in an area, you move. The issues that come with renting are indeed brutal - again though, its what renters have to deal with every day - why should one person be able be opt out of this, taking up a property that may desperately be needed elsewhere? Again, can understand why they would do this -but again, I don't think I'll be convinced they should.

I do not think all on here who are more in support of the op feel that those that live in council properties should not have holidays, nice cars the problem is this couple have a house that is needed by a family and when social housing is so much in need how can it be justified

Sadly I have met too many people who automatically feel they are entitled yes that word to a council property because their family has one, who know how to work the system examples someone o study with her daughter has just got a 1 bed flat in madia vale made herself homeless she could stay close to her family, another sister daughter her partner and her planned to have a baby she went in to a hostel now has a flat. These are the issues that we need to deal with so that social housing is uses how it was intended originally

And no I do not blame people for not wanting to give up their tenancy but things are hard for many who have bought and rent too so of course resentment builds when far too many are taking advantage of the system

That's exactly what I mean! Why should a family that has been on benefits for years have more entitlement to secure tennancy than a family where no one has ever been out of work?

Because what will happen if you start taking away homes from people is that they'd not bother trying to get off benefits because it will mean losing their home.

Fair point, Freddos.

Honestly Terra? Yes, I would move. I wouldn't want to, especially if it was where my DD had grown up - but I would move. I'm not being holier than thou on this one - to be honest it wouldn't have occurred to me NOT to move into private once I no longer genuinely needed social. I can't repeat enough though that I understand fully the reluctance! Or that the fundamental issue is lack of affordable
housing etc - so I'm not being judgy, honest! It's just what I would do.

Off out now so can't reply -interesting debate though people! :)

But Hkat, I asked what you would do. So you would stay?

Market rent is a good debate, our previous rental property was £440 per month, that was massively less than others, it was owned free and clear by a golf club, rent was minimal really. A similar property rents for anywhere between £800 and £900.

Rents in this area are from £400 (usually Bedsit or 1 bed flat) to £1000 3 or 4 bed.

I really feel that the answer lies in bringing in legislation to make private rentals more secure.

Cross post there.

'I wonder what our society would be like if we didn't have benefits and council housing?

If we just relied on market forces and capitalism?
A very brutal one - but how would rents, pay etc work out? '

Ever been to live in a country like that? You get a lot of slum housing and very nasty things like kidnappings and violence, people dead in streets, disease, etc.

It's disgusting.

We are just buying a flat which was let to students for years. That flat realised an income of £22,000 a year for that landlord. He had three in that block - £66,000 a year for neglecting the building, ignoring the complaints and protests of the single old lady on the ground floor who was flooded three times in a year by the students above.

Fortunately the tenants opposed the renewal if ths landlord's licence and local families ( including us) have bought the flats.

Private rental makes an absolute fortune for some - counc tenants are not the bad guys here.