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?

It would be like a third world country

How do you work out what is a fair monthly rent? If council/HA is so low and private is over inflated? Do you take an average?

Should councils rent at a percentage of annual income perhaps? Would that be a fair way of doing it?

HA rents have been brought more in line with Market rents.....you do all know that don't you?

My HA have different rents for different circs.

A couple without any kids shouldn't have qualified for a house. Maybe it is an EX council house and they have bought it. Council house or not this can't stop them from buying it, can it? Maybe you misunderstood. It is the same argument you hear "go down this street full of council houses and you will see that they are housing Polish people" where in fact most of those houses had been sold away ages ago and the Polish people (or whatever they are!!) actually rent them from the person who bought it from the council. People will think twice about buying council a flat because of the service charges and other repairs the council might force them to pay but will definitely buy a council house.

Why do you think that you subsidise them? Most council properties were built decades ago at much lower cost so paying rent in the scale of £400-£500 is quite reasonable. I thought that renting a house that you bought 15 years ago for the full market price of £1000 would be a rip off and not paying reasonable rent a subsidy?

www.bedfordshirehomefinder.co.uk/BEDS_HF/CFEHome.jsp?partnerName=BEDS_HF&websiteformat=graphical&colorSchemeText=1

Hope the link works! It's a link to my HA showing different rents

I've just looked on the Property Shop (council houses) online and the houses are still seriously cheaper than private renting. £280 a month for a 2 bedroomed house!

Scrounging like that shouldn't be going on hols and spending so much council housing is for those in need.

Private landlords are the problem.

No council housing isn't for 'those in need' it is for everyone if they want it. David Cameron could go on the list if he wanted to.

BlackberryIce Thu 20-Sep-12 11:27:59
Private landlords are the problem.

Hypothetical.

Father died.
Owns his house; quite large, needs a bit of work doing to it.

Prices in that area are around £300k.
If I try and sell, it will hang about for ages, just because people are worried about falling market and can't raise deposits.

To cover my costs, I decide I want to get some income from it while I wait to sell. I know naff all about this, I ask my estate agent.

They bang tenants in at a market rent.

I've provided a home to somebody, whilst I wait to get rid of a house I don't need. How am I a problem?

Private landlords are not the problem at all.

They make very little in the way of profit because they usually have an expensive mortage to pay, they have expensive maintence bills to pay, and they deserve to be paid for the time it takes them to actually do the job of being a ll. When you private rent, you are either doing it because the LL has taken on the risk that you can't afford to, or because you want flexibility in where you live.

Lots of people only want short term tenancies, think students or single professionals. Private LLs are not the bad guys, they are doing what they can in this market to try and secure a future for themselves and their families. There is a lot more to respect about that than there is about someone on benefits or on NMW for their entire lives.

There are some crap ones out there, but then there are crap tennants too.

Aboutlastnight Thu 20-Sep-12 11:31:34
No council housing isn't for 'those in need' it is for everyone if they want it. David Cameron could go on the list if he wanted to.

Yep. And it's done by need, so I could stay on the list forever. Older married man, good income, own house I want to sell, no kids at home.

I agree with your previous post outraged but Is earning NMW your entire life not to be respected?

I think some of the angry people on this thread are probably council tenants themselves, wanting to protect their lavish subsidised life style.when in reality they should be making way for those in true need not bed blocking scarce council housing.

In my region, you can buy a decent house for 100K.

You couldn't buy it with a 10k deposit, or on the average wage in my city, though.

It is much better to have stable housing and have the ability to save, than be stretched to the limit and become homeless, if you are working.

Had a crisis happened to the family in the OP, whilst they had the savings, they could have dealt with it, rather than needing the full imput of services.

I live in a HA house, i got this after my DH became terminaly ill. I studied and i am now on a good wage. I have savings, but not enough to buy a house.

My circumstances have just changed and i have had to start working part time, to care for my mother (and other reasons). I can still afford my rent on a part time wage.

Had i of been in a private rent, or have a mortgage, my mother would need carers, or i would need to be on benefits.

Either way the country would have to pick up the cost.

Unless we can drastically raise the wage level of most working class people, then having affordable housing, saves the country money in the long term.

We have needed a decent strategy on housing since it was made a mess of in the 80's, during Thatcher's government.

Our housing system should be open to criticism, but not the people who just want stable homes.

Sorry about your mother birds I hope she and you are ok x

Blackberry I'm not actually sure why my messages were deleted as I certainly did not swear in any of them.

A few people have cut and pasted from my deleted messages so you can still see the text, which simply said that those who had called me "a c" and told me to "f off" simply reinforced the most unfortunate cliches about what "people who live in council houses" are like. A statement which I made largely on the basis of LST's repeated abuse, as she had stated expressly that she does live in a council house.

The other thing I pointed out was that it was the most abusive people on here who were saying that I was "spiteful" and that perhaps those in glass houses should not throw stones.

So, no swearing, and no abuse from me. I think other people should be able to express their opinions without being cursed and abused, even if I don't agree with them.

theinets Scrounging like that shouldn't be going on hols and spending so much

Whos scrounging? The couples financial circumstances are not known, apart form they have saved money for a holiday - are you seriously saying this is wrong?

"they should be making way for those in true need"

How can you tell who is in true need?

Social housing in my region is mainly long term benefit claimants. Unemployment is bad, but there is no excuse to do nothing except smoke weed, as most do.

There should be more social housing than there is, or a cap on rents.

There are to many substandard private rental properties, which the LL do make lots of money on.

LST clearly does not understand the MN Talk Guidelines.

What a shame.

I don't believe society can benefit from moving people out of their communities. Many people are only as well-off as they are because of where they live. Removing them from their home of many years, their support network, their place of work, their children's schools, perhaps even their own elderly parents who depend on them, just because they are now in a position to put some money by after paying their rent just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not ignoring the fact that there are people in need who are going without at the moment. I just think that a knee-jerk make-them-move-they're-not-needy-enough reaction isn't a longterm solution.

Can I ask something? What if a couple worked full time, lost their jobs, went bankrupt, had their house repossessed, eventually got a council house, started earning a bit more but were unable to get a mortgage due to previous circumstances, having zero savings etc?
Should they have to move out?

The abuse of the OP has been quite horrible in my opinion and yes YANBU of course they should not have a council if they can afford all of those things, Council houses are subsidised by the state and should be for people who need them, why are myself and other taxpayers subsidising their lavish lifestyle.