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?

He won't though gold. He'd always be welcome here.

I haven't a clue what your getting at.

Oh my god.

In my eyes it's not flawed so I'll never see what your getting at. Around here the housing is fair. It always has been.

LST -say your son is 18 and you died (god forbid, sorry I know horrible thing to talk about) and he couldn't keep 'your' house. He was put in a hotel. and had to stay there for a long time. Because there's no houses. Because people are staying in them when they don't need them

Goldship - if I have been a tenant for more than 5 years. The occupants of the house take automatic tenancy. It's in my agreement.

I'm an assured tenant.

good ole Dave, keep the rich rich and makes the poor even poorer, most of his cuts so far have been taken from the lower earners, and if he has his way social housing and benefits will be a thing of the past anyway to so your banging on about freeing up these houses for the more needy people for nothing

like you really care anyway

Do you know the meaning of hypothetical LST. Because you're just not getting it.

SOME people don't have agreements like that.

In that scenario goldship the son would keep the tenancy

There's 300 homes being built in a 1 min walk from my front door and a further 200 3 mins away. I think we'll be doing ok up this end.

who has said it is council house tenants that are pushing up prices of private rents. but people abusing and taking advantage of the system in staying in council properties when they can afford not to when properties are needed by those who really are in need of it does not help. like it does not help our society if we avoid paying tax or the tax we should be paying

children of lower income families wont be going to university, Dave is already seeing to that

You said me though Goldship. my kids won't need to worry.

mellower yes i have name changed was twinmummy*** i think i've seen the other tantrum on a thread i was on so i may just name change again soon sorry for the confusion

"Goldship - if I have been a tenant for more than 5 years. The occupants of the house take automatic tenancy. It's in my agreement.

I'm an assured tenant."

That's the whole crux of the argument.
In Your case that's fair because of your disabled son but what about the occupants inheriting the tenancy that won't need it because they can afford to stand on their own two feet. They are then taking it from those who really need it.

Disabled?

Where have I said that?

Sopcial housing isn;t for means testing though.

I know people who have gone into houses with quite a reserve because they couldn't get a mortgage and a disability has meant their housing now needs to be severely adapted, something not widely available privately; if we lost this we would be a working family but impossible to house due to 3 autistic kids, we would also struggle because DH is self employed in an industry the insurance companies don't like, and because we have 4 boys- apparently 4 boys in a no-no.

It's not the income that's the problem, it's the private rental system. So we would have to go into LHA accom, and indeed the SW has a file ready for if and when it happens, as we couldn;t live in a B&B with the boys. In fact we were warned that we could lose 2 to foster care to make us 'easier to house' but I refuse to focus on that, and we have the MP on side at least.

sorry got it wrong - if he's not disabled, then he may have automatic right to take it on but not need it due to earning a good wage. He is denying a family in need while he spends his money on extravagant holidays - hypothetically of course.

Of course at 18 and the fact we would never be able to afford uni. I'm sure he'd be rolling in my inheritance

No he's not denying a 'family in need'

He would inherit the tenancy not the family home!!!

People seem to jump on threads and not have a clue how the system works!

it's interestinga s well how opinions have changed.

Where I grew up, the town was made of three big council estates; each one related to a factory or the docks. The private housing was minimal. People in my parent's generation who didn't buy a house for whatever reason were just allocated one when their first child was close. It was accepted, normal; no assumption of low income or anything.

the difference now is that so very many were sold off and never replaced. In many areas the asat ting an LHA takes on sale of the house is the door; next time you are on an estate have a look at how few houses still have council doors, then realise why the shortage is so severe.

heck, I don;t live far from Europe's biggest council estate- and that still applies there, not exactly prime location.