To really not understand the logic behind "lifetime tenancies"

[DrinkFromMyFountain]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that once you get a council house you effectively get a lifetime tenancy and (provider you can pay the rent) you can stay in that house for life. I am also aware that council house rents are often well below market rates.

This strikes me as very unfair because obviously people's circumstances can change, and one could say, get a substantial pay rise or get married to a higher earning partner who then moves into the council house. I know housing benefit would stop under these circumstances but they'd still be getting a cheap council house when the didn't really need it.

fancy you are completely missing the point. I have never and will never look down on someone who lives in a council house.

I strongly believe that everyone who needs a council house should get one. That includes building more social housing.

'To clarify - I wasn't saying the private rental market isn't a mess (I am well aware that it is), I'm all for more regulation in the private sector.'

So you started a thread about council/social housing. I see.

"This strikes me as very unfair because obviously people's circumstances can change, and one could say, get a substantial pay rise or get married to a higher earning partner who then moves into the council house."

But they could be in that financial position when they get the tenancy, council housing isn't means tested.

Quick beginning of term link to our guidelines

Just ignore them, fancy.

Like they would want to live on a council estate anyway.

They like to talk about CH tenants like they are another species.

Goady goady goady.

if more social housing was built thee wouldn't be a problem

therein lies the problem.

gosh DMF, you are so lucky, i have now simply solved your problem.

in short

there isn't enough social housing because the govt are fuckers

there

Social housing was supposed to be available for everyone, not only people who couldn't afford a home any other way.

Of course now there is a shortage, councils have had to devise ways of making sure those most in need get first dibs.

I agree that tenancies should be reviewed more frequently, but I don't think homes should be taken away from people who have managed to improve their situation. If you know that you are going to be turfed out of your home for earning more, then you have no incentive to provide for yourself.

ah, Wallison the landlord-hater again. Might be worth reading a little bit on the law about tenancies and tenant rights in the UK.

tenants CANNOT be kicked out for no reason. Even if they don't pay the rent and destroy the place, it takes months to evict them legally.

doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Many things that are illegal happen.

sorry to spoil a good story with facts.

circs can change so quickly.....re marriage,jobs,redundancy....so you'd be forever moving in and out....in fact,no,you wouldn't. you wouldn't get a tenancy again with waiting lists being what they are......so is it cost effective to be chopping and changing so often?

social housing aims to provide STABLILITY

kissmeHardy and usualsuspect. Thankyou.

I apologise for the language but my point still stands.

I read mumsnet every day but don't feel the need to post as what I want to say is usually said by someone else already therefore my voice is not needed. That voice, by the way, is usually usualsuspect. She is by far the fairest poster I have ever come across in any forum across the internet (20 years worth of observation). Keep up the good work usual! I'm outta here.

Trills, why on earth would you want to give more money to people in private rentals - you do realise that that money just goes to private landlords.

We've tried letting the private market take care of housing and it hasn't worked. All that has happened is that it has cost us billions a year in housing subsidies, put millions on council house waiting list and left thousands of families living in B&Bs which also cost an arm and a leg. Time to turn back to public housing provision.

specialsubject, you say yourself that it takes 'months' to make a tenant homeless, but then in the same breath that they cannot be kicked out. So which is it?

Thing is if you say if your circumstances improve you lose your home then you take away the incentive to better yourself. For example, that means that someone who can't be bothered to work would keep their tenancy yet someone who worked hard and got a better paid job would lose theirs.

And I am aware that tenants do have some nugatory 'rights' on paper but those are overridden by the fact that landlords can give two months' notice for no reason. So all the repairing obligations in the world won't matter a damn if the landlord can just evict them anyway.

I have a life time tenancy. My circumstances have also changed. Not by a great deal but a bit more than when I first became a tenant. I have one dc and another on the way. I have never claimed hb and don't qualify for tax credits anymore. But I don't think it's fair of anyone to say I should leave my home that I have put a hell of a lot of money into just because

You really think that is fair op?

I do think circumstances and salaries should be taken into account.

But, at the same time, it's a bit heartless to make someone move from a home they have been in for most of their lives, particularly elderly people.

Larger homes often allow family to visit, rather then being cramped in a one bed flat, for example.

However, larger salaries should attract market rates if the house is maintained to proper standards by the council. Are they, though, or the tenant has to invest a lot in it?

Op you are believing the tabloid/ current government myth. Council/ Ha properties were never intended for low income families they were designed as affordable homes for anyone to live in.

There are lots of lifetime tenancies , there is a very small number of local authorities that no longer offer them.

Kiss me right to buy was a good thing , what caused the problem was the fact that they "pocketed the money"instead of using it to build new homes.

I am very much in favour of social housing, we need far more of it, everyone needs somewhere to live.

I have a lifetime tenancy with a HA, this house cannot be bought either so will always provide an affordable home for someone. At the moment this is me and it might need to be an affordable home for DS in the future (autistic).

I do think that reassessment of need is sensible, but even more sensible would be more building of affordable housing.