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.

I should point out that the HMO Regulations don't apply to properties let to families. So no requirement for the high standards set by them.

Don't mind the lifetime tenancies, however I believe the amount paid in rent should be means tested for social tenants, and when/if they earn more etc. they would pay some more in rent, although not so much that they are not better off in other terms too, as otherwise it would take away incentive to improve their life and jobs. The additional rent charged would then go on to help create more and better social housing, which is obviously desperately needed.

personally, i think UK wages need to be hugely increased, so people can afford to live without benefits and social housing. It shouldn't be necessary for people who work full time to resort to this!

Don't mind the lifetime tenancies, however I believe the amount paid in rent should be means tested for social tenants, and when/if they earn more

They already are same as with any renters those below certain incomes get either full HB that decreases as income increases inline with circumstances those about the very low HB income cut off receive none and pay full rent.

My husband and I are both shift workers and our nearest family member is at least three hours away. We have had to find ways to manage child care on our own. We spend up to ninety minutes commuting to work but will have to move further away from it in order to buy a house big enough to accommodate visitors. I'm not won over by your point there, Midland

Your individual circumstance obviously make it possible,but you obviously wouldn't be contemplating such a move if you had to be at work for 8am and the only childcare available didn't open till 7-30 am (or even at a push 7am)

I agree"managing childcare" is all part of being a working parent,but as any working parent knows there are many,many things that need to be balanced and considered when one applies for a job - the most important one being "can I actually get there on bloody time after I've dropped the kids off "

No one cared about SH until shiney Dave and his cronies started his smear campaign in the media.

In fact people used to pity SH tenants,now they envy then.

Funny how times and opinions change with a bit of spin.

Sure, HMOs are regulated. Other private lets, not so much.

How many HMOs are there in the UK compared to, say, Germany anyway?

Few well placed stories about free houses and 12 bedroomed mansions and suddenly everyone wants a council house.

Well actually, they don't want a council house they just don't want anyone else to have one.

The whole idea of council houses was to give those unable to afford a mortgage the chance to have a home.
You had to be respectable citizens with references and I'm sure you needed to be a working household in order to pay the rent because the benefit system wasn't good. Pretty similar to how this gov are making the system.
It is still the same today and many council houses are occupied with employed people, we all need homes of some description.

Midland, we sometimes have to be at work by 4am, 8am is considered a lie in. We don't use child care, we do it ourselves.

Good for you. Do you suppose that, for example, a working single parent doing those shifts would also be able to looking after children with a partner without having to rely on family?

Oh.

Anyway, Ratters, the crux of your argument seems to be 'I have it tough so I want to make it tough for other people too'. Not really winning me over, I have to say.

We were allocated a Council House. We have a lifetime tenancy. I am so grateful. DD1 has SN, this house is safe for her, close to our parents (a major supportive influence) and has a garden she can play in safely.

We're lucky in the LA also (Hampshire). They give Discretionary Housing Scheme points once every 5 years - 8 points you can spend on a designated list of improvements. ie. 8 points for a new front door, 3 points for a double socket, 6 points for a back gate, 8 points to have one room decorated by their contractors or 1 point for £50 B&Q/Homebase vouchers. We chose the vouchers, so have £400 to decorate our home, subject to conditions (a specific list of acceptable purchases, the council have the right to inspect to see that work has been done, etc.).

The issue isnt lifetime tenancies in council housing, but the lack of stability for private tenants. I agree with comments made above about the fact that in Europe your home is your home whether you rent or buy and as long as you pay your rent, you are able to stay there and that we need to remodel housing laws in this country along the same lines.

It would cut 2 things at a stroke

1. Buy to letters snapping all affordable housing and driving prices up for buyers, who then have to rent and fall victim to.......
2. the same BtL's pushing up the cost of private rents because they have to service a mortgage and the tax on the rents they receive.

Only in the UK is property seen as an investment rather than a home, no matter who lives in it.

I don't understand the recent of people who have far less than the people being iyswim.
People who needed benefit or lived in SH were pitied and shown empathy, I can remember being at school and there being a general consensus of it might be tough but its not as bad for us as it is for them attitude.
Perhaps it is greed, people bothered about what their neighbours have, material and technological gadgets.
Did the 1950's housewives bother about what washing machine their neighbour had? I know you were dead swanky if you had a tv in time for the coronation. (A love of social history, not memory btw).
Perhaps we didn't expect too much when I was growing up. The rats, rubbish, dark, cold, surplus of dead bodies, strikes and 3 day week saw to that.

Typed major logical reply. Reasoned, intelligent and relevant.

Actually can't be arsed.

Will doff cap to OP and hope I am still so grateful in 10 years when I may have pulled myself out of the black hole of low income/high bills/prejudice/council house envy SHEER LIVING HELL.

And then move. Yep, makes sense.

I don't think it's greed, morethan. I think it's an orchestrated attempt by Cameron and co., in cahoots with certain sections of the media, to demonise the poor by pointing out how good they've got it. So that when they take away what little the poor have, the rest of the country will let them because after all they had it so easy until the rug was pulled up from under them.

And the reason that they want to take away what little the poor have is because they are ideologically opposed to the welfare state and therefore want to shrink it. Because then private provision is the only way that anything will get done, and they can give their mates back-handers by awarding them contracts and de-regulating everything in sight to ensure that they get even more money without having to answer to anyone. It is truly fucking depressing.

I remember some years back that a couple won the lottery. They were in late middle age in a council house and worked low paid jobs.

They were keeping their jobs and staying in their house and werent going to buy it.

I was really conflicted about that. On the one hand I was happy that the house would remain council stock, but felt they were selfish as it was a 3 bed and they only used one and had the resources to move, but it was their home so why should they leave, but they were in a better position than most to do that......but but but

I never worked that one out but I did get pissed off that they didnt leave their jobs and do voluntary work. The both said that they loved working and would never stop, which is fine, but why not help the woefully understaffed voluntary sector and give a paying job to someone who need it more? Sorry, derail there, but that story popped into my head after reading this thread.

Wallison

I understand and agree with the point about propaganda and what the gov are doing. But is it not an attitude of greed which is enabling some people to agree with gov and fall for the spin.
I really don't care what others have or have not got and believe this is probably because I'm not materialistic.

Sorry, I really like your posts but must admit to soon becoming a ll myself.
I do intend to be fair though and as not reliant on mortgage payments will be really reasonably priced. Also considering the YMCA scheme, which pays half as much as you could get, but will probably make me feel better.

The Victorians blamed the poor for being poor and convinced society that the best way to deal with it was to punish them for their laziness and lack of a work ethic.

Look how well that turned out.

My Grandad once said to me, about WWII, "the day we forget is the day it happens again"

Seems to me that we have forgotten what happens when the poor are demonised.

While I appreciate this issue is more in the media than ever I don't think it's all Cameron's spin but a growing frustration at the issues of supply and demand and lack of council housing that has spurred the debate or envy. People desperate for housing see others living in lifetime tenancies having pretty good lifestyles while living in non-market rate housing.

Council housing will never be for anyone who just needs affordable housing.

I think the great British public just get a bit tired of the us and them divide: some being given opportunity to have stability, cheap rent, looked after, needs taken into account etc and frankly an attitude of Mollycoddling. (They need a spare room in case a relative visits! my needs my needs my needs) while the rest of the great British public have to fend for themselves in the cruel market economy with a govt that shows no interest, doesnt care about their housing concerns and provides little in the way of services for them, seeing them only as tax payers and an income source.

I private rent, renting wouldn't bother me if I had security. But I don't, because I know I could be given 60 days notice at any time I don't feel this is a home, I don't feel I can invest in doing the garden as I'd like, I don't buy art for the walls, I'd dearly like to change my bed, I'd like a king, but I don't know if I may have to move, and if I do what size my bedroom will be.. It's horrid not being able to make your house a home. I'm hoping to buy eventually, not because I'm mad for owning property, but because I'd love to decorate a room.

Apart from at the time when it was built and thereafter for decades until the 80s, you mean? I see.

Isn't the main issue though that housing stock is so limited that council housing is no longer just for anybody that needs secure housing but for those with the greatest needs and therefore its a different playing field now? on that basis i think one would have to reevaluate tenants and their needs.

The key thing to also remember visavis 'envy' is that people in council housing will be getting a deal (read: subsidy) if they are not paying market rates for accommodation.