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.

The housing stock is limited because councils have been prevented from building more houses and seen their stock dwindle through right to buy.

There are still lots of people who can't afford a mortgage deposit who would like secure tenancy. It's just madness that in the UK we are so unable to meet that need.

William

Some people are bothered about people in council houses receiving subsidy, others aren't though.
that was my point about greed. I don't think people used to bother so much, it wasn't a competition who had what. Then society became greedy and out for what they wanted. The culture became I'm entitled to this because x. Our wants got confused with needs imo.

How are council tenants being subsidised if the rent revenues that they generate are sufficient to cover the running costs of the provider? If anything, private sector tenants are being subsidised or rather their landlords are because millions of them cannot afford to pay the rent at so-called 'market rate' and therefore claim billions in housing benefit each year.

And yes, public housing stock is limited. So we need to build more. It's an investment that pays for itself over and over, so it's hardly throwing money away.

The key thing to remember is it is not the fault of council tenants that private renting is shit.

Also council housing is not subsidised. The govt does not allow that and hasn't since Thatcher's time. Rental costs must cover the cost of the housing.

This is close to home for me, I was moved into a council flat when DD was 9 months, have lived here as a lone parent since then, DD is now 5. I've since met my DP who earns well above average wage.

Yes, I have the right to buy as I was housed at a time that this was part of the tenancy agreement, however, the moral issue is haunting.

Apologies if I used the term 'subsidized' up thread but what I was trying to relay is that those in Council and HA tenancies may be covering the costs for the HA but are avoiding paying market rates --- and the difference between HA and private housing can be dramatic. (And sometimes it can't). This is why I used the term 'subsidised' because HA/Council tenants are protected from market rates essentially, which is one major reason people now want to be in council properties. People who have lived a life in council housing have, frankly, been protected.

morethan sorry I disagree with you that people didn't previously compare what they had with others. I don't think there were halcyon days where everyone was equally poor and didn't compare what they had. What the public realize is that a lifetime tenancy in a non-market rate property can be a major windfall, one of the reasons why this debate rages.

When it is clear that Council Housing has shifted from 'housing for anyone/everyone' to 'housing for people with the greatest need' how can lifetime tenancies possibly be provided? Agree there is a lack of housing etc and because of that essentially Council Housing is almost shifting to 'short term' emergency housing. Frankly I'd rather use the properties to house people in desperate need than those who have experienced the benefits of being protected by the Council/HA and now have the income and wherewithal to move. I appreciate my views aren't popular and I will be barked at by those on the thread.

The problem is if we use council housing as emergency housing for those in the greatest need then we are in the situation where everyone renting lacks secure housing. I also think the cost of this to councils/HA will be high, when you have a permanent home you maintain it, look after it, when you have somewhere to stay for a bit you don't invest in it.

There's a lack of social housing at the same time as developers buy up huge plots of land and sit on them until the price is right for them to build. And then it's mostly luxury housing that goes up.

If the govt wanted to solve this problem and provide more social housing, they could. At the same time they would be creating thousands of jobs in the construction industry.

However, it goes against absolutely everything they believe in to give a helping hand to people who are having a hard time. They want people to be independent and do not want the state to have to spend taxpayers' money on helping people. They think that if you remove the help, people will magically not need it any more. Can anyone spot the logic in that? So they are never going to build enough social housing. It's a policy decision, based on their political ideology.

Solo I actually don't think the govt has the money to lead a huge program of building works. Have you seen their current spend and balance? I'm surprised Britain won't be bankrupt in a few years. Anyway much-needed schools aren't being built plus we're still paying off all the stupid PPI builds thanks to Labour.

It does mean people lack secure housing but one could say that people lack security in all aspects of their life and.... that is one of the big challenges of adult life! At what point is a very broke govt meant to intervene to fix it -- for some but not for all? Maybe we just need to reduce our expectations re: how much the govt can intervene and help and maybe we're going to have to because the level of intervention and support we may want or be used to is not sustainable.

Check out these details on govt spending. Expenditure is up across the board and debt is bonkers. It's no wonder the govt is trying to claw back and not invest in massive programs of building work at a time when they're thinking - we've got to find a way to reduce not increase our provision to the public.

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_brief_recent.php

This one is probably from some Tory think tank but still a good summary:
www.debtbombshell.com/public-spending.htm

Increasingly I feel that the govt is going to go back to basics for services and I think there will be a massive reduction in the assistance the govt can provide in people's lives. Think local authorities focusing on rubbish removal and planning, not social services and certainly not housing. We can bark about how we think the govt needs to provide better housing but then... there's a lot of things the govt should provide... and I want a pony!!

Talk about a thorny issue! In my job we're grappling with the under-occupancy deduction. E.g a pensioner on her own in a 4-bed house suddenly has special needs that mean her 2 daughters have to stay with her on alternate nights but for their own reasons one can't use the room that their sister slept in the night before. When it's explained that at best the mother's entitlement to benefit would be for a 2 bed flat the usual response is 'but I grew up here'. That's fine; her mother won't be moved so long as the difference between the rent & the housing benefit is paid & usually the 25% is met somehow. You can almost always guarantee that it will be because when said pensioner dies someone (usually a grandchild) will come crawling out of the woodwork claiming to have lived there for the last 10 years so that they can claim succession rights to the tenancy although their grandmother had declared that she'd lived alone for all that time....

Pensioners are exempt from the bedroom tax, do get your facts right before you spout off.

Perhaps twenty year tenancies and no right to succession (except in the case of disabled or SN adult children)...?

Sorry Williamina - the govt can afford to do what it wants to do (eg Olympics, tax breaks for global companies, etc.) It doesn't choose to spend the money on social housing. As you say yourself, it has other priorities.

Massive programmes of building create jobs too, and people in work pay tax - so they would actually help to reduce the debt and lift people out of poverty.

The govt's priorities are based on its beliefs that people should stand on their own two feet and shouldn't rely on the State.

As far as building schools is concerned, they are happy to give the money to anyone who wants to set up a free school. Less happy to address the 20% shortage in primary school places that is going to hit us in two or three years' time.

Sorry Usual I should've made it clear that pensioner was used in the loosest terms, i.e. generally by the person contacting us. I accept that mostly they're only a couple of years older than I am.

sextowel

If that is the case then I'm sure you would be telling them that they would have to evidence both the care needs and a carer actually being present.

What about sitting tenants? My parents have a house in Knightsbridge which is valued at about 3k a month but they did a good deal with a Kuwaiti in 1964 who wanted the cruddy basement they owned up the road. They pay 220 a month for life nd rarely visit

Solo maybe the govt is trying to create a shift in ideology and to encourage people not to rely on the state. Possibly because it's not tenable. Spending on benefits and pensions are twice that of NHS spending and almost 3x that of education. And they keep going up. And Local govt budgets keep going up despite decline in services.

People brought up in the UK will be familiar with council house provision and clearly mourning its demise/decline. Creating another generation who believe the council/state has a pivotal role in providing public housing is probably not desirable for a country that can't afford it. Don't get me wrong, it would be a lovely thing. I think there are lots of people on MN with strong beliefs and very left yet unwilling to accept the fact that Britain is almost bankrupt and instead coming up with some bizarre Keynesian and socialist solution of an economy completely driven by state spending.

Why for fuck sake do people keep lumping social housing in with welfare? It's beyond irritating.

Spending on out of work benefits is fuck all. The main chunk of spending is on pensions. There's also a sizeable chunk that goes on in-work benefits because employers won't pay their employees a decent fucking wage.

As for not being able to afford council housing, as has been pointed out many times on this thread it pays for itself several times over. It is an investment. It is much more of an investment than paying out billions to private landlords so that they can have property empires at tax-payers' expense.

What Wallison said.

Yes, Williamina, the govt is trying to do just that. But it can't just wriggle out of its responsibilities towards people at the bottom end of the social scale. Some people need help, through no fault of their own. They don't choose to rely on the state - whatever the govt try to make us believe.

And it's not council house tenants who bankrupted the country.

I don't know how the Govt get round the housing crisis though. All I do know is that in Europe the norm is to rent privately but people don't need top ups to actually afford the rent....they can afford it out of wages.

Perhaps we need to be paying higher wages here or establishing some form of rent control. I m not experienced or knowledgeable enough to know which is the biggest issue.

Housing should be a basic human right...everyone needs a roof over their head. How we achieve that is another matter.

i had this conversation with oh last night almost ended in blows lol

we have diff social back grounds, as in my parents/myself have a mortgage, where as his parents and then his self had a council house

his parents were the first ones to move into their street 60ish years ago, parents raised 5 boys in a 3 bed house, both parents worked, and all moved out as met partners, parents died 10years ago and house went to oh's brother

i said he should move and exchange house, oh said no, it was his family home and why should his brother move and have to leave somewhere thats hes lived in for 50ish years

then got onto topic of a girl he knows, was a single mum and yes she works, got a council place - i have no problem with this

2 years later, she met someone who earns a lot (more then me) and he moved in

my argument is that bf can afford to rent privately and friend should give back her council house for someone who is in the same situation that she was 2 years ago

oh disagrees and says they pay their rent/both work so should stay in their home

Spending as a proportion of GDP fell during the last Labour government. The current deficit is a direct result of reduced tax revenues following the financial crisis. The biggest drain on local government coffers are pensions. Government pensions have been renegotiated and savings are starting to be made and these will increase over time.

Housing is an asset, an investment. My local council had £15million invested in fucking Iceland, yet it had thousands on its housing list. If you had the choice between investing in off shore investment funds or bricks and mortar what would you do?

A lot of councils are now offering flexible tenancies or 5 year tenancies which are reviewed to see if they still need the property, makes better use of the housing stock