to ask a question about council houses?

[Pipbin]

I'm not wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of benefits etc but I just have a honest question about council houses.

If someone is granted a council house, is it like renting a private house, but the landlord is the council that they pay rent to, which may be covered by housing benefit?
If they then get into a position, for example finding work, where they are no longer entitled to HB, do they cover the rent themselves or do they lose the house?

I have no reason for asking this other than curiosity. I've claimed HB in the past but I was in a private rental then.

I see your point Chloe, but if people who had lived in an area for years should suddenly have to move there would be no community or social cohesion.

Um bumpy I am in private rental, I know exactly how it is to have to move at the landlords whim, as do most people who are not homeowners!

This is how it is...there are not enough council properties to go around...so the answer is either build more or make it more attractive for landlords to offer long term secure lets. Not to shift people out the moment they earn more!

That creates an atmosphere of failure! People would be afraid to have ambition! "Oh better not try for promotion...we'll lose our home."

Chloe do you have children?

Local councils set their own rents.

Where I live you are not eligible if you have the means to solve your own housing problem (ie you earn enough to get a mortgage).

But once you are a tenant then no, you won't get kicked out if you then start earning shed loads.

The problem with setting some sort of income cap and saying 'ok you can have this house, but if you warn over £xxxx then you have to leave' it disincentives people from progressing in their field of work.

Example:

Shall I go for that promotion? It would further my career yes, but I'd be warning £10 above the threshold and so loose my house, but the mortgage I'd be able to get won't enable me to buy anywhere near an equivalent property, we'd only just be able to afford it, what If I'm then made redundant, or interest rates rise?. Nah, think I'll leave it and keep my family safe in their current home.

I am getting a bit annoyed at all of the "very cheap rent" comments. This is not actually true everywhere you know. Where we are, there are no "council houses" as such. The council transferred all of their housing stock (well, sold I suppose, but transfer is the word they use) to a housing association many years ago. The rents have gone up every year to make them much closer to private rents than they used to be. Nowadays, we pay £500 per month to the housing association - and a similar, privately owned, property in the same road has just been rented out at £575 pcm.

Yes, it's a bit cheaper - but it's far from the myth of people being given houses for peanuts.

X post with bumpy !

I have a council property, I got it when I was working, I just went on the waiting list when I had my first child 20 years ago, I just couldn't have afforded to stay in London near my job without it. Now im on housing benefit when I get another job I will pay the rent. My rent is about 1/3 of market rents where I live. I pay £500 a month. I have a lifetime tenancy, new tenancy I think are only 5 years now, and if your income goes over a certain amount you have to vacate. Seems fair enough, if I won the lottery I could in theory just keep my flat, not that would, its cold damp and has loud neighbors.

And Chloe if you DO have children, do you not want some security for them? The knowledge that they may grow up in the same area? know the same kids? Attend the same school? Or are you happy for them to have to move at the drop of a hat? Leave their school and friends?

I do take your point about ambition, that is always the problem with means testing as a cut off threshold can be a blunt tool. My solution would ideally be provide more council houses but I am just thinking around it.

As for whether I have children, I don't see what that has to do with anything but no I don't, I am ttc after a loss...

Santas I think the idea that people think they're cheap has come from the fact that they're cheap for what you get...which is lifetime security. 600 quid a month and never have to leave? BARGAIN! As opposed to 700 and might have to leave at any time?

Bumpy people in private rent have to move around at drop of a hat regardless of children.

Chloe it has to do with your understanding of the desperation one can feel when faced with uprooting your happy DC from a happy neighborhood which they love. It has to do with the fact that being able to provide a secure home is one of the main areas of parenting which no parent wants to fail at. Sorry you've had a loss. :(

Chloe people are 'holding on' to their council home because they are entitled to. One of the main benefits of council housing is that it provides security of tenure ie you meet the tenancy conditions you stay as long as you like. You can raise your family,create local networks,go in and out of employment etc secure in the knowledge that your home is safe. Imagine the disincentive to work if you knew you were going to be forced to leave your home and community if you earned a bit more. Not to mention the administrative nightmare it would be to check every tenants earnings every year.

To answer other questions -each council sets their own rents each year. Each council has their own system of allocating any vacant housing. This will be available on their website or ask for a copy it. Most will give you information on how many properties become vacant each year and the priority groups that got them.

Wants I KNOW! I think you've misunderstood me...that's my whole point!

Yes of course I would want my children to have security. Personally I have chosen to move out of London to a more affordable area. I know some people are more tied to london because of work or family and don't necessarily have the luxury of choice. I think the 5 year tenancy described by teenage above sounds good. That is a lot more secure than private but gives the opportunity to move people on, with enough warning, when they don't "need" it

I think I was still at your 23:23 post!

Chloe you imagine a 5 year tenancy to sound good...but when you have children aged 9 and 5 as I do, moving now for instance would mean that my oldest would have to attend a new primary...lose all her friends and then go to secondary with a new set of children with whom she had no shared history.

5 years is nothing.

And unless the "Warning" was a year then it would be no different to a landlord giving me two months notice right now.

Yes, I suppose that is true. Although lifetime tenancies are becoming a thing of the past in many areas - as teenagetantrums has mentioned above.

We have friends who live in a different authority & have just taken a HA house with a 5 year tenancy - meaning they will have to prove that they still need the benefit of social housing in 5 years time. If they are earning too much they will have to move.

X posting with a lot of people. The thread is moving fast! I am not saying my suggestion was perfect. It was just an idea. Loving, you are right there, I don't think incomes should be checked every single year I agree that is administratively onerous, expensive and probably not worth it.

I do think 5 year tenancies sound like a good idea. I know most will disagree but I don't see a problem with children moving schools. Some may not have to if in same area and plenty of children move countries and back during their education so a few miles down the road I don't see as an issue.

Santas really? That's worrying. I hope other authorities don't follow suit.

Bumpy once your child is in a school do they need to remain in the catchment throughout? I thought that was only for getting into the school in the first place. So they wouldn't necessarily have to move schools if they moved into private letting surely?

Yes Bumpy - I don't know if there are plans to introduce it everywhere but it is certainly becoming more common.