Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think people are being deliberately perverse about Council/HA..

485 replies

fideline · 11/03/2014 21:22

....housing?

  1. Social (council or HA) rents are not subsidized.

2)Social (council or HA) tenancies are not a form of welfare benefit.

It's not that hard to grasp is it?

OP posts:
Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:20

Truffle THE LANDLORDS DID NOT CHOOSE such tenancies - they were the standard tenancies up until 1988. That was the law.

OP posts:
TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:27

Sure, but they CHOSE TO RENT THEIR PROPERTIES OUT.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:27

My point is was Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs), introduced in 1988 that were the divergence from the previous norm.

Now most tenants have ASTs. Consequently they have no security and no rent control.

Tenants who by whatever quirk of fortune have Secure, Assured or Regulated tenancies continue to enjoy conditions closer to those that all tenants had pre-1989. Nothing more.

AST tenants, by contrast, have been sold up the river.

However, our societal memory is so short that many people now consider ASTs to be 'normal' renting. They are not, they are a recent aberration and they are shit.

So why are people not shrieking for the abolition of ASTs instead of bitching about Council tenants?

OP posts:
Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:30

Well of course they chose to rent properties out - they were professional landlords. As such, I'm sure they have taken consequent developments on the chin.

The point is, such tenancy rights, inc fair rents, were compulsory until fairly recently.

Such tenancy rights are still normal across Europe.

ASTs are the aberration.

OP posts:
Dinosaursareextinct · 12/03/2014 12:31

The rent is much much lower for council houses though. I was amazed when someone told me how little she is paying. So in that sense it is subsidised. If the council rented on the open market they'd make a packet.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:33

Head. Desk.

In what 'sense' exactly Dino?

Just because they are lower, it doesn't follow that there must be a subsidy hiding somewhere.

OP posts:
TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:35

The point is, such tenancy rights, inc fair rents, were compulsory until fairly recently.

If that was your point, then why didn't you say so? You've rather sent me on a wild goose chase with your "spot the subsidy" post upstream a bit. I don't really have a problem with controlled rents, they would simply depress housing prices which I suppose could be viewed as a good thing.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:36

They don't exist to make a packet, Dino, they exist to cover costs.

Someone made an excellent point upthread that in all probability council rent payers are probably subsidizing services to o/occupiers. Well worth a read Smile Whole thread is, actually.

OP posts:
Dinosaursareextinct · 12/03/2014 12:37

The council owns houses. They could in theory (no doubt legislation would need to be changed) rent those houses out to people on the basis of getting as much rent as they could - on the open market. Instead they rent them out on very low rents. In that sense, their rents are subsidised.

Rommell · 12/03/2014 12:38

Also, like I said, ASTs were introduced with the express intention of encouraging more amateur and short-term landlording which the govt did because they wanted house prices to rise. It was deliberate ie house price rises are not the consequence of a free market but of adjusting that market through legislation that took away tenants' rights. And now, having shafted one particular group of people (private sector tenants), current political rhetoric is such that instead of there being an outcry about it, there are calls for the remaining tenants in public sector housing to also be shafted. Because apparently the problem with the unfairness isn't that private sector renting is fucking awful but that public sector renting is too cushty. And people are falling for it. It's fucking depressing.

Dinosaursareextinct · 12/03/2014 12:39

NB some people in council houses are well off. They could afford to pay market rate rent. Their rents are subsidised (by the taxpayer).

TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:39

fideline. This is really my last post, because I've got to get to work. You've been arguing that this is not a subsidy and urging me to consult the dictionary & so on. I posted for you upstream the wikipedia definition of subsidy:
A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[

I urge you to consider the possibility that a below-market rent is "in kind support"

gamerchick · 12/03/2014 12:40

its getting to the nitty gritty.. wooo Grin

People have become so accustomed to being ripped off in the private market.. there HAS to be a subsidy in there somewhere for council rents.. just has to be.... how else are rents 'so low'?

Maybe people are so used to being ripped off in this country.. something that is actually fair and proper does not compute.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:40

Truf (can i call you truf?)

Sorry. The spot the subsidy thing was a semi-rhetorical point about how low rents can exist w/o subsidy.

Most council houses, in common with all regulated-tenant-occupied-rentals, were built/bought pre 1988. They weren't bought at inflated prices so, despite fair rents, they don't need subsidising (the other part of my point)

OP posts:
TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:40

Someone made an excellent point upthread that in all probability council rent payers are probably subsidizing services to o/occupiers. Well worth a read smile Whole thread is, actually.

What a tortured definition of subsidy.

TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:40

Truf (can i call you truf?)

of course fid :-)

Rommell · 12/03/2014 12:42

Why is the private sector rent the correct figure to use as a benchmark, Dinosaursareextinct? Especially given that as I have said the private rental sector is a distorted market, not a free one? Council rents are not subsidised - they are one of the income generating arms of the council ie they turn over a profit, not a loss. They don't cost the tax-payer anything.

TruffleOil · 12/03/2014 12:43

Most council houses, in common with all regulated-tenant-occupied-rentals, were built/bought pre 1988. They weren't bought at inflated prices so, despite fair rents, they don't need subsidising (the other part of my point)

Fair enough, but if you bought a house pre-1988, you'd be fairly silly to rent it out on a cost-covering basis. In fact I wager you wouldn't.

OK gotta run. Bye fideline.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:43

gamer do you have pom-poms or just a glo stick?

OP posts:
Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:43

Happy working Truf

OP posts:
gamerchick · 12/03/2014 12:45

feel like getting a bat out atm fideline.

Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:46

Thank god you turned up Rommell I am quite faint from frustration Smile

OP posts:
Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:48

I don't think we'll crack it in a mere 1000 posts gamer

OP posts:
Original poster
fideline · 12/03/2014 12:51

Blimey, did Dino give up?

OP posts:
gamerchick · 12/03/2014 12:58

I know.. it's a scary topic for me. Makes me twitchy knowing there are people out there who would have my house off me and shoved into private rents because they have to.. just because I pay full rent and so can 'afford it'.. Especially when they're under this weird illusion that my house is free or they subsidise it.

weird shit right there.