Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
BillyBanter · 11/03/2014 22:28

^We live in a council house and pay our own rent. We live in an area where private rental is scarce & very expensive.
If we rented privately we would be eligible for some housing benefit due to the cost so would be costing the government money^

And that government money would be subsidizing private landlords. The housing benefit that some people would begrudge you for even though the only person benefiting would be the private landlord.

CrohnicallyChanging · 11/03/2014 22:29

Carpets and decor, yes. As mentioned, my SIL rents (privately). Unfurnished properties. Carpets and decor have been provided by her.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:30

Yes it is difficult to discuss both as a homogenous unit, Pancakes.

Other differences being that the legal structure of many HAs would make it extremely difficukt for them to charge market rents and also (connected to my last point) that generally their stock is better maintained and their repairs service is better.

However, I think making council housing depts profit-driven would throw up some problems. Profit is very much not the institutional ethos of council housing.

OP posts:
Rommell · 11/03/2014 22:30

I think it's a little bit of a leap of logic to say that something which generates revenue far over and above what it cost to build and continues to cost to repair is being 'subsidised'. Council houses pay for themselves plenty of times over - it's a guaranteed income stream. Which is why we need to build more of them - they are a national asset and it is a fucking scandal that they have been allowed to be sold off at all. I agree that there is a discrepancy between what council tenants pay and what private sector tenants pay, but the problem is with the amount of rent that private sector tenants pay, due to 30 years of failed housing policy which has put the UK into a housing crisis.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:31

They aren't provided for council tenants Crohn

OP posts:
MrsWobble · 11/03/2014 22:31

What I always find difficult to understand is why council properties are significantly cheaper than housing association ones, for what are very similar homes and are allocated through the same points/bidding system.

It's easy to draw the conclusion from this that the council houses are subsidised in some way, without even considering private rents or some other idea of market.

Is there something I'm missing?

pancakesfortea · 11/03/2014 22:32

And, unlike a private sector tenant, a housing association tenant who complains about repairs normally can't get evicted for being a nuisance.

On the other hand, the tenant is in a weaker position when complaining because a private tenant could take their rent elsewhere. A housing association tenant can't get the same property on the open market so can't leave without giving up the sub-market rent. That lack of market power for tenants is why social landlords are regulated, to compensate for that lack of market forces. (If you want to read more, it's set in the Cave Review of Social Housing Regulation in 2007. Anyone still awake here?)

Rommell · 11/03/2014 22:34

Agree about private sector rentals being below acceptable standards in a lot of cases. Yet another reason why leaving things for the market to sort out is a bad idea.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:34

"So, leaking windows where the wooden frame is rotting (and finding slugs on the windowsill inside your house), damp and mould, kitchen cupboards falling apart, plaster peeling off the walls, and a boiler that doesn't work properly so you never quite know if you're going to have enough hot water for your shower or not, as in my SIL's previous private rental property?"

Gosh. Presumably she was paying a below-average rent for that??

But I'm talking about average. I have worked in both social housing and at the CAB, briefly. Average standards in social housing are way below average standards of private lets. (I'm talking about London)

OP posts:
CrohnicallyChanging · 11/03/2014 22:34

fideline you said 'you wouldn't expect to pay market rental and pay for carpets, decor, plumbing etc on top, would you?' I was just pointing out that I would expect to pay for carpets and decor on top of market rent as that has been my SIL's experience.

BumpyGrindy · 11/03/2014 22:35

Jees. I am perhaps going to live in a Housing Association house soon and I'm definitely not tellling people after reading this!

CrohnicallyChanging · 11/03/2014 22:36

I would say average rent in a below-average area if that makes sense? The problem was, the people the landlord sent to inspect were clearly instructed by the landlord. The windows and cupboards and plaster were 'cosmetic', the damp and mould was my SIL's fault for showering every day, they couldn't find a fault on the boiler...

JakeBullet · 11/03/2014 22:37

I have privately rented and am now in a HA property. Neither came furnished, however private rentals CAN be hideous as crohn knows.

My last private rent was awful, dreadful damp in the kitchen, rotting windowframes, slug trails everywhere and mice!

A lot of the issues were down to poor maintainance by the LL. There are good LL and bad ones.

At least in HA properties you can generally get repairs done.

Never more grateful than when I got this place.

BumpyGrindy · 11/03/2014 22:38

The housing association that I've applied to stipulate that you need to be in full time work to qualify. To be honest, that attracted me. I know my neighbours will be in work...therefore there will be less social problems. The housing association also offers right to buy so some will be privately owned.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:38

^"What I always find difficult to understand is why council properties are significantly cheaper than housing association ones, for what are very similar homes and are allocated through the same points/bidding system.

It's easy to draw the conclusion from this that the council houses are subsidised in some way, without even considering private rents or some other idea of market."^

Mrs Wobble It is because HAs are still often paying off the capital loans (mortgages) that they used to build the properties with. Rents have to cover repayment of these.

Council housing is generally older, with initial costs long since recouped.

The trade off for the tenant, as I touched on upthread is HA tenants generally get newer, better maintained homes.

OP posts:
pancakesfortea · 11/03/2014 22:39

Even within Housing Associations there are differences in their freedom of movement fideline. Some are charitable, and have to have charitable objectives. They couldn't meet those objectives if they were just providing homes at a market rent. That's why they have trading subsidiaries for market rent properties or low cost home ownership. Others are just not for profit, so don't have that limitation although many probably do still have an organisational culture which would not sit comfortably with high rents.

On top of all of that there's regulation, which limits rents. That's the pay back for grant (I'm not calling it subsidy, don't want to start a row!) in years gone by.

BumpyGrindy · 11/03/2014 22:39

MrsWobble here the Housing Association houses are not cheaper or more expensive than the council ones...there's no difference....the only difference is the HA seems to focus on tenants who work while the council does not.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:40

"fideline you said 'you wouldn't expect to pay market rental and pay for carpets, decor, plumbing etc on top, would you?' I was just pointing out that I would expect to pay for carpets and decor on top of market rent as that has been my SIL's experience."

Crikey Crohn I would most definitely not expect to carpet a private rental myself no. Feel sorry for your SIL

OP posts:
pancakesfortea · 11/03/2014 22:41

fideline Housing associations have plenty of old stock too - some of it older than most council housing. There's lots of Victorian HA stock round here (your original Peabody, Guiness etc) which all pre dates the council housing boom.

pancakesfortea · 11/03/2014 22:44

bumpygrindy - HA rents used to be higher than council rents, then there was a policy to bring them gradually into line, which took about ten years.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:45

Yes I know what you're saying pancakes re diff RSL organisational structures.And about the sold off 'ALMO' type ex-council stock. Gets complicated.

OP posts:
NurseyWursey · 11/03/2014 22:45

I would bloody love a council house. Security, things fixed for you, low rent...

I do think they should be reserved for those who need them ie can't afford the high rents of private or those in a crisis situation. But that isn't always the case.

pancakesfortea · 11/03/2014 22:45

I'm even starting to bore myself now with all this exciting late night talk of social housing regulation. I might go to bed now and spare you any more.

BumpyGrindy · 11/03/2014 22:46

Pancakes Oh right! Well that's good...but to be honest to have security is all I care about. I would pay more for a long term secure tenancy where nobody can sell the house with 2 months notice.

It's so stressful! Living in someone else's house..that's what renting privately is. I've done it since I was 23 and I'm 41 now. I've had enough.

Original poster
fideline · 11/03/2014 22:46

I'm really surprised at the 'full-time' stipulation BumpyGrindy. There are a lot of hardworking people out there who want FT hours but can't get them in this economy.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread