To think there's a worrying number of people who are under the impression that Local Authority housing is free?

[MrsWinnibago]

I've read things on MN a few times which make me realise that some people seem to be under the impression that if you live in a council house or a housing association house then you don't pay for it.

They seem to think that people in these properties get full housing benefit as some kind of default!

Am I wrong? Please tell me I'm wrong. It's a minority of people who think this yes?

Up here private and social rents aren't far off each other and a lot of private rents take dss.

So my friend in a private rent.. single parent, not working gets HB. Me in my council house, pays full everything and a pretty penny at that.. no benefits etc.

Who's getting the free house?

It doesn't make sense really.

Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose I didn't think of it from perspective. I can see how it could make you feel like that. But remember, I wasn't basing any of my thoughts on real people that I knew or even knew of. It was all hypothetical rainbows and unicorns provision for the poorest stuff.

Now I know that people in social housing are the same as people in general - a mixed bag of all incomes, backgrounds and situations.

I feel extremely lucky to be living in a HA property. I have worked full time since the age of 17 and been in my current job 12 years. DP also works full time. I would only ever leave HA if I won the lottery and was able to buy a house outright. I have secure tenancy and rent I do not struggle to pay.
Seem to be a lot of people here with noses in the air...

MrsWinnibago, I don't care what she or anyone else has been given that's their business. I was just saying that, in my sil's case, it does seem to be 'free'.
The flat was given just to her her dd is grown up.

If Council/Social housing isn't subsidised, why do you think there's such a row about high earners benefitting from it?

verystressedmum the flat was not given to her. The tenancy was given to her. There's a big difference.
she would be entitled to housing benefit if she was privately renting also.

My HA house is about £50 a month cheaper than the average private rental cost for a similar sized property here. So not much difference.
its not subsidised.

Another HA tenant here. My rent is also approximately £50 a month less than it would be on the private rental market, so not much.

Both DH and I work full-time.

The great advantage of HA v private rental for us is security of tenancy. I suspect this is the case for many social housing tenants.

Every house in our cul-de-sac (20 houses) belongs to the same HA. Each house has at least one employed adult living there - many have two. We may be unusual, but there are certainly none of your stereotypical, Daily Mail-esque, 'council tenants' here.

Where we are, anyone can fill in an application form and be added to the waiting list for a HA house (used to be council houses for each local authority but are now all lumped together as Tees Valley for some reason, and referred to as an "umbrella organisation" rather than being council owned/run/controlled)
Anyway, it doesn't matter who you are, how much you do or don't earn, or anything else - anyone can fill in the form, and as long as you can provide 2 pieces of ID from their list, and a character reference, you can go on the list.
Once you're on the list you can bid online for properties as they become vacant.
Some popular areas can take years to get somewhere, but there are others where it can be just a few weeks and even people in the last band of the waiting list can get a house.
I guess it's another example of the infamous "North/South Divide" in action here be houses, and in the south east there just aren't any spare.

No-one in HA housing pays'full' rent unless it is the same as private - it is subsidised by HA not making sufficient income to build enough new HA properties.

I found myself in need of social housing when my dd was a baby and I was a lone parent. We first went into a B&B, we had one room with a bed plus a shower and toilet and a shared kitchen.

It was a scary place to live. There were spot checks to make sure you were spending the night there, and you had to sign in morning and night. We were there for almost a year.

I was then given a temporary studio flat. It was riddled with mice and was in a really rough area. We stayed there for about 8 months.

Eventually we were allocated a Housing Association property. It was a lovely 2 bedroom flat but in the worst possible area, a really bad estate in South London. Back then if you refused the first property there were consequences. The rent was cheaper than private rent and it was a secure tenancy. Repairs were dealt with (eventually) and I considered myself very lucky, I had a secure home.

However I felt utterly trapped, the anti social behaviour on the estate almost gave me a nervous breakdown. The only way I could move was to get a swap, no-one wanted to swap to a crime ridden sink estate!

I gave up my secure, low rent tenancy and went into the private rental market. I live with the possibility that I could be handed notice at any time, it's happened once already! However, if I want to move then I can, I have some control now.

Council and Housing Association properties can come at a price not suited to everyone.

Carol that's bollocks
The rent is the rent. Whatever it's set at is the full rent.
Housing associations make plenty of money, there are rules and regulations about building new homes. Housing associations are businesses, you think they would keep operating if they weren't making a profit?
Who says private markets rents are 'full rents' anyway? What a flawed notion.

Well thankfully we don't all live in London we went on the council list a few months ago we both work at the moment ( this will probably change as I,m off sick D's has severe ASD my workplace the NHS have not been at all supportive making it impossible to work) a nybody can go on the list n my area provided you have a right to live in the UK we have a bidding system .

They aren't subsidised!

Argh I'm going have to hide this thread. Ignorant people annoy me.

They are not subsidised.

they can be cheap rent compared to private rent. But that's because private rent can be expensive and private landlords have more costs to cover and can set their rent at any level.

so actually i would say that private rents can be more expensive compared to social housing rather than the other way round.

I work for a HA as a housing officer. Some facts about tenants who rent properties from our housing stock. A large number do not work. Some claim full HB. Some claim partial HB. The majority of tenants work and pay their rent themselves. Rents are getting higher for new tenants as their tenancies are not the old secure tenancies which have now been discontinued. The new tenancies are still less than the market average but also quite a bit higher than the rent that existing tenants pay.

Personally I've noticed a big change in housing over the last few years. We had estates where for decades a number of families never worked. Never needed to as they were on full HB and had their council tax paid for them. There has been a big shift now with people being made to take some work or lose part or all of their benefits. Also a very small number of our stock was four bedroom properties. There was a huge waiting list for these properties from very overcrowded families and quite a few of these houses were under occupied - sometimes with only one person living in them. The bedroom tax has meant that a lot of people have downsized and these properties have been relet to families with children once more.

Our properties are in London. I know that the situation in other parts of the country is different as there are more properties available and less demand.

The myth that social housing is "subsidised" is largely due to the government's own language when describing it. The fact is that the government spends far more in supporting owner-occupiers via tax than it does social housing tenants.

The government has been making a profit on rents for approximately the last two years, which is paid back into the treasury. If you look at it that way, how can a landlord (the government) be subsidising rents when they are actually making a profit?

Social housing rents are not "cheap" or "subsidised". Private rents are inflated and too high.

OP, I think the concept of free housing has evolved along with the demonising of benefits claimants. Social housing has become synonymous with non-working households (no strategy by the government there then ) and it's going to take a hell of a lot to debunk the myth.

The Housing Association I rent from are an enormous company who apparently make a lot of profit yearly. Registered as a charity they get huge tax breaks and spend the absolute minimum on repairs and maintenance. Those at the top are on huge salaries upwards of 150 grand with the chief exec earning 200 grand plus.

So if anyone is being subsidised it's fat cats like him.

Babies glad you're getting a good house...our authority also prioritizes those in work over those not in work....not on all properties but on many.

Subsidised is the new buzzword for the right -wing frothers who can't cope with the concept of non-profit housing.

how unreasonable to use the correct word for something.

But it isn't the correct word written.

Council houses are not subsidised, they are merely cheaper than private rentals. The two words are not synonymous.

Just like Primark isn't subsidised because it is cheaper than Harvey Nicks or Aldi isn't subsidised because it is cheaper than Waitrose.

It's not rocket surgery.

It's not rocket surgery.

oh, you are right about that.

your primark analogy makes no sense. primark and the other store don't in general sell the same products and any difference in price on the same item is a business decision. The difference in price isn't made up by the tax payer.

Council properties rented at discount to anyone is a subsidy. That's publicly owned property. if they aren't renting at market value (which they could do), then someone (i.e. the taxpayer) is paying the difference.

nothing is "merely cheaper". that money has to come from somewhere. in this case, that money is coming from easily obtainable lost revenue.

what I wrote above isn't an argument for or against HB or council properties. But don't snicker at people for using the right word.

I think that the point is that if it's owned by a Housing Association, then you can guarantee that they charge a "fair rent" and so if you are on benefits, the local authority will pay up to 100% of the rent.

If you live in private rented accommodation, the local authority will not always pay 100% of the rent and so you will have to make up the shortfall out of your JSA/tax credits etc that should really be spent on food/bills etc

So essentially, if you are on benefits they you can live there "for free"

I love my HA house and the security that it gives my family.