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?

how will you prevent LL from just passing the council tax cost on to tenants?

Ah. Well I don't know...what might work? A cap on rents? I don't know much about the way it works. I just can't think of another way to make long term lets attractive to landlords. Most buy to let in order to sell later don't they? upon retirement or somesuch thing.

long term lets attractive to landlords.

the law. make tenure legal. Lots of places have it so you simply can't remove tenants even if there is no lease in place.

The other remark that really GETS me is 'free cars for the disabled'.

They are NOT free. Usually you have to put down a payment (can be thousands of pounds) and then it can swallow ALL of your mobility allowance (ie up to £500 per month). Also, at the end of it you have to give them back. NOT FREE!

Of course demand is higher for social housing and of course the rents are cheaper - but that in no way leads to the conclusion that the rents are too low. I would argue that the test concludes that private rents can be too high, artificially inflated by the shortage in social housing (selling off etc). Housing is a necessity but the shortage of social housing and the lack of rent control mean that private landlords can charge a much higher rent for their property than it's worth.

*I'm not landlord-bashing btw; all the private landlords I know, and I know quite a few, are responsible and pretty much stick to the fair rent level for the local area.

private landlords can charge a much higher rent for their property than it's worth
No-one can charge more than something is worth because the worth of something is defined as the price someone will pay, hence any landlord charging more than the worth of their property will find it empty.

See this as evidence of social housing price setting.

Labour minister for housing said in 2001: The new rents must be affordable and we are linking them to local earnings to ensure that. They will not be market rents. Rents in the social sector throughout most of the country will generally remain well below what a tenant would pay for the property from a private landlord.

2009 government policy paper: The HRA subsidy system requires overnment to make assumptions each year about the rental income of every council landlord and to take a view about progress towards restructuring for each council. This has led to complex calculations within the subsidy system, using trajectories for each council based on their actual rents at the start of the restructuring process.

this paper states that the subsidy given to social housing is £7bn a year and rents would need to increase by over 50% to reach market levels. In national terms this represents an annual economic (‘opportunity cost’) subsidy of £3.67bn for the council sector, and £3.38bn for the housing association sector.

Carol that's not strictly true. If ALL the landlords decide it's a grand for eg to rent a tiny, shitty flat and there's NO OTHER CHOICE then it's not a free market and there IS no choice.

Carol that's not strictly true. If ALL the landlords decide it's a grand for eg to rent a tiny, shitty flat and there's NO OTHER CHOICE then it's not a free market and there IS no choice.

do you really think ALL landlords have that kind of power? that's not how a competitive market works, and rental is competitive in the sense that there isn't a monopoly.

if a property isn't worth 1000 pounds, LLs won't be able to rent it for that unless they form a cartel, meet, and agree not to accept rent for lower (which clearly hasn't happened). if it's not worth 1000, units will remain empty until someone lowers their price, and someone will because every month a property remains empty they lose money.

the reason they can charge so much is shortage. whenever supply is low, sellers have their pick and can demand more money to sift through the buyers.

No obviously I don't think that. I said IF. And it's not that far off the truth anyway is it? Who decides to make rental charges soar anyway? They have done...that's because there's an extreme lack of social housing and the private LLs are cashing in big time...supply and demand.

And it's not that far off the truth anyway is it? Who decides to make rental charges soar anyway?

No one does. it's not lack of social housing, it's lack of housing that's the problem. They can only "decide" to charge more if the market will bear it.

I own a house and every owner would love to get double, triple, oh hell let's just dream, 10x more than their house is worth. but I can't. I can't just "decide" my house is worth 10 million pounds because no one will pay it, even if every other seller wants to overcharge (they all do!).

It's like a bloody merry-go-round.

People who have no recourse to public funds are not allowed to be offered a tenancy from a Registered Social Landlord.
Because social housing is subsidised.

I've seen the claim that it is free many times on here and elsewhere. The 'subsidised' claim is just as inaccurate but gets bandied about by people all the time.

The fall-back argument: "oh but it's paid out of housing benefit" is another kind of muddy thinking encouraged by the media. They will refer to some family getting £1000s in benefit and then say they don't really pay rent because the benefit pays for it. Effectively counting the same money twice.

Also they conveniently forget those in social housing who work and people in private rentals who get housing benefit.

Btw I've never heard of this law about having to be on benefits to be in social housing. Did they bring that in this afternoon?

back the law of 'no recourse to public funds' applies to people who are unable to claim benefits in any circumstances, such as illegal immigrants

EU migrants face new restrictions. apparently, they are only entitled to job seekers allowance for up to six months only if they have a real chance at getting a job (I don't know how they decide that). non-EU nationals on work visas can't claim during a 2 year probationary period.

Calculators that's utter shit because my DH had "no recourse" at one point a few years back because he is Australian and didn't have a full right to remain and he was placed on the waiting list for a council house alongside me.

So you speak bollocks.