Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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 its a disgrace that Cameron is going to stop lifetime council tenancies

685 replies

sparklesandglitterxx · 17/12/2015 09:09

and think that that is NOT the solution to the housing crisis?

the solution as far as i can see it is, lots and lots more council houses need to be built, regulation in private renting needs to be improved, and GENUINELY affordable houses to buy for those on low wages that wish to or are able to buy

fed up of seeing the great things about Britain being chipped away. Why punish renters? The whole Tory attitude towards council housing being a last resort for the destitute disgusts me. council housing needs to be brought back to what it was originally meant for...which is a decent secure home for anyone who wants one. i live on a council estate which is a mix of council, HA and bought. People stay here, they build lives here, generally it is a lovely community. i have never been happier or more settled anywhere i have lived, I have done well in my life and been able to have a big family. my children are happy and thriving at school and have lots of friends. My point is if these changes go through, they will end up DESTROYING communities like ours and so many others. The Tories just seem to want everyone either paying their landlord mates every penny they earn or pushing up house prices by buying. But not everyone wants to buy, and more importantly not everyone CAN buy, (I have friends on good money who are still priced out the market) and hardly anyone would actually CHOOSE to be in insecure, expensive private rented !! I also think that if more people are in secure housing, it will help peoples mental health (hence cutting costs in mental health services), it will improve childrens chances in life, as they wont have to keep moving schools and away from friends etc, it will encourage people to better themselves, it will cut the HB bill, and also with people spending less on their rent they will have more to spend in the economy, thus boosting it!

I also suspect it wont end here....while it will be for new tenants only to start with, i would imagine it will end up being everyone in council / HA

OP posts:
apricotdanish · 18/12/2015 15:03

Whether something is in line with average salaries has absolutely nothing to do with it, it's merely a symptom of some other distortion.

That was precisely my point, market rents are distorted. Council housing is not subsidised just because it is not rented at the same level as market rates. The market level is artificially inflated and thus distorted.
Just because you could charge more for something than you have does not mean that it's subsidised. If one landlord charges £850 pcm for a flat and another charges £975 for a comparable flat in the same area this doesn't mean that the first landlord has chosen to subsidise the tenant.

MrsUltra · 18/12/2015 15:03

but no way will I private rent
What a lovely Hmm entitled attitude. The rest of the country - who do not play the system and have to pay private rent, also pay to subsidise you.

LagunaBubbles · 18/12/2015 15:08

People here want social housing because the insecurity in the private rental sector. Why the difference? Why should some have security and not others?

Why should people want people in social housing to have less security rather than looking at it as improving security for private tenants?

apricotdanish · 18/12/2015 15:10

Also you've taken my point out of context. I didn't say the fact that salaries were out of whack with average salaries had anything to do with the definition of a subsidy. I didn't give a definition. I was addressing two points in a previous post, hence the fact both points I made were in separate paragraphs.

apricotdanish · 18/12/2015 15:19

Dawn Foster of the Guardian makes the point I was trying to get across clearer than I have.
"The Conservative rhetoric states that social housing is subsidised, and therefore the market is the true and fair price. This simply isn’t true, as a few seconds of scrutiny shows: the crisis in housing has seen house prices and rents rocket to unaffordable levels post-crash, while wages still haven’t reached pre-recession levels" www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/jul/10/george-osborne-social-housing-not-marker-personal-failure
and then we have this from Tom Copley of the New Statesman;
"The Tory justification for charging better-off tenants market rents is to say it's wrong for them to get subsidised rents. This is wilfully misleading. Unlike the Tories' huge Right to Buy discounts, social rent is not subsidised. It covers the maintenance, management and debt repayments of the home."

AppleSetsSail · 18/12/2015 15:20

That was precisely my point, market rents are distorted. Council housing is not subsidised just because it is not rented at the same level as market rates. The market level is artificially inflated and thus distorted.

The market is distorted, yes, but there is an ongoing transfer of money between those taxpayers who rent privately and those taxpayers who rent council housing in the form of forgone income. The latter pays less than the former for housing, all other things being equal. There's no getting around this reality.

AppleSetsSail · 18/12/2015 15:24

We cross-posted. Arguing what rents should be is a pretty futile effort, because we have no idea other than 'lower'. As long as some are paying market rates and some are paying at cost, the latter is better off at the expense of the former.

I agree that the rents should be some function of income, but you have the artificially low interest rates to blame that on far more than anything else.

gamerchick · 18/12/2015 15:46

It's already been said the extra money generated is going straight to the treasury to help reduce the deficit. I like your idea better though apple it's not going to happen though.

teacherwith2kids · 18/12/2015 16:01

"There's no way I would give it up and move somewhere I could be kicked out of anytime just because others think I should."

Even though it means that, in the future, others who are in the same position as you now are (ie would be eligible for HA /council housing if a house was available) cannot access it, while you, who no longer NEED it (though you might LIKE it) sit tight and pretty.

Nice.

gamerchick · 18/12/2015 16:12

Oh come off it, nobody in their right mind would give up a secure tenancy for a private rent. If something was done about that and private renters didn't have to fear the 2 months notice thing because the landlord wants to sell things might be different.

There is fuck all attractive about private renting. No pets, fucking magnolia walls till the end of time, unbelievable rents. Nobody would willingly go into that if they didn't have to, especially if they have a family.

redstrawberry10 · 18/12/2015 16:56

That was precisely my point, market rents are distorted. Council housing is not subsidised just because it is not rented at the same level as market rates. The market level is artificially inflated and thus distorted.

if market rent is not "fair rent", how do you determine it? Furthermore, if you set rent below market rent and this results in intense competition over the dwelling, how do you fairly choose who to allocate the dwelling to?

The answer is you can't. You have to pick a winner, and necessarily you have to pick a loser. How is it "fair rent" if only some people have access to the "fair" price? Can people not see the contradiction there?

And the reason why it's a subsidy is that it could have been rented for higher value, and that's not being done for the sole reason to give someone who can't pay market rates a discount. It's no different than charging market rent (which by definition someone would be willing to pay) and refunding the difference.

As for the quotes from the Guardian and New Statesman, they are just playing around with words, and are conflating two different ideas. It may in fact be the right decision (economically, socially, politically) to subsidise rents for the poor. But that's different from it not being a subsidy.

itsbetterthanabox · 18/12/2015 17:34

We need many more council houses building and failing that then rent controls on private landlords.

AyeAmarok · 18/12/2015 18:07

To me, the solution is very clear. People on low wages with a high need for subsidised rent get a HA house.

If their situation changes another salaries improve, then there is a gradual increase in the rent chargedin proportion to their income, until they are paying the same rent as the local market rate (maybe once your salary reaches the national average, higher for London/SE).

Then, they have the option to stay in the same home if they are very attached to it and settled. But the council is getting and extra 30-50% in rent from them they can use to build more housing.

If the HA tenants decide they wouldn't pay market tate for a council house they can either leave and go into the private rental market or buy somewhere.

If the family's circumstances and salary never improve, they can stay there at the subsidised rate.

EssentialHummus · 18/12/2015 18:12

Aye - I agree, in part, but I struggle with how this would work:

If the family's circumstances and salary never improve, they can stay there at the subsidised rate.

If the criteria for moving/paying more - say, £X -, some might be minded to earn £X - £1 in order to remain unaffected.

EssentialHummus · 18/12/2015 18:12

If the criteria for moving/paying more is financial...

AndNowItsSeven · 18/12/2015 18:14

That is already happening Aye

IfNotNowThenWhenever · 18/12/2015 18:15

So many misconceptions regarding social housing. My house is not subsidised. It was built in the 1950s, so it's more than paid for. I have recently moved in, and am having to do major renovation to make it to a standard that is reasonable. I estimate that I will spend around 2 k on this "subsidised" house, so I am massively improving the council's property, out of my own pocket, and putting myself in debt in the process.
I pay several thousand a year in rent. Not as many thousand as in a private rental, but still a significant amount. In private housing, my rent was 46% of my net income ( I don't work at nmw, and work almost full time as a lone parent ). This was not a sustainable situation, and my rent will now put us as a family just above the poverty level, rather than below it, which is, I think, a good thing for me and my child.
And people do move in social housing. I know several people who have exchanged homes, due to school needs, work needs etc. Just because the private rental situation is horrendous, why try and drag council and HA tenants down with it?

AyeAmarok · 18/12/2015 18:33

If the criteria for moving/paying more - say, £X -, some might be minded to earn £X - £1 in order to remain unaffected.

EssentialHummus, agreed, but that's why you'd have to structure it in a very gradual way and favourable to earning more.

IfNotNowThenWhenever, it's still subsidised housing. It may not be a word that you like, but it is.

IfNotNowThenWhenever · 18/12/2015 18:37

No, it isn't. It's a word I don't like because it's not factual!!

AppleSetsSail · 18/12/2015 18:44

IfNotNowThenWhenever
My house is not subsidised.

The market is distorted, yes, but there is an ongoing transfer of money between those taxpayers who rent privately and those taxpayers who rent council housing in the form of forgone income. The latter pays less than the former for housing, all other things being equal. There's no getting around this reality.

AyeAmarok · 18/12/2015 18:52

As has been explained umpteen times on this thread and others, it is subsidised.

The council is forgoing the additional rent they could get for the property in order to let it to you more cheaply. Ergo, subsidised.

Moonatic · 18/12/2015 18:57

Of course council houses are subsidised. If the council charges, say, £500 pcm for a house that would fetch £1000 pcm on the open market, then that is £500 pcm income forgone. Income that could be spent on schools, hospitals, the police etc.

And why should the fortunate few be entitled to live indefinitely in a house with low -i.e. subsidised - rents?

Katarzyna79 · 18/12/2015 18:58

council rents are way cheaper than private rents. i rent privately but i have a cousin who rents with the council, maybe that's what posters are getting at when they say "subsidised".

Katarzyna79 · 18/12/2015 19:07

i know some folks prefer council houses simply because of the security, they know they wont get thrown out unexpectedly, they have no other social needs just that. I am speaking of people i know, i realise other folks do it for financial reasons, or being homeless.

Living privately is tough i always wonder will i have to pack up again, I'm sick of moving. Compared to other posters here ive not moved much, although i feel like i have i think 5-6 times now.. With more kids and belongings I'm just fed up i feel like ive lost the will to live thinking about the next move. We have moved mostly due to family circumstances, but once it was because the house was too small.

i don't like tiny dinky houses for a family to live in, but ive told my husband theyre beginning to appeal now if it means we don't have to move, if we could afford to buy we would buy a tiny home in a nice part of the town, and never move again until the kids moved out.

FishWithABicycle · 18/12/2015 19:08

As has been explained umpteen times on the thread, charging less than "market rent" if you accept a morality that says that the "correct" rent is the highest rent the market will bear. Other moralities exist. Some people would instead say that "subsidised" is only the correct term if it is being supplied at less than cost price (which is not the case with council housing). And that the council charging less than market rent shouldn't be considered a subsidy if the main reason the the difference is that private landlords are charging unfairly high rents whereas the council is charging a fair rent.