To ask those who believe their taxes subsidise council tenants to read this

[Laulau79]

The Times today , see pic 😬

I absolutely believe in social housing but council tenants are subsidised (I don't think that is a bad thing).

The subsidy is the opportunity cost; the difference between the market rate and council rate. If rents were market rate & the councils were allowed to spend their 'profit' wherever it was needed then there would be less tax needed for e.g. social care.

the system of social housing in this country is a mess. it has been since thatcher sold off council houses and subsequent Labour, Conservative and con/lib governments have done nothing to sort it out. Labour had power for enough years to sort it but they didn't so I just don't buy the usual - its the tories nonsense.

there are so many problems with it , its hard to know where to begin. if you put up rents to the market rate then you will probably be increasing the amount of subsidy paid. recycling money that actually also means that you take out a chunk for "admin". if you keep rents lower than market rents then it skews the market - demand will always outstrip the ability to supply because everyone wants to pay less for housing if possible.

the problem at the moment is house blocking. People who started off low earners then became high earners and wont move on and people who live in houses larger than they need effectively stopping them going to families.

I always thought the answer to social housing lay in part with the old Peabody trust model. you rent your house or flat at below market rent on proof of income. every year you are required to give proof of income. once you start earning over a set % of average earnings you are given 12 months notice.

similarly if you move in as a family of 6 and the children leave home you are given a year to trade down to something smaller.

I get that people don't necessarily want to move house according to their income or circumstances but just as no one has a job for life any more no one should have social housing for life any more.

when we start using the stock that we have more efficiently and effectively then we can really determine if more needs to be built or not.

as for asking landlords to charge less that is bonkers. no one in their right mind is going to reduce prices for an asset and its supply and demand.

From an HAs fb page.

"We've had a letter from Hyde saying they want us to be a month in credit at all times. We're on full housing benefit due to disabilities. When i asked how we are to afford to pay £5 per week to them they couldn't answer. I told them i was going to the CAB to get advice. Ive not been yet but plan to call our local council as they pay the rent and see what they say. To say its stressing is an understatement! X"

From same page.

"Hyde said that to me to saying it's my job to keep the account at 0.00 constantly and wanted me to set up a payment plan housing benefit were so nice when I called she was sorry I had ever received such a letter it's just a way for Hyde to squeeze more money from us a second call from Hyde told me to disregard the letter but said my account should be kept at 0.00"

I disagree that council housing shouldn't be for life. There are many council homes that have increased in value because the tenants cherish it as their own and improbe it. By taking away the 'for life' bit you reduce the 'value' of it to the tenant and will probably increase the cost of repairs.

The easiest way to solve the council/social housing crisis is to build enough to satisfy demand. If council housing doesn't cost the tax payer anything as it pays for itself, and if housing is one of the biggest things contributing to poverty then surely investing in solving the housing crisis is the biggest, most cost efficient way to raise 1000's if not millions out of poverty. Which will in turn motivate people back into the work place, then reduce the amount of housing and other benefits paid out.

A small % will exploit this but it will be a small %.

Council housing and social housing costs the tax payer nothing. Housing benefit does. But it costs the tax payer a lot more if it's going to private landlords.

From same page.

" My mother, who is on a state pension, is getting similar letters from Accent South"

I've been a council tenant almost all my life, I grew up in a council flat then I was allocated one when I had to flee a DV situation. I don't think council housing is subsidised at all, but even if it was, I think most decent people would be glad to support people who are down on their luck and have had to resort to council housing. People on my estate are those who aren't just struggling a bit to pay their rent, but most of them have experienced the worst things you can get in society - street homelessness, violent abuse, warzones, PTSD, profound multiple disabilities. Not to mention the fact that most of these flats are in poor areas so you don't get a choice about being able to move to a good local school, and a high rate of crime and gang related behaviour. And the council doesn't provide anything like appliances, flooring or any basic furniture. Yes there is a shortage of housing but most people I've met who complain about being in private rental would not actually want to live in the kind of decrepit estates that I live in anyway, and certainly wouldn't want to have any of those disadvantages in life that would put them to the top of the housing list. I think anyone who has gone through that kind of experience and put up with all those downsides of council housing has fully earned the right to stay in their houses for life.

It is certainly a difficult issue. In the NE where I am from there are literalyl loads of empty and available homes. The house my mother grew up in which I think her widowed mother rented (not rich enough to buy even in the 1930s) sells today for about £47k. Open market rents today are about £400 to £500 a month there which compared with the £1500 market rent in Grenfell Tower shows you the difference between areas in England very markedly.

We're in the NE as well and our HA rent went up every year whereas private rents didn't so in the end we were paying over the odds for a crap property and because we didn't want to stay there indefinitely we couldn't justify the massive sacrifices we would've had to make to get it at a decent standard.

Oh, it was in a crap area and we definitely didn't want our son going to the catchment school.

So I can quite easily imagine they're turning a profit but stashing it. How about they provided white goods or at least flooring for the worst cases.

Fanny, I just looked it up and Sheffield has a system for its waiting list including people in band E (ineligible) if they have no connection to the area. In any case, quitting my job here to get a house in Sheffield is probably not a sensible option.

Council housing and social housing costs the tax payer nothing. Housing benefit does. But it costs the tax payer a lot more if it's going to private landlords.

This is so true. If the victims of this fire have a legacy, let's hope it is more social housing and safe social housing.

We should find it obscene that we are swelling the bank accounts of private landlords wit housing benefit. They should be obsolete.

There seems to be a presumption that everyone that lives in council accommodation is on benefits. That they don't work and are clocking up the housing benefit bill. It drives me potty, my family grew up in council estates in London and I grew up in a council house and seeing some of the presumptions of council tenants made me feel ashamed that that's how people view us. The people I grew up were on lower incomes but the majority I knew worked and are the traditional working class which seems to be a stigma.

I hate the definition of subsidy used by some PP. Subsidy suggests that money is being put in the government. I really don't think that not making as big a profit as possible falls within the true definition.

I doubt that little journo piece fully explains the complexity of social housing funding.

it's the antisocial piece that really causes all the issues; people not wanting to rent to people on benefits, people not wanting to open their homes to fire victims, ha homes being seen as low value.
antisocial behavior needs to be tackled