To ask a really stupid question about council houses

[cleofatra]

To be honest, this is the best way to ask so I don't embarrass myself too much.

Do people actually pay any "rent" for council houses? (Or does it come out of some kind of payment?) I have no idea.

Sorry, I honestly am asking to find out as I don't know.

issey - thats not really correct re how HB or LHA (Local Housing Allowance) is set - here is some more infowww.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-local-housing-allowances-rates-broad-rental-market-areas. As lalala says its based on the bottom 30th of the market (but the "market' will be set geographical area). Social housing rent policy has gone through various shifts - including a 1% cut in social rents for a couple of years - and a new rent policy has now been set. On top of "social" rents, there are also "affordable" rents which are up to 80% of local market. This has meant that some "affordable" rents (charged by housing associations) could have increased in high value areas - so a social rent in Islington for example may be very low compared to the average private rent, but an "affordable" rent in Islington could be much higher than a social rent. Also there are some parts of the country where "social" and private rents are actually quite close - what social housing would provide is security of tenure etc

It may be considerably cheaper in London Spangles but we don't all live in London its about £15/week cheaper in my town in the northwest.

Yes you pay rent and they exist because they offer more security than private rental and the council control the rent, I live in a council flat, the flat down stairs has an identical layout but is private rent, it is currently on rightmove for approx 3 times what I pay a month! (and going by what the last tenants have said has a really shit landlord)

How is it stupid? Some people get benefits which pay for their council house... however, not everyone. As above I didn’t know this until I was 18 - I didn’t know of any council houses.

Council housing was built to house ordinary familes who couldnt raise mortgages. It was in part a response to the horrific slum conditions most working class people lived in in urban areas post industrial revolution. Many were built after the first world war to help house returning veterans, and again after the 2nd world war there was a massive building project as the population had swollen and there was a severe housing shortage.
Growing up at least half the people I knew lived in council houses. It was just low cost housing for working folk - NOT places for the most desperate and needy in society.
And yes, we pay rent.
Again we find ourselves with a severe housing crisis, but nowadays the government are focused on letting developers buy up land in naice areas to build 300k + " executive" homes and fuck those who can't afford to buy.

It's just lower than the horrific private rent, however getting one is hard work.

Same kind of twatty way of thinking as the people who think social housing/housing association properties are subsidized by the taxpayer.

This just depends on how you define ‘subsidy’. If you have an asset owned by the local authority and don’t maximise the return on that asset in line with similar assets owned by others then that could be considered a subsidy. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, but it’s definitely one possible way of looking at things.

It would make some sense for social housing providers to be able to charge more than just covering costs for those tenants who can afford it and use the income to build more social housing. I’m not sure whether this already happens and, if not, it would need to be carefully implemented in terms of what ‘can afford it’ actually means.

Duh - it's a stupud question bwcause Britain is clearly thebest coubtry in the world and people elsewhere study us at school just so they know how things work here. Just like we all know how the benefits/housing system works in other countries. Or something.

Well, that would have been cutting were it not so mangled. Thanks Samsung.

I find it somewhat revealing that some people think that asking the question is making a judgement. I actually would have no problem at all with the vulnerable not paying a rent. It would be an incredible system and wonderful to think that those in the society who need it would get secure and warm housing. I just wanted to know if they did and what the deal was with the council homes.

I rent. I don’t know anyone with a mortgage who pays the same as I do for rent. They have more bedrooms that me/bigger homes and I pay substantially more.

People pay rent in council houses in exactly the same way a private tenant does

Not quite in the same way. They pay a LOT less, also not massive deposits plus month(s) up front etc.

The pay to stay idea being compulsory was sacked off. Bringing in SH rents in line with private. As dad as I know it’s at the discretion of the council.

The extra money wasn’t going to the council though it was going to go to central government. So no extra housing would have come from it.

Nice idea but no cigar.

Council houses are owned by council or non profit housing association . So they belong to non profit or council. Money in rent goes to council or non profit. Back into the system.
thankyou!

Well that really depends where you live doesnt it curry I pay £15 /week less than private rent so not a lot less

The housing executive own most council houses here in N.I. Rent is usually a bit cheaper than private renting here, mine is £280 p/m, for a tiny two bed. The house accross the street, about the same size as this, but much better decorated, is £400+, private rental. It depends what your circumstances are, how much housing benefit you get to cover your rent. I get £20 p/w, but I also get working tax credits now, so I use that to make up the difference. When I worked

I actually would have no problem at all with the vulnerable not paying a rent.
Fuck me that's patronising. See my previous post about council housing being built for ordinary people. Not everyone who rents from the council is "vulnerable".
And yes, it's secure, but as for no deposit- well it depends how you see it. It has taken over 2k to make my house remotely resemble something anyone might pay private rent for, or want to buy. I have had to buy carpets, build a workable kitchen etc etc.
Still about another 1k to go ( need to put in a shower for example).
So it's renting, but with more security, cheaper upfront rent, but definitely added costs. And it's not the case that council housing is really hard to get everywhere in the country there are plenty of areas that the council find hard to let.

most people that have council homes generally earn less than most who live in private sector

This can’t be true.

ifnot no i hadn't read your previous post but have now. Thanks for the explanation in your post. This makes more sense to me. I will have to google and read a bit more about the history.

I'm not British, moved here this year and I thought council housing was free. Why are people getting so worked up over a question? Who cares if you think it is a stupid question? MN is full of them.

Yes it is effectively a subsidy in that to put it extremely simply -

taxes go to buy the property which is owned by the council/state/housing assoc then rented out relatively cheaply.

Current govt policy is private builder build property. Taxes go to fund 20 or 40 percent loans to people this money goes to private developers. The property is "owned " by buyer but really owned by bank plus taxes have funded a loan which goes to private builder company. The builder private company is happy and wins.

The first model is clearly more socialist and results in the local govt/council/non profit owning assets for the benefit of many people.....

and the second favours private enterprise and lines the pockets of a few private companies. The govt ie taxpayers has backed 20 or 40 percent loans for people to "buy" flats.... if they default or prices go down tax payers pay up anyway and have no asset to show. The asset ie flat goes to the bank.. .the builder wins either way.

If house prices go down council houses are still an asset belonging to the council.or non profit and continue to provide affordable housing...

Not quite in the same way. They pay a LOT less, also not massive deposits plus month(s) up front etc

It depends where you live. In some areas there may only be something like a £7 pw difference

You taxpayers are currently supporting a policy help to buy etc that gives help to buy to individuals to have govt loan to "buy" have a mortgage plus govt loan and effectively gives private enterprise money. So it s govt subsidy yes.
Council housing is also a tax payer funded subsidy. But should be more available as a secure rent option.
It s a matter of govt policy...

Most foreigners think that British (especially English) council houses are 'free'..

And for them, they usually are.

After the second world war, Councils built a lot of housing, whole estates. Lots of villages doubled in size (there used to be public transport then). My mother's family moved from a house with no running water and no electricity into a Council house which had both. There were standards that they had to be built to (Parker Morris??) so they were good houses, though not as many bedrooms as we're used to today - same sex siblings were expected to share, and opposite sex siblings were expected to share up to age 11.

Council rents were lower than private sector rents, though even private sector rents were capped. The deal used to be: you could pay rent; or you could get a mortgage with higher repayments but you'd end up owning the house. Nowadays you can get a mortgage and end up owning the house; or you can pay a lot more each month in rent and end up owning nothing. That seems to me very wrong.