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.

Housing benefit/LHA isn't based solely on council rents, that's not accurate. It's based on the lowest 30% of rents in the market area. In some areas that will include a lot of council houses, but in others (where there is a complete lack of social housing) it won't.

That's correct and it was the coalition govt in 2010 who reduced it to the lowest 30% of rents in the market area. Before that it used to be 50%.

"They aren’t subsidised by the tax payer as some think ". The houses are council owned so bought by the tax payer.

But, doesn't the rent they get from people who have to pay fund the housing, so they are self funding? With there being much less council housing and more renting privately the housing benefit bill was getting higher and costing the state more. Their solution was to reduce housing benefit, introduce benefit caps and leave people in dire straits in some areas as the housing benefit does not cover the rent by a lot.

And given that I'm not allowed to own a home based on the rules around savings etc it's something I might be asking about one day I'm stuck forever renting which may leave me homeless at any point. Whereas buying could halve the HB I claim and be a far more settled future for me but thats a whole other issue.

@Goldilocksandthethreepears, I may not have understood you correctly, but I think if you receive PIP and ESA and suddenly found you were given a big pot of money you are entitled to use it to buy a house outright (obviously very few would be in that position) and still get those benefits? (I receive those benefits too). However, what you can't do is get housing benefit for anything more than mortgage interest.

Also I agree you can't also save for many years to buy a house as there are savings restrictions, but I think it would be very hard to save enough on the ESA and PIP benefit rates even at highest rate. Well, I would find it hard!

Nightshirt HB can only pay the interest on a mortgage (I think for a limited time?), but can also pay the rent on the unowned part of a shared ownership property.

Most older housing stock was paid off a long time ago and a lot has gone to non profit HA. Tenants rent goes towards maintaining and upgrading and also towards the new houses purchased. The only input the tax payer has is in the form of housing benefit - and the bill is far lower for them than that going to private landlords. It’s possibly more cost effective to the tax payer for tenants to be in council and HA properties as the likelihood for the tenant to need help with rent in the first place is reduced as rents are kept at a more sensible level.

My sister pays 220 a months for her council house. For a similar house i paid 900 in private rent in the same city
No they are not free but they are heavily subsidised.

And again Walker it depends where you live as to whether they are heavily subsidised or not my rent is £15 / week less then private housing not everywhere is the same

Walker that isn’t subsidised. Your sister’s rent was charged at cost. Your private landlord charged you more (it still might have been at cost, depending on what their mortgage,running costs etc. were).

That’s not a subsidy, as no one was paying any extra towards your sister’s rent!

My parents pay more for their council house rent than some local privately rented houses. But they have security of tenure.
Remember as well that private rented houses usually have carpets provided and sometimes white goods as well. Council houses have no flooring provided. You need to provide everything. That alone should lead to a difference in rent.

Ffs always the same crap spouted on these threads.

SH is not.fucking.subsidised. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. There is no mortgage and they’ve paid for themselves many times over. People need to stop looking at private rents and thinking those are normal so therefore cheaper rents must be subsidised. That’s how the government want you to think.

Walker that isn’t subsidised. Your sister’s rent was charged at cost. Your private landlord charged you more (it still might have been at cost, depending on what their mortgage,running costs etc. were)

That is one way to look at it. Another, entirely valid way, is to say that the private rent is the market rent and the true cost, and the council rent is very heavily discounted by the local authority.

Why people get so snippy about having heavily discounted rent rather than grateful is another question though.

But you have to compare like with like. Often people are comparing well decorated and carpeted private rent with bare floorboard and terrible decoration council house.
The private rents where I live that are like that when you love in, also have very low rents. Many council house tenants pay themselves for improvements to their house.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10641341/Council-houses-go-to-professionals-earning-100000.html

Some points here about why the rent is subsidised. And some excellent points about why high earners shouldn't benefit from it if their income increases after taking the tenancy - bob crow was a superbly hypocritical example of that!

Yup gamerchick. My tiny house was built in the 1950s, and has been paid for many times over. It's just that noone is making a profit on it. Although I pay about 4k a year in rent, and sometimes i wonder where that money goes as my house is in a pretty shit state!
Private renting is really hard and unfair, and something needs to be done about that- it CAN'T remain the norm for people on some areas to pay 50% of their income in rent. (Interesting that it has always been awful though, and it's only now middle class young families have to rent that anyone seems to care! )
I am also appalled at the way people casually say things like " I thought council housing was free, for unemployed single mothers and the like".
OK maybe now, in some areas the shortage has led to it only being for the needy, but that was not what it was built for!
It was cheaply built housing, but often built with big gardens and with the idea of making nice communities for ordinary working people.
My grandparents lived in a council house, and my grandad had a pretty good job.
My whole little street seem to work, except the retired people. I know there is at least one nurse, someone who works at a gym, a social worker. Council estates are not, in the main, seperate from "normal" society!
It horrifies me the way a lot of people seem to think.

Often people are comparing well decorated and carpeted private rent with bare floorboard and terrible decoration council house

Or large well maintained council houses that are far cheaper than tiny damp flats?

I live in a housing association house. Been a tenant of same HA for 15 years, rent is a bit cheaper than private - myself and husband both work full time but quite low paid area and we would struggle with full market rent. Main think is the security- I know others who have had to move every year while in theory we could stay here our whole lives

The free misconception comes from past times when it was common for housing benefit to be paid directly to the landlord. I believe this doesn't happen any more? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. So it was never free anyway but it used to be the case that the tenant never saw the money to begin with so didn't miss it.

Why people get so snippy about having heavily discounted rent rather than grateful is another question though.
Because homes are a basic human need. When the idea of homes gave way to the idea of "property" and the security of having a home became dependent on " market forces" and even working people bought into the ideology, suddenly we are supposed to be grateful for the priveledge of paying for a two bedroom damp concrete box to live in, because the market could gouge us worse.
Again. It's not "discounted".
There's no mortgage.
It's just non profit.
Because when those at the top seek to make profit from basic human needs ( like healthcare for example)most of us get shafted. Hth.

Interesting theoretical point there - ie that society should be responsible for helping you (or rather one, not you personally!) fulfil that basic need rather than you being responsible for your own basic needs.

There are some cases where it's obvious that people need help. There are others people who may have become reliant on it, or see it as an entitlement, sometimes over generations - I know one girl who got pregnant quite deliberately at 20 because she "needed her own space" and who was furious with the council for the delays in providing her with "her own flat". It never occurred to her that most people have to work to pay their own mortgage or rent (including her own parents!).

Where do we draw the line between having a civilised society and not making it too easy for the perfectly able bodied to take the piss?

Again. It's not "discounted

Yes it is. My interpretation is equally as valid as yours. You don't understand capitalism!

Are you responsible for your own healthcare needs? Do you only home educate your children and live on a private road? It's not about "helping people who won't help themselves".
Secure homes, healthcare, education, sanitation. These are basic things that society need to function well.
That didn't used to be considered a radical idea.
I have lived in places where these basic services are only available to the wealthy and it's not a good thing, trust me.
I understand capitalism perfectly.

There is a housing shortage and a high demand. Council housing, being not for profit, offers housing at cost, below market rates.
The problem is market rates, not council housing.

That didn't used to be considered a radical idea

Yes it did. It's only incredibly recently that anyone considered it to be the states role to provide any of those things.

Please stop lecturing, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Well for me personally actually yes - we all have private healthcare in my family, all had private education, my DD is down for a private school when she is old enough, and my family home is on a private road. For the flat in london, i pay council tax for the refuse, lighting etc.

I find it interesting where different people draw the line. For me personally, I think discounted secure homes should be available for the vulnerable and essential service workers (either that or provide decent transport) only. Healthcare and education for all. BUT people have to contribute in return. That means paying tax here for a few years before you can access any of those services or, if you were born here/have lived here a while and don't work, doing some form of valuable community work.

Op if you’d really like to know more about this read Lynsey Hanley’s book ‘estates’.

Oh, well, you're alright then Rebecca.
But when the bin men collecting your refuse can't afford a roof over their heads, because they aren't "vulnerable" enough it becomes a problem for everyone.