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.

Ps and what a surprise the SMI payment has been abolished. So many cuts...

I feel sorry for the people that work hard and cannot afford to buy yet some people get rewarded for sitting on their arse by getting a council property.

user1490465531

What? How is it Council tenants fault that house prices are at an all time high and people can't afford to save a deposit? The people in council homes also can't afford to buy - you do realise that we rent these homes we're not given ownership of them for free? And council homes are not only available to unemployed people - in fact when I was bidding for houses a lot of the nicer ones stated that they would only accept applications from working households, so please check your facts before spouting that old line.

My bil bought a 1 bed flat when he knew his girl friend would be moving in. Who was pregnant. Then he complained after we had been offered a 3 bed housing association house that nobody would give him a "free" house and he didn't have enough space. I don't know what he expected. Our house certainly isn't free and we needed to buy carpets before we moved in but its a lot cheaper than renting privately

Public housing isn't subsidised. It pays for itself many times over. The house I live in was built 17 years ago. In that time tenants have been paying rent continuously and the money received more than totals the cost of the house. So the rent that I pay now, after maintenance costs (I have incurred none so far) is straight net gain for the public purse. Multiply this millions of times over across the country and actually us social housing tenants are significant contributors to public funds. We aren't subsidised by anyone. In addition we maintain and care for our houses which are public assets and in doing so ensure that those assets retain their value.

And in fact if you want to talk about subsidies for housing, let's talk about the private landlords who charge so called market rent, with their tenants having to claim the difference between what they earn and said market rent in housing benefit. That totals £10 billion a year every year. So where is the subsidy - the millions of people whose rent money that they go out and earn goes to public bodies, or the £10 billion a year of public money that is passed to private hands so that landlords can charge market rent?

You don't get housing benefit if you have a mortgage. It's paid via income support and again is based of the average rate of certain cheaper mortgages . In 2019 this will change and you either pay out of your own money or take a loan from the government so you won't end up paying two lots of interest.

By the way the reason why there is not enough public housing being built is because people who live in public housing tend to vote labour so Tories have a vested interest in not building them

Often HB doesn't pay the full market rent but the amount set called the Local Housing Allowance which is based on the lowest 30% of the market rents. So rarely do HB claimants have "free" housing whichever way you look at it. Working or not.

Similarly with Council Tax Benefit - Local Councils have the power to reduce the CTB entitlement from 100% to eg: 75%, so working or not, all claimants must pay 25% of their Council Tax Bill. Not all Councils do this, a few still allow 100%.

So, for many people - low-paid, retired, disabled, unemployed - they still have to pay some rent and Council Tax, out of already meagre incomes.

Sure. But the fact remains that HB going to private landlords costs us all £10 billion a year. So is what they are charging really market rent at all? The majority of HB claims, aside from pensioners, are from working people who couldn't afford what landlords charge without it. So if a cost can only be met by a £10 billion a year state handout (to landlords), is that cost really one that is dictated by market forces?

I am 19, i live in a council flat with my DP and my 12month old DS. They flat is entirely in my name, however my DP is declared as living here. I go to college and am a SAHM, and my DP works through agency so doesnt always have work.
We get given out Housing Benefit throough Universal Credit then we have to pay the Council. Depending on how much my DP works/earns, depends on how much/whether we pay any rent and council tax.

Its a 2 bed council flat, not very large but does have gardens. Isnt in a block of flats, is an old house thats converted into 2 flats, one two bed upstairs and one 1 bed downstairs

Council homes are amazing imo.
Anything goes wrong, you ring them and they fix it. You dont need to worry.
They are very secure and always tend to get quite friendly, community neighbours.

Yes people in council houses pay rent. And council tax, and gas, electric and water bills.

You might also have to pay a service charge, regardless of services received.

Not all of them. Some have their rent paid by housing benefits.

So do millions of private sector tenants. And their rent tends to be more expensive. And unlike social housing tenants - whose HB involves a transfer from one public body to another - private sector HB involves public money going to private landlords.

How does that change the point at all?

We live in a council maisonette. My partner works full time, so he pays the rent in full without any help from housing benefit. When I was a single mum, however, housing benefit paid my rent in full direct to the council.

Elsiejane I agree it's brilliant. So much better than renting privately. I feel very lucky that we have our house. Everyone should have the opportunity to have a secure home. It's a disgrace that they don't. It just removes so many stresses and expenses.

It changes the point in that social housing tenants don't get any special treatment. And also that the destination of HB paid is different - with private sector claims, that money is gone. With social housing claims, it's shuffled.

The current trend to call a % of new build estates as "affordable" is a bit laughable IMO as "affordable=80%" of already over-inflated private rents. Some of these "affordable" homes are also Shared Ownership; many Shared Ownership is overpriced as the Base 100% Price is too high. Perversely new-builds by HAs are more expensive than private new builds.

It will take Central Govt to step in and take control of constructing new Social Housing away from Local Councils because they have too much to gain from the current 'planning' system - regurgitating cash (via the CIL) through many 'channels' and pay packets before a single new Social Home for rent is built.

Thats not true Hate - social housing construction has fallen - yes, but mainly because central government financial support in form of grants for building has been cut for social housing and moved to "affordable" housing.

" The house I live in was built 17 years ago. In that time tenants have been paying rent continuously and the money received more than totals the cost of the house. "

I don't think that changes the fact that you live (more cheaply than a private tenant) in a house owned by the tax payer. It's still a subsidy even if there's eventually a net gain to the tax payer. Consider the example given above of a woman letting her sister live for free or cheaply in a house she owned.

I'm costing the state a lot less money than when I rented privately though because I no longer need HB to pay my rent. Plus all my rent money goes to public housing. No one benefits from people like me - working on low incomes - renting privately. It absolutely makes financial sense to collect rent money from us instead.

Public housing isn't subsidised. It pays for itself many times over.

it really depends on what you mean by subsidised. The state owns an asset, and doesn't get full value for it if it charges below market rates. The difference is how the state subsidises the rent. The fact that it has already been paid for is irrelevant.

if the state owned land and charge company 1 less than what company 2 was willing to pay for it, you'd probably call that a subsidy.

let's talk about the private landlords who charge so called market rent, with their tenants having to claim the difference between what they earn and said market rent in housing benefit.

indeed. HB is an efficient way to get public money into private hands.

It's only in this country that private renting is insecure. No one says you need to have a two tier rental system. the housing market is totally broken and SH is a way to "fix" the problem for a subset of the population, while others are struggling.

Social housing should be available to all. It used to be, and it worked far better than the situation now where the provision of rented housing has been taken over by the private sector. There will always be people who need to rent and they shouldn't be thrown to the wolves in the way they have been.

I'm still not clear on the question of subsidy though. Public housing rents are set at a level that LAs and HAs can afford to operate at. They don't lose money by charging the rents they do. The problem is that private rents are too high! And they are not at pure market value because the only reason many landlords charge what they do is because of housing benefit top ups. They are not set at a level commensurate with wages and the market such as it is is bent out of all recognition by the £10 billion a year we chuck at it.

Incidentally, £10 billion a year would build a fair few (public sector) houses.