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.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-41650285

Residents on a former coal board housing estate near Leeds have said they are in limbo as they wait to find out if their homes will be demolished.

Investment company Pemberstone is looking to build 72 new homes on Sugar Hill Lane and Wordsworth Drive in Oulton, Rothwell.

Seventy homes were initially only to be used as short-term housing, but have now stood for more than half a century.

Tenants are worried they will be priced out of the area if the plan goes ahead.

Pemberstone has been contacted by the BBC, but is yet to comment.

Residents of the 70 semi-detached rental homes, some of which moved to the area to work at Rothwell colliery, were invited to a public consultation event to provide feedback on the "evolving plans"

I used to feel a bit resentful about council housing.

I applied when unintentionally homeless 15 years ago.

I was given 2 choices- go into a hostel/b&b with a newborn and wait months for a council flat in a highly deprived area (as I’d only qualify for hard to let as homeless) or secondly go into the private sector.

Of course I went private, got ripped off, didn’t feel safe and was illegally evicted after making complaints about illegal practices a year later.

Once I had a private let I was seen as no longer in need of housing so never got an offer of a council house.

My dc ended up in multiple properties over the years due to the insecurity of the private sector.

What I resented was that when I was in need of a council house I was further down the queue than people who lived at home with their parents but wanted their own home. They got points for ‘shared facilities’ that I didn’t get. I don’t think that was fair. I also didn’t pass the ‘local connection’ tests to live in the area I’d lived in for 5 years because I didn’t have family or a job there.

I ended up miles from everything I knew.

The system doesn’t feel fair. It seems like there’s a lot of luck and a postcode lottery about getting a council property.

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.

That councils don't lost money doesn't make it not a subsidy. The government can give away all sorts of assets at "no cost" to the government, but of course all of it would be some sort of subsidy.

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.

No argument on either point from me.

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.

it's not just the subsidy that has bent it out of shape. The low interest rates have made houses investments rather than homes. I don't disagree that many people are being screwed by the "system". I'd rather have, however, sensible decision being made rather than just solve the issue in one corner of the market.

Also, as you point out, 10bil can build a lot of houses. We have now cornered ourselves into a position where we have to spend money which would be better spent on other things (education, NHS) on housing people.

Sevendown I'm so sorry for your experience. I dealt with shit private renting for years with all the knock on effects it has - no money, no security for my kids, arseholes coming round and inspecting our home and throwing their weight around while doing no repairs. It is absolute bollocks that councils can discharge their duty to house you by placing you in private rented. The best place to be on the list is middle band as you say - enough going on to bump you up but not so bad that you need housing immediately and can wait it out until you get to the top. It's nonsense.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jun/22/housing-benefit-cost-claimants-single-mothers

Really interesting article about HB here from last year in the Guardian! Over 3m HB recipients live in social housing, around 1.5m in private rented housing. I was surprised at those figures, I expected a higher percentage to be in private sector accommodation.

That being the case, I don't think we can credibly argue that HB distorts open market rent and keeps it artificially high. 1.5m out of all the renters in the country is not going to be a high percentage. HB is means tested and as such most of us aren't eligible for it. Open market rent is therefore dictated by what the vast majority of renters (non subsidised by HB) are willing to pay, especially given that the majority of private sector landlords won't accept HB anyway.

Conclusion - council properties are not subsidised per se. Many council tenants will pay full rent, not subsidised by HB. HB recipients are of course subsidised, but only about 2/3 of them live in council properties.

That being the case, I don't think we can credibly argue that HB distorts open market rent and keeps it artificially high.

"we" can't argue anything. A quick google will show several sources that make the opposite claim. Of course, a lot of the HB bill is concentrated in one part of the country. And not only is a high portion of the bill concentrated in one part of the country, per person it is also much higher (in London).

The article says that 800,000 households claim HB in London. Given that there are only 9m people in London, so substantially less households and of course a lot of Londoners own their place. So the percentage of rental households getting HB is very high.

Conclusion - council properties are not subsidised per se. Many council tenants will pay full rent, not subsidised by HB.

even if you don't get HB, if you pay below market rent that's money the council doesn't have for other things. The difference is how much one household is getting from the state.

"Conclusion - council properties are not subsidised per se. Many council tenants will pay full rent, not subsidised by HB."

You're forgetting about the fact that the council house is owned by the tax payer so council house tenants are subsidised by the tax payer.

If the councils are charging clearly under market rents than I think that is a subsidy to the user as compared to the open market - the user is being given something at undervalue (even if the council are covering their costs / making money). Not sure why everyone gets het up about this though. Surely that is the very purpose of council housing?

I don't see it as any different to when my parents let me live in their flat for 'rent' which just covered their costs. This was well under market rates and they would probably not have let the flat on the open market but the way I viewed it they were subsiding me.

You'd have to be asleep to not know the answer to that. Besides you'd have been looking up and Googling that before landing here anyway. I do not believe anybody thinks there is free housing available anywhere. That level of life unawareness
would be frightening - if it were true, that is. Just an excuse for an argumentative thread.

I really don't get all this social housing envy.

Are people genuinely saying that they would rather live in a run down old council house in a deprived area than own a beautiful house in a nice area.

I really don't think so.

Social housing is there as it is needed.
Like previously stated it's like public hospitals and state schools

Next we'll be having envy from private school students about state schools.

"Are people genuinely saying that they would rather live in a run down old council house in a deprived area than own a beautiful house in a nice area."

Of course not, but I can't own a beautiful house in a nice area. I'm renting and old, run-down, private flat in a deprived area. My rent would be lower in social housing.

Have not rtft. My Mum (pensioner) would pay a lower rent for her housing association property if her dh (working) was not also living there. Their rent is higher than our mortgage payment.

Brownturkey I don't think she'd pay a higher rent I think it's just that she would get more housing support.

Gwen- but that's the same with school places.
It's down to 'need' and if you don't agree with the criteria then that's another issue.
My children might be eligible for a school place at x school but if a child who is deemed more in need appears then they will be shoved further down the list and as a result I might have to take them to a crappy school and pay more bus fare etc to get their.
It won't matter who much I moan about it or how close I live to the school, a looked after child will always, always take precidence over them.
I can't afford private school either but that is the ruling.

Emily, what's your point.
You asked why people are jealous of social housing. I gave you the answer.
I'm not going to argue about the criteria, I'm just explaining to you.

The point is it is a strange jealousy but I get that people are envious I just think it is missplaced.
Social housing is allocated on need.
I'm far more envious of someone who lives in a beautiful big private house and owns it than I am of someone living in social housing..
Before anyone comments on people earning their own money to pay for big beautiful houses, no that is not always the case. Often the money is inherited etc etc.
I'm getting off the point. Perhaps it's because the social housing near he looks like social housing. I don't mean to be disrespectful but it's not something I can envy no matter how cheap it is.

Are people genuinely saying that they would rather live in a run down old council house in a deprived area than own a beautiful house in a nice area.

no. no one is saying that. What people are saying is that they would rather have subsidised in a rent a nice area with lots of rental protections than pay private rent and live insecurely in a not so nice area.

Social housing is allocated on need.

depends on what you mean by "need". No one needs a place in K&C (I'd like one, but can't afford it, so I don't live there).

I can totally understand people being jealous if they're renting privately. Private sector tenants on low incomes are in a very precarious position. They will be paying out a large proportion of what they earn - typically two thirds of their wages - for a property that is often substandard and that can be taken from them with two months' notice at any time. Plus the landlords at the bottom end of the market - well, let's just say they're generally not the type of people you'd want to have dealings with, much less be reliant on them for a home.

So I can totally understand that they want social housing - in fact I'd go as far to say that they shouldn't be in private sector rented at all so they're dead right in their views. They are an almost forgotten class of people although Labour seem to be belatedly waking up to their existence albeit twenty years too late.

Build more council houses and get people on low incomes into stable accommodation. It is disgusting that working people are unable to have a secure home.

I agree with the above.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you vote for a conservative government.
My personal view is that that the vast majority of rented housing should be state owned and non profit making.
I can't be bothered going into the economics of it all, no offense, but that will never ever happen under a Tory government as so many politicians have a vested interest in private renting.
Its also why housing developers club together on new developments, ever wondered shy this happens on large plots?
It's do they can avoid building affordable housing as they don't make as much profit from it.
Wonder what this government is doing about it?
Nothing, because it is not in their interests to care. They are the people who buy the property and rent it out!
Whilst ever you allow people to buy multiple houses you are restricting supply therefore pushing up prices.
A long time ago if you couldn't afford to buy( or didn't meet the criteria) council houses were available to rent. This isn't the case no as they there are less social houses to buy/rent and more houses owned by private landlords.

Completely agree. It's not just the tories either, and I say this as a lifelong labour voter. Blair had a huge mandate and a massive budget surplus. Why wasn't he building houses and reversing Thatchers tenancy laws that put people in this position? If he'd have wanted to, he could have done it.

Instead they trumpeted the increase in house prices as a sign of prosperity and completely forgot about the people on the sharp end of what has essentially been a return to the private rentier economy we had before Attlee with all the misery that entails.

I rent from housing association. I work full time. I had to be in employment to be eligible for this property. I had applied 7 years prior to being offered this property. Anybody can apply for social housing but a lot of people think that it is for people on benefits. I am so much better off now. I can decorate, feel settled and pay a fair rent. Everyone should apply as you never know when you might need to use it.

Oh and it’s a brand new house on a site with people who own their houses. So not a deprived run down place as many people think.

"Everyone should apply as you never know when you might need to use it."

I know I wouldn't get social housing in my area. No single people would.

Build more council houses and get people on low incomes into stable accommodation. It is disgusting that working people are unable to have a secure home.

we could offer the same rental protections to private tenants as many other countries do instead.