To wonder what would happen if every council tenant had their tenancy reviewed

[BumpowderSneezeonAndSnot]

Life time tenant or not. Everyone was reviewed and income taken into account when calculating rents. Would this free up housing stock for those in need?

The undeserving poor.

HelenaDove I think you might be right re: bank holiday tenant bashing...

Should the state provide secure homes for people to live in for life? So that they don't have to be moved, provided they don't abuse the tenancy, and will always have the security of a roof over their heads?

Oh I knew what you meant, I just want to know what you mean by ‘provided by the state’? In what way is SH provided by the state?

Or do you think that's not the role of the state, and council/HA tenants should be subject to the same fluctuations as market tenants?

You know that HA rent isn't static? Mine creeps up quite regularly and my wages don't.

But to answer your question, you're framing it as a race to the bottom where HA tenants should be made to suffer as much as market tenants. The answer is to find a way to stop the ludicrous over-charging of private rents.

When I was renting privately 2/3 of my wage went on rent leaving me with £100 a week for bills, food, council tax, everything. It's fucking immoral the low wage and high rent that exists in this country.

The question is how can we stop that? Not make everyone equally miserable.

Bring back the workhouse and ship all the children abroad to be adopted by betters, it went so well last time.

Why the sudden jealousy and bitterness about social housing?
Don't bother to answer, I know.
The drip, drip, drip of hatred from the media and government towards anyone perceived as 'them'.
Its why disability hate crime has risen.
Its why benefit claimants are subjected to draconian sanctions.

Decent, accessible social housing is a mark of a decent society, not a failing one.
Demonising SH tenants and wishing them out isn't going to solve our housing crisis.
Its about the most fucking arse about tit way of going about it I can imagine.

Stop foreign billionaires buying up parcels of housing
Stop LL charging artificially inflated rents
Stop short term, insecure tenancies
Stop amateurs buying to let thinking one rental will pay off both their mortgages.
Build more social housing
Build more affordable housing.

Always makes me laugh on MN when poster pretend they are envious of the luxury council houses others live in.
Most of them would rather drink bleach than let their kids play with a council house kid, let alone live on an estate themselves.

Lifetime tenancies are rare in the South East.
You get a year, then review then 5 years.

You begrudge families five years of relative security?

But to answer your question, you're framing it as a race to the bottom where HA tenants should be made to suffer as much as market tenants. The answer is to find a way to stop the ludicrous over-charging of private rents

This

Who is the freeholder of a council-let house, Gamerhick?

However I think you've misunderstood me. I certainly wasn't commenting either way. I was saying that the wide range of views that we see on these threads (and beyond MN) seem to stem from people starting at one of these beliefs.

I find the concept of anyone expecting to stay in a house for life to be a strange one, whether that be social housing or a property that they own. For most people, you move as your situation changes in life. Start out in a small place, gradually move up as your income and family size increases, then downsize in your later years. You move areas as necessary to fit in with what you can afford and what your needs are. Any sort of 'right' to staying in one house for life is a very odd concept.

People might also want to brush up on their social history.
Council housing was never meant to be temporary for the poorest.
You had to be of a certain type to get a property AND young couples were allocated family sized properties even if they didn't have lots of kids.
They were not expected to give the house back when the kids grew up or if they only managed to have one.

midnite it's the tenancy that's for life not the house

I think most people expect to move on to cheaper or mate manageable housing.... with lifetime tenancies,they can

Do they not date back to pre fabs being built post war?

Fully agree with MrsDV
But I think it’s also compatible with the idea that social housing is means tested.
Isnt that what it was created for? Support people who are financially struggling to keep a roof over their head?
Just like any other benefits, it sounds normal for it to stop once you are financially secure again.

What is NOT right is to make those people feeling crap about it, putting pressure in them, making it hard for them to get said help etc, the way they have done with the PIP etc etc

If I go and look on our councils property list now there are 22 available one bedroom flats in sheltered accommodation. 9 2 bedroom houses and 1 3 bedroom house. Anything 4bed or above is rarer that rocking horse shit.

I’m sure there are more than 22 pensioners living in multi bedroom homes on their own who could move into those flats but don’t want to

You’re not answering my question man ian come on play the game, I’m poised with my bingo pen.

The council own all the doings around here. I’m not sure why you’re asking that since that can apply to ex council houses on the market for sale. Are they still state provided?

In that case MrsDV what was the ‘certain type of person’???

Also worth remembering that what was true in the 1950 isn’t now. So in 1950, a young couple was expected to have children several and for the mum to be a SAHM. Our situation has changed a lot socially and economically and this needs to be taken into account too.

Isnt that what it was created for? Support people who are financially struggling to keep a roof over their head?

No it wasn’t. It was and never has been connected to people financially struggling. Maybe now in London and the south and going by some people on here who would like that to be the case.

What is financially secure though

Redundancy
Illness
Affairs

All could see us financially screwed in a heartbeat

What then? To me, financially secure is separate accounts with thousands each in savings and assets to sell on if necessary

Mrcharlie I'd be very very surprised if that were the case in your second scenario, unless it was a long long time ago
Even if it was a long time ago it would still be made up bollocks.
I remember when RTB came in. Rules were strict then too.

And even then it would take more to set up a home by buying (deposit,fees) or renting (advance rent,deposit,agency fees)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - my green bingo pen must have run out of ink when ticking the "state provides" box in my earlier post!

Isnt that what it was created for? Support people who are financially struggling to keep a roof over their head?
No it wasn't.

Its not difficult to find information on modern social history.

The bile and spite on this thread is unbelievable. Council housing was intended to provide people with secure, affordable, decent homes. Right to buy - that wonderful bribe to vote Tory scheme - destroyed that. I have no problem with people having secure, lifetime tenancies what I do have a problem with is those properties being bought at a discount and then either sold on or rented out at a massive profit. Housing in this country is fucked.

Wow who are all these wealthy people in council/ha properties? I suppose it makes a change from accusing all social housing tenants of wasting their benefit money on cigarettes and alcohol.

Also worth remembering that what was true in the 1950 isn’t now. So in 1950, a young couple was expected to have children several and for the mum to be a SAHM. Our situation has changed a lot socially and economically and this needs to be taken into account too

I am struggling to see your point