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?

But surely the welfare state, and I include social housing in this is a safety net. If my circumstances changed so I lost my job then I would lose my home, no amount of protestations about putting down roots, bringing up kids there would stop them mortage co coming to the door. Similarly if you are in a position where you could afford to rent privately why should the state be subsidising you with low rents? A lot of people have to move away from friends and family to get jobs/affordable housing etc. We should immediate stop the sale of social housing (esp at below market value). Review social housing on a needs basis inc size, affordability etc. Where the tenant is found to be now in a position to afford private rent they could stay in the council house but pay equivalent rent to what they would pay for a private house. This would ensure fairness all round, they wouldn’t be subsidised by the state but wouldn’t have to up sticks

That is not why social housing was invented, thats what the Conservatives told everyone to get them to support the sell off.

Social housing was introduced over a few decades at the start of the last century, and Council housing was brought in to house the workforce around place like steel mills.
Because it was recognised as important to have a settled work force, not have families constantly on the move.

The 'why should I' attitude is counter productive to society. We dont leave homeless people on the street because this isnt a destitute country. People cant get a job until they have a roof over their head.

There is no ladder. Not everyone will end up buying their own home.

Council housing isn't always subsidised rents. In fact here they are about on par with private...so on the whole people are essentially getting stability.

I'd never begrudge anyome stability.

The main issue is house prices are too high. Meaning a whole income bracket can no longer afford to buy...yet are often paying more in rent than a mortgage might be...leaving them pissed off and bitter.

I agree with a poster who said there isn’t a housing shortage it’s greedy people owning too
Many, I also think about all the empty houses sitting

I hate the ‘build more houses line’ being trotted out everywhere. When do we stop? When every bit of green space is gone????

should the state be subsidising you with low rents?

And now I’m happy see wasn’t hard was it?

Could you explain how the state is subsidising social rents?

I moved into my HA house 19 years ago with my H and 2 DC, age 4 and 15.

Now I live here with DP and 2 DC, age 11 and 12.

I think I would be allowed to stay. As for income, well that is not assessed when allocating housing, although people with higher incomes can usually find somewhere to rent privately before they get to the top of the queue. We are still a low income family, so I would get to stay even if it was taken into account.

I get the argument about the elderly being unfairly forced out of their homes in later life however a lot of elderly whom own their own home will down size for various reasons be it unmanageable or needing to release equity so isn't that just a part of life?

But surely the welfare state, and I include social housing in this is a safety net

How many times and in how many different ways does it have to be pointed out that Social Housing was never meant as a temporary 'safety net'?

State is subsidising private rents / landlords.
Coincidentally many many MP’s are landlords.
While spending on building new social homes has decreased, the Government is spending more than ever supporting people to live in rental properties through housing benefit.

According to housing.org.uk between 1995/96 and 2015/16, spending on housing benefit increased by 51%, going from £16.6bn to £25.1bn.

Social housing pays for itself and eventually makes profit.

But don’t let the truth get in the way of bashing those in social housing!

I don't think it matters what the history was
I think it matters a hell of a lot when people attempt to re-write history to suit their agenda.
Social housing was developed to provide people with decent, affordable and secure homes.

What has changed in the last five five or so decades that makes that notion redundant?

Homes are secure but family dynamics have changed? Lots of single parents now, definitely weren't before.....blended families/divorce all create a need for extra housing

Instead of complaing that social rent is too low compared to private why not complain that private is too high compared to social?

You do know that the tories had millions set aside specifically for building new housing, right? And that this money was recently handed back to the treasury because they haven’t actually done it? Let’s hold the government to account before we start throwing people out of their homes.

The notion is not redundant.

But now there is a shortage of homes, it makes sense (to me at least!) to downsize tenants to a smaller property so that houses can be freed up for families. Don't you think it's best for everyone if they get the best use possible out of the available housing stock? Clearly that isn't going to involve single people living in three bed houses in areas where there are families of six in two bed flats. It isn't difficult to understand

A decent home is an appropriately sized one. I don't think a single person complaining about being downsized to a flat has a leg to stand on personally.

get the argument about the elderly being unfairly forced out of their homes in later life however a lot of elderly whom own their own home will down size for various reasons be it unmanageable or needing to release equity so isn't that just a part of life?

I've just downsized to a one bed bungalow. I was fortunate that I could take my time to find a house that was right for me. I also moved by choice.

Social tenants usually don't have the same advantages I had simply because social houses are not dotted around in areas they may like and they don't always have the luxury of time. They can't always have a house that's right for them either.

I simply cannot accept that we, in this country would even suggest we force an elderly person out of a home they may have had for decades. That is wrong on so many levels. I do think it could be built into tenancies that reduced need for X bedrooms does require the tenant to downsize. That would give people time to find another social home while they are young enough to bare the stress of moving and not have to force the move of 70, 80, 90 year old.

We do need more social housing, most of us blessed to own our homes can't imagine what it might be like to be forced into B&B because there are no affordable homes available. However, I do agree with a PP we can't just keep building and building until we have used all green belt land, that is unconscionable.

A way has to be found to ensure there are homes for all and at sensible rents, perhaps building up rather than out. I don't know the answers but I do know I will never support turfing out our elderly from their homes.

Without council housing I'd never have been able to afford to save up my bit for a deposit for a house...

It was very much needed and if I got booted out the second my income increased/childcare decreased I'd be back to square one private renting. Now I'm able to buy somewhere and leave this house for someone else like me who needs it.

The Bedroom tax- rubbish now, great in 20 years when people have stopped under occupying

Really? I know someone who was in overcrowded accommodation, family of four in a one bedroom flat. Finally got moved to a three bed HA house and was subject to the bedroom tax because her children were both girls. No two bedroom houses available. Will that problem magically have disappeared in 20 years?

So glad I had the opportunity to buy my 'council' house. Thank you Maggie :)

I took it on at a reduced rent, for a whole year, as it was so run down and neglected. The council, while I was living in it, replaced the roof, put in double glazing, replaced the kitchen and bathroom. I completely decorated it and had the gardens landscaped. After 2 years I purchased it, with a maximum discount, due to exH being in the RN. We were divorced, but luckily the 11 years I spent as an Armed Forces wife, counted towards my discount.

Sold it 10 years later and done quite well from it.

In my area, council housing is 2 a penny. Always has been - still have huge rambling council estates, that are very well maintained and loved by the people that live there.

Personally, I think that 'buy-to-let' should be abolished.

Lifeaback it is for no good reason. Most people in social housing are there because they have to be. Giving them the stress of jumping through hoops to prove it will gain virtually nothing. I know my mum would have sleepless nights if the council did this to her and she is completely legitimately living in her one bed council flat.

Stormcloak while I appreciate what you’re saying, I’m not sure that’s an argument. While you were saving for a deposit for a house, there were families crammed into bed and breakfasts and in completely unsuitable properties that impacted their and their children’s health.

Right now the shortage may mean that special measures need to be taken so that those most in need can be helped, and being able to save up for a deposit isn’t being in need. I’ve lived in private rentals since I left Home and have never been able to save enough for a deposit or anything like one!

But how could you ban buy to let? You can't say, it's illegal to buy a house to let out. That would be a very slippery slope in terms of the government and private property.

You could ban BTL mortgages but then you'd need to replace the drop in sdlt takings and developments.

It's not an easy equation :(

Why are so many families 'crammed into bed and breakfasts'

Maybe that's what we should be looking at..... how are they there?

Part of the problem with housing policy (and I speak as a housing policy wonk for over 20 years) is (and this isn't exhaustive)
a) politicians don't really understand the implications - the bedroom tax/under occupation charge being a case in point. Unlike most significant reforms this was applied retrospectively so at midnight one evening you had thousands of people impacted and there just wasn't the stock in the right places to move people to. Despite many hours of patient explanations to ministers there was a failure to understand or acknowledge
b) politicians treat housing policy as a national matter when there are significant regional and local variations - again bedroom tax (I promise I do know more housing policy than just bedroom tax!) - politicians thought they were solving a problem of overcrowding/under supply prevalent on their way into work (Westminster) - rather than understanding that what Westminster needs is very different from what Wirral needs. It may be that the devolution agenda starts to change this - but it will take time.
c) Time - housing is an asset, its fixed but housing policy is always trying to chase/catch up. So is the RTB a failed policy or is the failure in our inability to replace homes sold via the RTB. A coherent conservative policy answer would be actually RTB makes sense - moves people into an asset owning capacity and this has intergenerational benefit. But this doesn't "trickle down" if RTB is recycled into the private rented sector nor does it improve overall social mobility if new homes are not built. Or as an alternative illustration changes to social housing rent policy (set nationally by govt) that at a stroke improve or destabilise housing association business plans...
d) Housing and Planning - there's several thousand essays in the issues inherent in the planning system - but at the moment the decimation of planning teams in LA's has impacted on abilities - to the extent that the government is now acknowledging the need to boost capacity.
e)Private rented sector - this is a complex sector and ranges from good quality high end city apartments in gated communities through to frankly appalling properties mismanaged by rogue/criminal landlords. The lower end is open to massive abuse of vulnerable residents but the state pays HB bills and has been slow to issue sanctions (HB linked to quality standards being the most obvious) The government (generic government) has not grasped how to grow a sustainable quality PRS which offers good quality accommodation, longer term tenancies to families in suburban locations - although there are signs this is beginning to change.
f) housing & welfare policy - again, government fails to recognise or ignores the inter-relationship between welfare and housing policy. Changes to welfare will impact both on social and private rented housing tenants but also social housing providers. The recent issues over the local housing allowance (cap) meant that social housing providers could not build new supported accommodation - which is generally more expensive to run than "general needs" properties as whilst they may have had capacity in sense of financial capital to build, the revenue stream was very fragile - how would could a housing association build a new housing development - say a refuge or project for tenants with learning disabilities whilst the welfare system was saying "no - we don't think we should pay these extra costs (and health weren't saying oh don't worry we've got bags of cash - we'll step in) - Part of the problem with devolution is that to date welfare hasn't been included so you don't get any innovative local solutions.
g) Government just making things so complicated! I know this sounds like moaning but - for example Pay to Stay (social housing tenants on higher incomes paying additional rents to stay - which from memory didn't actually impact that many tenants in total) - but the detail was hopelessly confusing - LA and housing associations were treated differently in how the idea was managed - who was responsible for identifying the high earners, where the money generated from pay to stay went. And then there was the fabulous idea that local authorities should sell off their highest value stock to provide money to allow the extension of the right to buy - and that was highest value stock per LA - so not sell x% of all stock over £1million - which would hit predominantly London boroughs - but it was Hull having to sell their highest value stock - which may have been £150k
h)nobody cares (until now) - despite this essay the intricacies of housing policy are not particularly of interest to the general population nor government so no-one really paid it much attention. And then you hit "crisis"point and money (but not always sense and insight) is thrown at the crisis.

Anyway, to answer the OP's question - is it just council tenants or all social housing tenants? As previous posters have said - many areas don't have 'lifetime tenancies" any more anyway - but could you set a national benchmark or would you say each LA should set its own criteria in reviewing a tenancy and deciding whether to roll on or not (which is in practice what the government of the time decided to do) And then frankly it was down to the political viewpoints of each LA in writing their strategy. And in some areas frankly this would eat up resources which could be better utilised tackling rogue private sector landlords, bringing empty homes back into use etc.

Sorry - I'll stop now!

Its common sense, if someone can afford their to rent or buy their own house they should not be in council housing. It doesn't matter if they are 18 or 65 if they are financially capable they should not be taking up a house that could be housing a homeless person. There should be no such thing as tenancy for life. Need not greed.
And also the rent should be means tested, if they are in a council house and well off they should be paying FULL private rates.

We need to help people when they are in need not when they are minted.

Thats all well and good walking but putting in a system that allows housing providers to identify higher earners is not straightforward - self declaration? Live link to HMRC for all tenants? This is what the government tried to do with Pay to Stay and quietly back tracked as they (central govt) weren't going to fund it - just look at the debacle around the roll out of Universal Credit as and example of how central government really isn't good at procuring or delivering complex IT systems. Am not saying there isn't merit in the idea but if its too expensive/difficult to deliver then where next?