To think there ought to be a rule that social housing tenants can’t own other residential properties?

[Mightymucks]

A friend of mine and her DH were extremely poor about 7 years ago and she was pregnant. She managed to get an absolutely beautiful HA house for absolutely peanuts. Which is absolutely brilliant, exactly what social housing is for.

The thing is, her circumstances have REALLY changed since then. Her DP has gone from being in a dead end minimum wage job to an extremely good job which pays well. Off the back of that they bought one house and let it out. She’s now inherited some money so they’ve bought another house outright and are looking to buy a third, all to be let out.

I’m really shocked by this, they could easily live in one of the houses and still be paying down the mortgage on the other two as a nest egg if they wanted. The people they rent to are significantly less wealthy than them, and of course there are families stuck homeless in B&Bs. They were in that situation so I would have thought they’d feel morally obliged to give another family in awful circumstances the chance of an affordable, secure home but apparently not. They have no intention of leaving the HA house as it is cheap and means they can keep more of the income from the BTLs.

Apparently this is perfectly legal and above board and a fairly common thing to happen. AIBU to think this loophole should be closed and people who own residential properties which are habitable shouldn’t be able to block HA and council homes.

I’m actually quite shocked it is legal.

One of the HA tenants I know got a new partner and later they married. who has a blooming good job (£45k + I only found out as my BIL works with him doing the exact same job) and they bought a Range Rover (not on credit) through the savings in the rent. I really don’t think social housing should be used like this. I don’t agree with lifetime tenancies at all - they just encourage these sorts of situations.

The thing is housing associations can’t keep doing sweeps on their residents to see if they own property elsewhere, it’s just not realistic. Many housing associations have hundreds of thousands of residents, how would you search and what would you search for them all?

I think the era of the lifetime tenancy is over, or rather it should be

I agree.

Yep I agree these tenancies should be reviewed. Who thought a "life" tenancy was a good idea? I live in a block of 3 houses, 2 were previous council but obviously bought and 1 still council. 2 houses are paying through the nose to live in these house (all be it owned) and the 3rd is rented lifetime tenancy who do fuck all, literally, but get to live in a house for life which the other neighbours in identical houses have paid £275,000 plus for. They are a couple with a man child grown up lad living there. They don't need it, a growing family could be in their 3 bed house but no, lifetime tenancy rights says otherwise

Unethical and should not happen. But it’s not illegal as far as I know and no one ever gives up their HA . Unless they win the bloody lottery

Wow this should definitely not be allowed! Can't believe it!

I found it, it wasn't an MP. It was Bob Crow, a union chief earning 140k+ a year.

Said he was born in a council house and would die in one. Which he did aged just 52.

This is terrible!
We have enough problems with housing shortages without people already in social housing doing this... So unfair for people living in emergency accommodation and on the council's waiting list for permanent accommodation.

Also actually, unfair for other taxpayers, who are effectively giving a free subsidy to this woman's buy to let property business.
There should be terms to catch this kind of behaviour - it should be possible to design something. Presumably they are declaring their rental income to HMRC? (If not then perhaps they deserve a tip off....)

Yes a thousand times OP. My uncle has had a lovely big council house since he was 21 with super cheap rent in a desirable part of the south east. He managed to buy a holiday home in the south west which makes him a fortune on the side, but it's not against the rules because it's not a 'permanent residence' that he owns - you can only live in it for 11 months a year. The money he spent on the holiday house would have been plenty for a deposit for his own place.

Apparently about 5,000 council houses have a household income of over 100k a year. Very annoying to read when you're a private tenant who is trying to scrape a deposit together.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10641341/Council-houses-go-to-professionals-earning-100000.html

I disagree with lifetime tenancies, except perhaps for people with very particular circumstances e.g. disabled person in a property that has been specially adapted for them.

We do need more social housing, but we also need to make sure that what we already have is used fairly. I think that peoples means and needs should be periodically re-assessed (maybe every 2-3 years), and if it is found that they no longer require a council property (either own another property or have income over a certain threshhold), then they should be given the choice of either moving out or paying full market rent. Similarly, where people's needs have changed (e.g. single person living in a 3 bed family house) they should be given the choice of either being re-housed or paying full market rent. Profits could be re-invested to build more social housing or update and maintain current properties.

Social housing was never intended for extreme cases but for the working family Yes, but where many extreme cases are remaining unhoused (e.g. mothers and children fleeing domestic violence stuck in a mouldy bedsit) we need to prioritise.

I couldn't be friends with her if I knew this was true. What a bell end she is; happy to take take take and leave some one else homeless. I can't believe how utterly selfish she is.

Morally these people should move on and let someone else get a home.

In theory a means test has appeal. However there are a number of problems-
How much capital would you want a family/individual to have or what level of income before they have to move out? Would it be based on location because you'd need to earn a heck of a lot more/have more savings in London then Bradford to find other housing.

How often would it be assessed? How long after the change would the person have to move - if they can afford housing but not close enough for their child to stay in the school do they have to leave in year 9 or year 10?

I agree. It's scandalous that this is allowed.

Time to start one of those change.org petitions to force the government to close the loop holes. The housing crisis could be brought under control if they stopped people buying multiple properties to let out whilst benefiting from social housing themselves.

If not means testing, then maybe cross referencing tenancy with land registry. There is so much information about everything and everyone readily available I’m sure they could find an easy way to do it. Owning a property while being a HA tenant should be illegal with offenders liable for backdated full market rent from the date they took ownership of another property.

so unfair , when me and my brother were younger my single mother was given a HA lifetime tenancy house, brand new, it was amazing for us at the time and she worked hard but on such a small wage around our school hours, around 6 years after we moved in she met a new partner , eventually that became serious , he was much better off and my mum gave up her lifetime tenancy completely and her partner purchased our family home , about 10 years later they split and she had never married her partner so consequently my mum ended up with absolutely nothing at all, but thats a whole different issue and should have been sorted and discussed before, but to think they could have stayed at the HA house and rented out different properties and prevented someone who could have desperately needed that home is just wrong.

Lifetime tenancies are actually a great idea. They should be encouraged not limited alongside more social housing being built

I'm HA and getting married later this year. I'm allowed to keep up my tenancy as long as I'm not on a mortgage anywhere else.

Many social landlords have a rule that if you inherit or win over X amount, or get a job earning over X amount, you have a set amount of time to move out.

the housing crisis could be brought under control if they stopped people buying multiple properties

No, the housing crisis could be controlled if more social housing was built. The system as it is just pits the most vulnerable against each other to stop them complaining about the real source of the problem.
I imagine there are not that many social housing occupants with loads of properties

i think there are rules about not owning other properties in some areas.

@UpstartCrow can you provide e diencephalic of that? I'm genuinely curious because from my recollection the earning over a certain amount plan was scrapped.

I knew a couple who had a council flat in London, a big inherited house somewhere in the Midlands, and a flat in Spain. Its just wrong.

Ffs my iPad is a nob. I meant provide evidence not that pile of shite that appeared instead

upstart crow, are you sure that is the case?