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.

softsheen about extra bedrooms - you could definitely do the means testing which would cover people on higher income in larger properties. There is already a reduction to housing benefit/universal credit if you have an extra bedroom in a Council or housing association house (under occupancy charge sometimes called the bedroom tax). The single person in a three bed place would have benefit covering rent reduced by 25%. (Unless an exemption applies )
In a number of places the problem is finding somewhere smaller.
england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/housing_benefit/bedroom_tax_are_you_affected

What your friend is doing is certainly morally wrong. However, I wonder how means testing/reviewing HA tenancies would work in practice? What if someone was in a HA property and maybe had a good couple of years work wise and could in theory afford to move out but then something happened (lost job, became ill/disabled etc) and needed a HA property again? If they had kids it would be very disruptive to have to keep moving house (although fully aware lots of families in terrible circumstances are forced to move often). I don’t know what the answer is but it doesn’t seem right at all that your friend is able to do this.

Most local authority or housing associations include in the tenancy agreement if granted over the last 15 years or so that the property must be occupied as your main and only home. If they are in breach of the T A then they could face possession proceedings if the landlord finds out they have another property.

The problem lies with the government for allowing this..means teasing every 5 years or so would solve the problem

Its bloody wrong but i dont think it should be used as a reason to end lifetime tenancies for everyone..................mind you the most you would get now is a five year tenancy.

There was a VERY interesting point made on the "Council fucking tax" thread in Chat.

Someone asked that as council tax is based on the property you live in why are social housing tenants paying it based on this as they dont even own the property they live in so dont benefit from its value.

There are many posters on here who are always ready to remind tenants that they dont own the property they live in so should suck it up and put up with all sorts of dubious treatment.

And yet many social housing tenants are paying a tax based on the value of the property they live in.

www.jrf.org.uk/report/homelessness-monitor-england-2017?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInoT35MGw2gIVB7XtCh1MOwprEAAYASAAEgLpf_D_BwE

I imagine there are not that many social housing occupants with loads of properties

An estimated 60,000 social housing tenants own other properties, an estimated 270k are homeless.

It would go some way to helping.

upstart may be referencing fixed term tenancies which could have a review in them about financial circumstances - but yes "pay to stay" is no more...

YY firstworld

There is no job security any more If there was then that argument would hold water.

i actually couldn't remain friends with someone who did this,and I'd also report it to the housing association/ council...not that it would do much good I expect

I thought lifetime tenancies were no longer available to new tenants? Surely the government are just waiting for a couple of generations of people to die to get these houses back?

Some people just don't have any morals. It shouldn't be allowed imo. I really struggled as a newly single mum, couldn't get a council property due to there being nothing - I was told there was no point even putting my name down. I struggled to get a private rental because of being a single parent (around 9 landlords told me they "would prefer a family") and I needed somewhere so could afford it on my low income.

I've been lucky, I found somewhere in the nick of time that's cheap. It's pretty rough but my son and I have a roof over our heads! And I've managed to get a promotion (although no better off due to nursery costs). It's awful to think some people aren't as lucky as me, they really need HA properties. Your friend knows what that is like but she seems to have forgotten and become greedy.

Yes we need more social housing to be built but it in the meantime society should work together surely? Is she letting them out at a fair price at least?

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.

Well yes, that is my understanding of my tenancy, which I have had for 19 years.

I live in a council flat and get housing benefit which covers almost my whole rent. I pay 20 a week covering rent arrears and a housing benefit over payment.

I got the flat when my ex husband made me homeless from our privately rented home and I was on a zero hours contract so couldn't afford that house or another one by myself.

A few months later I went full time in my job earning 1100 a month. So I paid full rent.

18 months later I went onto maternity leave and couldn't go back full time so I am now working part time. Basically back into the same position as I was when I moved here.

What would've happened in my case if I'd been told to move because I was earning a slightly decent amount?

Would they have given me another council house?

I don’t think it is a good reason to stop life time tenancies for everybody either. It’s one of the only ways people who can’t afford to buy can afford a secure home where they know they won’t have to take their kids out of school or be moved away from their jobs etc.

It would be a start to get rid of this. And they’d have to be careful how it was administered. For example if you live in a council flat in London and inherit a £70,000 house in Hull you shouldn’t lose your tenancy because obviously that would not enable you to live in the same area with the same community and I think that needs protection.

But it’s pretty awful, it says 60,000 own other properties and some are going to own more than one so it would make a very big difference.

WAlrus i wouldnt worry about it, nobody is going to evict you for earning a less than average wage.
It's just that people love spouting nonsense.

Means testing every five years would not work. We need social cohesion. If someone is £100 above the cut off for seeking alternative housing but working two jobs/on a zero hours contract etc and it all goes wrong, then what? They're back to square one, their family will have been uprooted, for what?

No, what is needed is more social hosing WITH lifetime tenancies, private rents brought under control with long term security because evicting someone from SH to private rent will more than likely result in needing housing benefit. It just doesn't work.

If we want the disadvantaged to achieve social mobility then give them some bloody stability in the first place. Blanket means testing would destroy all this.

My social housing tenancy agreement states that if I own or rent a property that I could reasonably use as my main home then I will lose my tenancy. I found these rules online for a neighbouring London borough too.

During your tenancy you must not own or rent, alone or with someone else,
any other home which it would be reasonable for you to live in as your home.
b You must tell the neighbourhood housing office if you buy or start renting any
other home which it would be reasonable for you to live in.
c If you inherit a property, this condition can only be broken once you have
owned the property for more than 12 months.
d In deciding whether you have broken this tenancy condition we will consider
whether:
• the property is fit to live in;
• you use the property as a holiday home and it is only suitable for that
purpose;
• the property is suitable for your household, taking into account the size of
the property, your employment and any disability or medical problems you
or a member of your household has.

So, in theory, we could buy a one bed flat and rent it out while living in our 3 bed council home because we couldn't be expected to use a one bed for our main home.

Our council also recently scrapped plans to introduce a higher rent for households earning more than £30k.

A few years ago there was a scheme to pay council tenants in London between 16k and 30k to surrender their tenancy to buy a property on the open market.

Tenants are still given incentives to downsize properties. You can be paid £2500 per bedroom you give up.

I know they won't now. Me and my partners earnings barely break 8000 for the year. But I was on about 17000 before tax etc for a year. Although I didn't actually recieve a full years wage due to when I started and went on mat leave etc.

It's a really stupid question because it is not allowed under most tenancy agreements. I wish people would research the facts before spouting nonsense.

the thing about means testing though is that if you got a well paying job and lost your social housing tenancy, where would that leave you if your job came to an end or you were made redundant? I'm guessing your would not get your tenancy back no?

Maybe instead of getting rid of lifetime tenancies they should make the rent rise with the tenants income. If someone earns enough to get mortgages on 3 properties and makes money on the rent from them then they should be paying more back into the system that helped them out in their lean days. It would also put more money back into the system to build more social housing.

Bob Crow has defended living in a council house despite earning £145,000 annually. The general secretary of the rail union RMT was challenged during a radio interview as to why he still lived in social housing instead of a private home when he earned such a generous salary.

Socialist union leaders think its okay

So if my parents ( who are 82) leave me half their house what happens then, i say half because i have a sibling.

There is the possibility it may have to be sold for their care.

It was especially lovely to be told on another housing thread that i would be in the wrong in either scenario.

Helena, you must remember that in life, people do talk a lot of shit, dont take it to heart...

If you buy a house if any repairs are needing done then you need to pay.

In social/council housing it's done for free.

We got a new kitchen because they decided ours was old. We didn't ask.

They replaced all the windows as they decided they were old. We didn't ask.

If we'd done that ourselves that would've been thousands of pounds.