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.

Slutty if MN had like buttons for posts i would be pressing it for yours.

Means testing would never work. It’s just another benefits trap that people would find themselves stuck in.

It’s well known that social housing rents are well below private rents in most parts of the country. Who would ever take a job above the ‘threshold’ wage arbitrarily set in order to then get chucked out of their home?

All that would happen would be that the poorest in society would have even less incentive to improve their situation.

Grand a lot of the repairs and refurbs done in social housing are well below standard. ive posted about it a lot on here.

Maybe instead of getting rid of lifetime tenancies they should make the rent rise with the tenants income.
^^ This.

Piers Corbyn lives in a council flat, i only that because i know some people in the same block/nearby block,.
Apparently he takes over the tenants association with a clipboard and calls everyone 'comrade'.

Also, some people seem to think that new secure tenancies are not being given any more. In my London borough, secure tenancies are still available after a 12 month introductory tenancy.

The only problem is that there are over 15,000 people on the housing register. I waited 6 years for a 2 bed, 8th floor flat 10 years ago.

*only know that

Would you diplomatically ask her if they have to get rid of the house now they have the other house? It might plant the seed in her head?

Maybe instead of getting rid of lifetime tenancies they should make the rent rise with the tenants income.
^^ This.

This was planned but was scrapped. We had letters telling us that this would be happening and then another letter a few months later to say they had decided against it.

@Helena mine seems to have been done to a good standard.

However I was not amused at them putting my new Windows in on a freezing cold day in November 2 days before I was due!

Already asked stayhomer. Answer is no.

One problem with 5 year tenancies are that properties are completely unfurnished. If you move in and have to save 6 months for carpet you aren't going to get anything good in case you get booted out in 4 years time.
Likewise doing up a garden or keeping the decorating up. It's hard enough for most people already without putting money into a house you might not be in a few years.

Private rents need to change. Property portfolios with landlords buying all the cheap properties up mean there's a tier missing. Should only be allowed one to rent at any price and any others have to be at HA rents.

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

Council tax pays for local services. Bigger houses tend to have more occupants who therefore use services more than smaller houses with fewer occupants. It's not unfair. Pity the tenants in private properties who have to pay higher rents, have less security, and still pay council tax!

People who 'own their own homes' are usually paying a mortgage, and may well be working very hard and on a tight budget in order to do so. It wouldn't be fair to expect them to pay more council tax, in order to fund local services for council/private tenants, either!

I wonder why they decided against it? I know means testing is expensive to carry out. Maybe that was why?

Thats great Grand Not all HAs are bad One has a system to help victims of DV.

I think the problem with rising rents with income would be that people would feel council tenants were being punished for success and it would remove incentive for them to progress.

Well it wouldn’t have to rise at the same rate as the income. It should always be financially worthwhile to work and to earn more. It shouldn’t be a case of in one hand and out the other. But I do think it would be possible to set the rent increase at a fair rate so the tenant was still better off increasing their incoming but also able to pay more rent.

happy strangely I've just been onto the ha website where I live and eventually found that new tenancies here are made assured after 12 months if they keep to their tenancy agreement. I applaud this because it's what we need to build communities.
I couldn't give a monkeys whether my neighbours rent or have bought, what I do care about is building a civil and friendly relationship with them. And if I had a constant stream of new neighbours because they weren't destitute anymore I think I'd be as fed up as they were at being turfed out!

slutty, I’m sure families languishing in B&Bs with shared bathrooms and no cooking facilities for months or years on end will be just fine and dandy with that situation carrying on so you can have cheese and wine parties with your neighbours.

I don't think many people are arguing that lifetime tenancies wouldn't be a good thing if there was sufficient housing stock. But as things stand, there is a shortage of affordable housing which has led to highly vulnerable people remaining unhoused or in woefully inadequate accommodation. We therefore need to prioritise, at least in the short-medium term.

mighty and SoftSheen Its not tenants who are at fault. It is the knock on effect of RTB in the early 80s Why are ppl always so keen to turn it back around on tenants.

all it does is keep people moving around Turning the country into a giant chess board is not the answer.

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.

Is there any geared-to-income housing anywhere in the UK?

Perhaps the rather radical solution might be for a building programme of housing association and or local authority housing to rent be implemented.

I don't know where some of the figures quoted come from but there were 114,000 homeless applications last year, not 270,000 and around 58,000 being owed statutory duty. The figure of 60,000 secure or assured tenants own another home - I wish somebody would direct me to the source of this rubbish.

Mightymucks so you think communities are wrong? A neighbour should feel guilty because someone is in a B&B? How is that even remotely helpful?
And for your info, not everywhere is like London with huge waiting lists.