Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

242 replies

Mightymucks · 10/04/2018 20:11

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.

OP posts:
OurMiracle1106 · 10/04/2018 22:06

I feel The fairest way to do it would be to take into consideration minus cost the Income from any owned property and adjust rent up to market value to match. So if you owned a property that was worth 450pcm and live in London minus costs interest whatever increase their rent by that amount until it reaches full market value.

BoomBoomsCousin · 10/04/2018 22:06

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.

How would it be less of a punishment and a disincentive to succeed if they were kicked out of their home?

If your friends are renting out properties to people worse off than they were I don't think there is that much of a problem with it really (unless they are also terrible landlords). The reason for council housing was because there wasn't enough reasonable housing in the rental sector, especially for people who weren't very well off. If your friends in council housing would be kicking a poor family out of their rental in order for them to move in that just means two families moving from where they have social networks, where their children go to school, maybe away from their jobs, etc. That sort of disruption isn't generally good for families unless there is a distinct pay off for it.

If your friends had bought a holiday home somewhere there was a distinct lack of homes for people who wanted a primary residence I'd have more sympathy for the argument, though practically I don't think it matters who owns second homes in those places, it all needs restricting.

Original poster
Mightymucks · 10/04/2018 22:07

I think communities are fluid to a certain extent and I think people have less right to a static community than they do to a home. One is nice, if it happens. The other is essential.

Besides, if these tenants who have second homes are attached to their communities and want to remain part of them then they have the choice not to put their money into properties and invest it in other ways.

OP posts:
Original poster
Mightymucks · 10/04/2018 22:08

How would it be less of a punishment and a disincentive to succeed if they were kicked out of their home?

I haven’t said people should be kicked out of their homes because of their earnings, only if they own other houses.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 10/04/2018 22:08

Slutty ............then you get the threads on here wondering why no family members are available to care or oversee care of an elderly relative or pick them up from hospital. Because they moved or were forced to.

DullAndOld · 10/04/2018 22:09

tbh in the last few years, when i have heard the word 'community' it seems to be more about who is excluded than anything else.

sort of like Hot Fuzz.

Original poster
Mightymucks · 10/04/2018 22:10

that just means two families moving from where they have social networks

Or they could just not have bought the BTLs in the first place and just bought a house they could move into? You know, like everybody does when they buy a house?

OP posts:
ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo · 10/04/2018 22:11

What would make a massive difference would be capping private rental rates in line with social housing rates. It would discourage so so many from buying up cheap houses to rent out and make it unprofitable for people to have a BTL mortgage. It would also mean many who apply for social housing for lower rent rates would just stay put in their private rent as the rent would be the same. Freeing up social housing and taking the pressure off the waiting lists.

Original poster
Mightymucks · 10/04/2018 22:11

Actually Helena, I would hazard a guess most of those people are private sector tenants as they are much more vulnerable to be moved.

OP posts:
BoomBoomsCousin · 10/04/2018 22:12

Or they could just not have bought the BTLs in the first place and just bought a house they could move into? You know, like everybody does when they buy a house?

Except they may want to stay where they are. So instead of buying housing and renting (to people who need rental housing), they'd invest in something else and still not move out. Maybe they could invest in AirBnB or the like and really increase pressure on the housing stock.

BoomBoomsCousin · 10/04/2018 22:15

What would make a massive difference would be capping private rental rates in line with social housing rates

Capping private rental rates would lead to a massive shrinkage in the amount of available rental housing. We know this because it's been done time and again. If renting isn't profitable people stop renting out and the houses sit empty.

umizoomi · 10/04/2018 22:15

Totally agree with you, but social housing should be reviewed very regularly. It should not be for life

ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo · 10/04/2018 22:19

If renting isn't profitable people stop renting out and the houses sit empty.

Really? Landlords are that stubborn they won’t sell their houses to release their money and invest it elsewhere? They’d rather earn nothing?

ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo · 10/04/2018 22:21

Perhaps there needs to be rules on how long a house can sit unoccupied for without a good reason. Too long and council make moves to force a sale.

mrsmuddlepies · 10/04/2018 22:21

it is perfectly legal. I know an older woman who lives in a delightful HA garden bungalow in a brilliant road. She already owned a property with her ex husband in Cyprus. She returned to the UK to one of the most expensive London Borough and they had to house her. Her ex husband stayed in the house when she came back to the UK but the house is in her name. Since then she has inherited both her mother's house and her aunt's house, both of which she rents out.
As she openly admits, the HA take care of all repairs on her flat, which is a life long tenancy and she does not want to be bothered about looking after it at her age.
However, she is doing nothing wrong. I think it is a problem with life long tenancies and there should be an automatic bar on living in social housing if someone comes into possession of a habitable house. it feels wrong to me.

DullAndOld · 10/04/2018 22:23

" However, she is doing nothing wrong."

yes she is, if she owns THREE properties she doesnt need an HA house, does she? and please can we not start about 'community'.

gamerchick · 10/04/2018 22:23

It's legal if they had a lifetime tenancy but it's unethical certainly

I have a lifetime tenancy and have had it for over 20 year and I’m not allowed to own property elsewhere. Not sure where you’re getting your facts from tbh.

So nice to see another council house thread. I’m going to dig out my bingo card for the rest. Have we had cheap and free yet? Grin

BoomBoomsCousin · 10/04/2018 22:24

Zibbidoo yes, really. Obviously not all of them, but enough for it to have an impact on available housing.

There is a short-term benefit for those in rental housing, but long term it stifles the market and makes it much harder for everyone, much especially the more vulnerable, to rent.

Shizzlestix · 10/04/2018 22:24

Massive piss take. HA housing should surely be for those who NEED it!

lalalalyra · 10/04/2018 22:24

The HA with the most properties around here doesn't allow that. If you own a property, or part-own one then you have to go to a panel thing to be allowed to stay in your rented place. Even if it happens mid tenancy.

A friend of mine had problems because she inherited a half share of her mothers house, but there was huge problems with the probate and parts of the estate and it took ages to sort. She had to have 3 monthly meetings with her housing officer until it was sorted, and then they were happy to sign off on it because her share wasn't enough to buy a house.

Another woman lost her house because they discovered that her new husband owned another house. They are really quite strict on it.

gamerchick · 10/04/2018 22:25

but then the concomitant of being handed free stuff is often a reluctance to give it back...

Now I’m happy Grin

HelenaDove · 10/04/2018 22:29

gamer you are going to need some new bingo cards.

A lot of HAs are now much more interested in profit. Genesis Housing went so far as to announce this THREE years ago Others are doing the same and yet we still have all the blame being passed onto tenants.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 10/04/2018 22:30

Definitely council/HA houses should be means tested every year.

I saw a program on C5 last week where someone got a HA house on a very exclusive estate solely with the intention of using right to buy, getting a discount and selling for a massive profit. The most interesting part was that they never even moved into it. HA was aware of this but couldn't do anything as they knew how to play the system.

stuckinagut · 10/04/2018 22:34

I almost wrote a lengthy reply about similar grievances I've had over this in the past, then decided I was too angry and not prepared to take the heat from faceless people telling me how I've got it all wrong and that I SHOULD be working my ass of day and night to afford LESS than people living in HA properties. It's wrong, simple.

Swipe left for the next trending thread