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.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2015/aug/07/housing-asssociation-no-longer-build-homes-poor-genesis

genesisresidents.org.uk/demonstrations/residents-picket-the-auctioneer-savills-while-the-ceo-struggles-to-explain-the-outrageous-sale-of-social-homes/

In NZ they reassess you every 5years and kick you out if your circumstances change so more deserving people can move in. It's not hard to match tax, property ownership and other records to identify those with changed circumstances.

but enough for it to have an impact on available housing.

So like I said, introduce rules for how long a property can remain empty for without good reason. Council forces a sale for house hoggers.

blackteadrinker77 I think Frank Dobson does the same

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

You are aware that that extra rent was going straight to central government aren’t you? It wasn’t going back into housing. Are people that envious that they would like people to suffer just like people in private rents and swell the governments coffers to do with what they want.

I despair at these threads because people are ignorant and they’re just another way of ‘testing public mood’ to see what pain can be inflicted without upsetting the voters.

pay to stay was a badly thought out policy that was going to be implemented in an even worse manner..

You are aware that that extra rent was going straight to central government aren’t you? It wasn’t going back into housing.

No I wasn’t aware, thank you. That is a massive issue then.

Are people that envious that they would like people to suffer just like people in private rents and swell the governments coffers to do with what they want.

Do you mean me? Did you see my other post suggesting that private rents should be capped in line with social housing rates?

@SoftSheen

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!

You absolutely offensive CF. We are council tenants. We have worked our fucking tits off, scrimping and saving to make sure the full rent (about £4-8 cheaper than a similar private rental on same street, we are not in London) and full council tax get paid on time. We have done so for over two decades. A mortgage around here would be cheaper but we don't earn enough for a deposit. We have consequentially paid enough in rent over the years to buy more than one house. We have never had a penny of Council Tax benefit or whatever it's called. We have paid as much in Council Tax as the owner of a comparable local property.

Your notion that only owners work hard has boiled my piss into steam!

No I was addressing generally. It’s just the tone of these threads.

You get private renters suffer with an insecure tenancy on one hand and on the other, people should give up a secure tenancy if they can afford private rents. Not everyone clicks on that everywhere isn’t the south and in a pretty big part of the UK, private rents are little more than SH.

It boggles me head!

I think the rent should be means tested, the more income you have the more you pay in rent.

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2018/feb/28/housing-associations-record-profits-affordable-homes

I think the rent should be means tested, the more income you have the more you pay in rent.

So not reading the thread then?

Why do you think it should be means tested out of interest?

"I couldn’t help thinking of this closing scene from Animal Farm when I read that the UK’s housing associations made record operating profits of £3.5bn in 2017. Many critics have argued that housing associations have drifted so far away from their philanthropic roots that it is often hard to distinguish them from red-at-claw property developers. The latest figures appear to prove the point.

Housing associations have increased their turnover by 6% in 2017, despite an annual rent cut of 1%, introduced by then-chancellor George Osborne in 2015, which will continue until 2020.

The associations have said they did this through efficiency savings, consolidation through mergers and “revenue diversification into commercial activities”. But the government’s global accounts (pdf) for housing associations show that the largest reductions were made in major repairs, which fell by 14% in 2014. This allowed associations to make a profit of £3.5bn – an increase of £0.2bn on 2016. Some savings were achieved as a result of mega-mergers between large associations, which some critics have said make these landlords even more remote from their residents.

In recent years housing associations have increasingly diversified into market sale and speculative developments. This activity has increased dramatically over the past five years, accounting for 18% of turnover in 2017. Conversely, housing associations’ core business – social housing let at low rents – has been shrinking, and now represents only 69% of turnover. In 2016/17 there were 22,858 affordable housing completions in England and only 597 were social rent, compared to 18,280 so-called “affordable rent”. So-called, because they are let at up to 80% of local market rents, and can be as high as £400 a week in London, a rent that will trap anyone on a low wage into benefit dependency in perpetuity"

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/apr/24/housing-associations-crisis-commercialisation

What we need is significantly more primary housing in the places people want to live. It doesn't matter what other regulatory levers we try when there just isn't enough housing around.

Stopping holiday home ownership and ongoing AirBnB type rental of residential housing, stopping people from leaving residential housing empty, etc. will help a bit. But mainly we need to build more housing. More social housing would be a good way to do that if the government would free up funds to let councils do it. But increasing density in popular cities, cutting back on planning hold ups, stopping builders from holding on to land that planning permission without developing it, etc. all need to be a part of it. The situation we're in now has been developing for decades. Getting a bit pissy because someone in social housing has chosen to invest in being a landlord to others who aren't well off instead of investing their money in stocks and shares isn't going to make a positive difference at all.

Every town and city needs essential low paid workers . Even on a full time wage , market rate rent would be unaffordable in this day and age.

I agree that owning another property whilst in HA should be illegal but I agree with life long tenancies. It's the private sector that needs sorting .

What I hate is when you are in a council property that suits your needs (2 bed in my case) they won't move you if the place is unsuitable.

I'm on the 9th floor. The building is full of drug addicts. People are being murdered in the building. Lifts covered in blood/vomit/urine.

But because we have 2 bed rooms they won't move us out even with a 16 month old child.

She cried the other day because a drunk man scared her because we wouldn't get in the lift with him and his friend and he started shouting at us because of it.

We didn't go in the lift because 1) no room and 2) they were smoking in it.

I know an answer would be to go and private rent but we just can't afford that until she is at nursery.

Not legal here. The HA's wont allow it and review regularly.

Grand thats appalling.

It really is. However I lock my door and ignore outside.

Our floor is okay to be fair. Lots of pensioners and there are another 3 children on this floor.

It's the very top floor that's the main problem as it's used for scatter flats so people that don't give a fuck are put in them.

Also it's a good sized flat. If I could take the flat out the building and put it somewhere else I'd be happy.

Although if there were no stairs in it I'd be slightly happier. who puts stairs in a flat

Are we sure it is a lifetime tenancy? I thought these were a thing of the past, especially in parts of the country with the greatest shortage of social housing.

Having said that, the solution is simple. All social housing should be open to anyone who wants to live in it (no initial check on means/circumstances) and should be let at a market rate.

We already have a system to subsidise people who can't afford market rents without help: housing benefit. We don't need a second system of subsidy of below-market rents on social housing, especially since it sometimes has undesirable outcomes like that in the OP.