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.

@HelenaDove just catching up and that link you posted on the greedy HA is shocking. I naively thought they were all not for profit and tightly regulated!

Oh and has anyone started watching Housing Yorkshire? Started last week on 5 I think, was very interesting and gave an insight into both tenants and housing officers. Looking forwards to tonight's episode.

It’s cheeky fuckery of the highest order.

A ‘friend’ of DHs has been living in a HA house for a very long time now. Has had the opportunity to buy it but has turned it down. They own a holiday home in Spain and are frequently there enjoying it when they aren’t earning 50k+ whilst in the UK earning.

Meanwhile, a very good newly single Mum friend of ours is living in an emergency accommodation hostel with her newborn due to DV, with no hopes of a permanent place to live any time soon because of lack of social housing.

It’s all far too common.

Authorities should be going after these people, not the non-existent ‘benefit cheats’ that frequent the front pages of the tabloid rags.

I used to work with someone whose dad owned whole fucking streets in a cheaper town up north whilst his mum was the tenant of the housing association house in leafy London commuter town. His whole family did it. It is so wrong. When I tried to escape DV I looked at the criteria and saw as an existing home owner (with knob head) I wouldn’t be eligible (although I now know I would have been).

BugsyMcGee

I did not suggest that people who rent work less hard than people who pay a mortgage! Please read my post before going off on one.

My points were that (1) Council tax pays for local services, which we all use and therefore all need to pay for and (2) that 'owner/occupiers' paying a mortgage are not necessarily well off, in fact many are struggling to make ends meet.

I think lifetime tenancies SHOULD be a thing, and it's usually only people who can't get one, or who are paying out multiple 1000's on maintaining their money pit of a house who are against them, because they are resentful of the low-rent, no maintenance lifestyle people have.

The people I know who are financially comfortable, with a nice home, a decent car, and a holiday abroad every year, are people in social housing. If it's a nice/decent area, who WOULDN'T want that? I mean, what is the point in buying now? There is no benefit to it. Not these days...........

But yeah, the system does need overhauling. And the tenancies should be reviewed every 5 years. (Some housing associations do this actually!)

Obviously if someone inherits another property (or comes into enough money to buy a property in their area, similar to what they are in,) then the tenancy should not be renewed.

However, I am not sure how I feel about someone getting booted out of their rented social housing property, if they get over a certain financial threshold. I mean, what if the 'threshold' is 'total household income £25K,' ... (I use this figure as OUR local council won't let anyone have a new social housing tenancy if they earn over that!)

So, if they review every 5 years, and boot people out if they 'reach that threshold; a tenant who has lived at their property for some years, only has to go up to a £26K income, and the family will be made made to give up their home, and forced into expensive private let, (because they still cannot afford to buy!) And also, what if they are booted out and a year later they lose their job...... ?

With either scenario (both which could easily happen,) they will get into financial problems. Can they have a social housing property again quickly? No. They will have to go back on the list, and wait probably 5 years. By that time, they will probably have had to declare bankruptcy.

So booting people out of their social housing property because the pay goes up a few grand is ridiculous. If anything, just raise the rent accordingly. So they pay a certain % of their yearly salary. Or have fixed amounts.... So if the family income is £20K, they pay £400 a month, if it's £30K, they pay £525 a month, if it's £40K, they pay £650 a month, if it's £50K they pay £800 a month, if it's £60K, they pay a £950 a month... etc etc.... That way, you don't have someone earning absolutely shit-loads and paying £300 a month for rent on a social housing property..

Although to be honest, people who qualify for social housing are very very unlikely to ever be high earners. EVER.

That is NOT a mean thing to say, it's true.

All these tales people come out with of someone paying £200 a month rent and earning £50K - or having extra homes - are the exception rather than the rule. MOST people in social housing deserve to be there, and should not be booted out, because they have worked hard to better themselves, and have reached a 'pay threshold...' As I said, the rent should just be raised accordingly... and then dropped back down if/when the household income drops...

Where are you getting these figures from. How much do you think SH rents are in general?

200 quid a month? On what planet is that?

Also where do you think this ‘extra’ rent would go? Because it wouldn’t go back into housing.

It’s another case of looking into your neighbours bowl and making sure they don’t have more than you... again... sad.

The difference between social housing and private renting is so vast now in terms of rental cost and security.

How can one family get SH and pay low rents with lifetime tenancy and another family rent privately and only have a 6 / 12 month tenancy at the most?

Capping private rents doesn't work, look at what happened to property when New York had rent controls.

I think the answer is to raise social rents and bring them online with private rents so they are no longer such vast advantages of being able to get a social tenancy.

@gamerchick

Some people still do pay rents of £50 a week (around £200 to £220 a month) in some of the properties in the town I used to live in. Mostly for flats, but yeah those amounts do exist!

Just coz that is not a rent that exists on YOUR planet, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is a world outside 'gamerchick's' mind you know!

The greediness/rule bending that some people are prepared to go to literally disgusts me. If they were my friends, op, I would have to drop them.

@gamerchick

Some people still do pay rents of around £50 a week (around £200 to £220 a month) in some of the social housing properties (in the town I used to live in.) Mostly for flats, but yeah those amounts do exist!

Just coz that is not a rent that exists on YOUR planet, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is a world outside 'gamerchick's' mind you know! hmm

@PersianCatLady that's so far off the route to solving things. Raising social rents to private levels won't solve a thing other than increase the housing benefit total. It's private rents tha need to be brought in line with social rents. A fair rent in a decent home is what's needed.

And as a side note, you do realise that in social housing, you have to pay for ALL flooring and white goods don't you? So if SH rents were increased to PR levels then those in SH would be even worse off. How's that a solution?

Some people still do pay rents of around £50 a week (around £200 to £220 a month) in some of the social housing properties (in the town I used to live in.) Mostly for flats, but yeah those amounts do exist

I think you’re thinking of bedsits, which tbh I’d laugh if people got all bosom hoiky about those examples as ridiculous. Although the way things are going the pitchforks will be out for those living in them earning a penny more than they ‘should’

Not legal for my area

I think the answer is to raise social rents and bring them online with private rents so they are no longer such vast advantages of being able to get a social tenancy

A whole 25 quid a week rise? Yeah reach for the stars not all private rents are equal. Not everywhere is London.

No you have got me wrong @gamerchick

I am on their SIDE. (the same side YOU'RE on) I don't think people SHOULD be booted out just coz their income goes over a certain threshold. Read my (long) post properly!

And no, the £200 to £220 a month is not for bedsits, it IS for 1 and 2 bed flats. Even some 2 bed houses are only £280-£300 a month. Depends on the (social housing) landlord and the area and the property (including the age of the property...)

Yeah these lower rents are a bit more rare, and are usually more like £300 a month now for flats (for a new tenancy,) but some people - (especially those who have been there for some years,) are paying only £200 to £220 a month for a flat.

And the council in my old town let a 1 bed bungalow to my neighbour's mother 4 or 5 years ago, for £55 a week. I think she only pays £60 now.

I don't think you can even GET social housing 'bedsits!'

But yeah I agree with you. No-one should be hoiking pitchforks about trying to get someone out of their home coz their income went from £400 a week to £410!

I don't think you can even GET social housing 'bedsits!'

Yes you do, they’re quite common. I had one in the late 90s.

Oh right OK @mightymucks. But it is still actual FLATS that I am on about.

I know you are man when people summon up SH they think of people in 3 bed houses raking it in. We’ve just got people over themselves thinking they’re free without them thinking they’re 50 quid a week.

I pay just over 500 quid a month for mine. Cheap by London’s standards but not much cheaper than private rents where I live. If I bought it the mortgage would be peanuts per month (and a different kind of pitchfork would be after me)

yes i have seen social housing bedsits in London...

It would be about £10-15 in my town @gamerchick and yes where are these £50/week rents @snowagain? I live in a council house on a council estate the one bedroom flats opposite my house are £68/week.

LOL sorry, I didn't mean to make things worse @gamerchick and I know £50-£60 a week isn't a NORMAL rent - even for social housing, but yeah they do exist.

And anyway, people only bitch and moan coz they are jealous!

And although some people in social housing ARE comfortable (as I said earlier,) they are not uber loaded, and I can't see the point in booting them out if they go over say £25K a year. As I said, many people in social housing will be very unlikely to go to a very massive salary, ever, so just leave them, be, raise the rents accordingly, (if they DO go over £25-30K, and build more social housing with the 'extra rent.'

Hope I am making sense!!!

The places I am on about are in the midlands and staffordshire @x2boys

Like I said, not all, but a few have those rents, and it is usually people who have been there for some years...The newer tenancies will be a bit more (like £65 a week for a flat..)

And although some people in social housing ARE comfortable (as I said earlier,) they are not uber loaded, and I can't see the point in booting them out if they go over say £25K a year. As I said, many people in social housing will be very unlikely to go to a very massive salary, ever, so just leave them, be, raise the rents accordingly, (if they DO go over £25-30K, and build more social housing with the 'extra rent.'

Yes you are, however it’s already been floated and scraped. The extra rents weren’t going back into social housing, it was going straight to central government. Would everybody be happy with all suffering now equal but the government have more money to spend on themselves? It’s was just another tax via the back door.

We all have an ideal, I personally would like to see the end of BTL and all empty properties seized by councils then let out. There is a problem in this country but it’s not caused by council tenants.

And anyway, people only bitch and moan coz they are jealous!

It's not about jealousy. I don't need social housing but a lot of vulnerable people do, and they are currently locked out of it due to a desperately low supply of it. There are families stuffed into one room hostels, kids suffering from an increase in breathing problems due to mouldy private rentals that are overpriced, MHO properties with tiny rooms charging £1000 pm per flat, sometimes up to 5 flats per converted semi, all paid by housing benefit, the poor residents with barely room for a bed but with the only alternative being back out on the streets. The answer is more social housing, I don't know if your comment is meant to sound so flippant, but it buys into the myth of people being only motivated by the politics of envy, which is often used to silence people from demanding change.