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.

Yes that's disgraceful. Lifetime tenancies should not exist, for this very reason that circumstances change, families get bigger or smaller, and council tenants should move to suitably-sized housing etc. A council house is NOT theirs, it is subsidised and therefore should have restrictions. This whole system has been abused for a long time. Even the 'right to buy' was a joke, if someone can afford to buy their council house then do they really need to be subsidised? I would report this 'friend' whether it's legal or not. There are probably some who really are in need of this house.

There is not shortage of housing here or are we in London again?

A council house is NOT theirs, it is subsidised and therefore should have restrictions

It is? How is it subsidised exactly?

Yes how are council/housing association subsidised gingham? In many parts of the country the rents are on a par with private rent as has been said many times so where does this "subsidy " come in?

I think the closest we got on these threads was a potential income being the subsidy. Before it turned into where you buy your baked beans as examples

gingham isn't going to answer because it's utter bollocks that social housing is subsidized by the taxpayer (as some claim.)

It's a myth, and sadly, some people do believe it. It's not true.

I don't know why anyone ever thought this!

@ginghamstarfish sounds not only ill-informed, but also angry, jealous, and bitter.

Ok here I am to answer, not angry jealous or bitter! Aren't council houses paid for by local councils/government? That is, from money paid in by taxpayers/local council tax payers? Then they are maintained, repairs carried out etc, by the local council, as is all the necessary admin work. They are rented at (mostly) lower than private market rent. That is all fine, IF the tenants are in need of lower cost housing. My point was that many are not, or they were but over time their circumstances have changed. The house surely should not be the tenants' for as long as they want it, no more than a private rental is. But some folks are greedy and selfish. I don't see why that is hard to understand.

Well in my town a housing association took over all the council houses ,I still say I live in a council house because it was originally owned by the council but technically I live in a housing association , which is a not for profit charity, but the houses are paid for by rent which many people pay themselves .

Snowagain- it’s really not true at all. My parents had a council house for 5 years. They now own a villa. And no they didn’t win the lottery. My mum finished her PhD and helped to ‘invent’ a well known product when made them some decent money. They moved out of their council house where I and my younger brother lived.

If you want to know why they ended up there- well, Mum got cancer and my dad was made redundant in the same year. They had no savings as my mum was at uni at the time so all money was paying for that. Dad was doing pizza delivery work as an income after redundancy from a very well paid job working for a medical research company.They were made homeless when. I was 17 and my bro 7.

Having lived in a council house I’m aware of many who live in one but really should give it up for someone else more worthy/ in a poor situation.

Not all folks in a council house are unable to get good jobs!

I just think for fairness they should give up the house when standard rents are more than affordable or savings are good.

Ok here I am to answer, not angry jealous or bitter! Aren't council houses paid for by local councils/government? That is, from money paid in by taxpayers/local council tax payers

No, the taxpayer doesn’t pay for council houses unless in the form of housing benefit (but that also applies to private rents).

Council houses pay for themselves many many times over through rents. There is no subsidy by the taxpayer/government. You don’t go to work and pay for me to live in a council house.

" Aren't council houses paid for by local councils/government? That is, from money paid in by taxpayers/local council tax payers? "

no they are paid for by the rent that tenants pay, over and over again. Just because private rents are bloated doesn't mean it's normal.

gingham say you moved into a Sh house, you spent a fortune on carpeting it (because you don't get free flooring), you buy a cooker/washing machine and pay to have it connected (you don't get these free or fitted either), you buy a sofa, beds, everything needed for your house. Then in (let's say for arguments sake) 5 years they decide your just over the threshold for needing the house. Would you not be mightily pissed off that you'd made a home and all your flooring was going to have to go to the tip?

You then have to find a private rental and because you couldn't afford the rental you'd need to claim housing benefit and a lot of ll won't take it. So you are then homeless again and back to square one.

Where I live for a lot of the new affordable properties you need an income of at least £30k. The Housing is for working families as it should be. The new builds that are called affordable housing it's so not affordable that you need a mortgage for would require incomes of £80k or so, so not great for the average working family.
A three bed private rental starts at £1k per month, a family will need housing benefit to be able to live there. I feel like I'm rambling now but I get tired of people thinking that it's subsidised Housing when it isn't. And it's Housing for all, anyone in my area is welcome to go on the Housing list as long as they don't earn more than £60k.

There is not shortage of housing here or are we in London again?

There is a shortage of affordable housing across the whole country not just London. But in London rents in proportion to wages are more extreme. South East, the Coast, Cornwall and Devon, Yorkshire etc are all pretty places but have a minuscule amount of affordable housing, but have plenty of shops, hotels, hospitals etc which are staffed by shop assistants, cleaners etc who are on fairly low wages who need to live somewhere, in case it's no longer ok to worry about housing poor people in London.

"kids suffering from an increase in breathing problems due to mouldy private rentals that are overpriced"

Are you actually trying to say that nothing like this goes on in social housing?

Slutty..................

www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15919667.Toryglen_resident_calls_under_fire_housing_association_for_help___but_gets_police_visit_instead/?ref=twtrec

Add message | Report | Message poster HelenaDove Fri 09-Feb-18 00:38:56
13 comments
"A RESIDENT who contacted an under-fire housing association to ask for a workman was met by police instead.

It is the latest incident in a long-running saga that has pit residents and their housing association against one another.

As previously told in the Evening Times, energy saving works in Toryglen should have taken 12 weeks to carry out.

Now, 20 months later, workmen are still on site sorting out problems caused by the scheme, run by energy giant E-on at hundreds of Thistle Housing Association properties.

Resident Ian Paterson spotted that a cable containment box had burst and cables were hanging loose in his close.

He emailed Thistle HA to report the problem, expecting a workman to come out and fix the damage.

Instead, housing bosses called the police to accuse Mr Paterson of vandalism and two officers came to his door.

It is the second time Thistle's management have called police to Mr Paterson, having previously accused him of running a blog site detailing the issues with the botched works.

Mr Paterson described the move as a "poisonous attempt" on his character.

The energy works have turned into a three-way stooshie with residents of 608 properties stuck in the middle.

Using £8.5million of public money, including £3.4m of Scottish Government cash, E-on was supposed to have taken 12 weeks to carry out works such as rough casting, window upgrades and roof repairs in order to make homes more energy efficient.

Workers wracked up a catalogue of blunders, meaning some properties had to be visited on multiple occasions in order to undergo remedial works.

And residents, who have asked First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and council leader Susan Aitken for help, were left increasingly frustrated by the time delays and inconvenience.

In September last year E-on pulled all its staff off-site following a stand-up row between its staff and residents.

Each group pointed the finger at the other with locals claiming E.ON staff were verbally abusive towards them.

E.ON then claimed its workers felt under threat for residents.

There was also a deadlock between the energy firm and the housing association over payment, causing E.ON to appoint an independent adjudicator - which found in favour of the housing association.

The stalemate arose when a quantity surveyor appointed by Thistle would not sign off the works, so the association withheld a £3.4m payment to E-on.

At the time, our paper contacted E-on for comment but they refused to speak on the issue.

It is understood workmen are still on site sorting out snagging issues at properties.

Some residents have had as many as 13 completion dates for their homes but still have no end in sight.

A spokesperson from Thistle Housing Association said: “It is standard practice that any suspected acts of vandalism to our properties are reported to our community police team.

“It is our duty to ensure our residents live in a safe, well maintained community and we endeavour to do all we can to uphold our high standards throughout Toryglen.”

Glasgow City Council has said the local authority will commission an independent audit into the situation."

Add message | Report | Message poster HelenaDove Fri 09-Feb-18 01:33:54
www.heraldscotland.com/news/15366537.Repairs_scandal_housing_association_calls_police_on_whistleblowing_Toryglen_residents/

Add message | Report | Message poster HelenaDove Fri 09-Feb-18 01:34:48
"Ian Paterson, who has helped spearhead the residents’ campaign was visited by police who were called by the housing association in relation to a blog that has been started by residents and which details the failings of the works programme so far.

He said: “The blog is written by a collection of residents. But it shows how poor communications have become that police are being called to pensioners such as myself."

The second article i have linked was written nine days after Grenfell The Grenfell residents logged their ongoing problems in a blog too. Yet nine days after the tragedy in another part of the country another set of residents doing the same are treated with derision...........just nine days later.

It infuriates me when people spout this shit about council housing being subsidised. The only time it's subsidised is when tenants buy it through right to buy at crazy discounts. And that's subsidised by all the tenants who pay for the property they live in many times over in a life time of rent.

And I agree with you, OP, your friend is morally bankrupt.

I do agree in lifetime tenancies as in poor people don’t get richer when they retire !

I do think the system could quite easily weed this out . It’s just shouldn’t be happening

They know when the kids grow up that’s for sure ! As out neighbours were booted out when their DD turned 18 .

I have no issue with lifetime tenancies. When I was in my 20’s I moved back home, plenty of adults have to yoyo to care, or move back between homes or whatever. It’s the family home I don’t see why that stops at 18. It enables communities to be built and support networks.
I do think there should be more incentive to downsize IF that’s something you want to do.

It infuriates me when people spout this shit about council housing being subsidised.
Unless your paying full market rent then yes it is MASSIVELY subsidised.

no it is not MASSIVELY subsidised, full market rent is outrageously bloated.

full market rent is outrageously bloated.
That is an irrelevant opinion, the fact remains that council housing is subsidised by tax payers who do pay full market rent.

My rent should be 270 pcm. That's for a 2 bed flat in a large tower block.

Private rental are about 350 pcm for houses. Obviously can be dearer or cheaper depending on area.

I was in a private rental with the ex and it was 600 pcm for a 3 bed semi detached. That was below market rate though as we'd rented a flat from the same landlord for 400 pcm the previous 5 years. And that was a 1 bed flat.

For the love of fucking god... council Housing is NOT I repeat NOT subsidised by taxpayers. Do your fucking homework before spouting such shit!

" the fact remains that council housing is subsidised by tax payers who do pay full market rent."

no it isnt, it is paid for through rent. HOnestly do you really believe this shite?

walkingdead - it may come as a surprise to you that social housing tenants are also tax payers.

Social housing rents are not subsidised in the short hand manner often ascribed to them on threads like this.

The building of social housing has an element of government funding (used to be a grant now more an investment that is recycled) but the cost of this is ultimately covered/repaid by rents.

But government cash injection is true of house building in general - the Help to Buy scheme for example is an illustration of how government use national funds to prime building - whether for FTB, for social housing or just for Bellway.

What is removed from the social housing cycle is the element of significant profit - I know Helena has strong views on the element of profit/surplus that some social housing providers make (they do need to make some surplus to meet their borrowing requirements).

However, the fact is that CEO's of housing associations are not awarded £100million as a bonus.

The other element of social housing construction is that it is counter cyclical - that is to say because the sector is not driven by profit it doesn't have to respond to market signals.

If you're Persimmon and the country is entering a recession, you can (and have done) pull back on construction - why would you inject capital into an asset that you can't sell? That is the nature of house building economics.

In that scenario of volume builders retreating you have housing market stagnation, loss of supply chains across elements of construction - none of which is good for the economy. The social housing sector can step in and build to try to keep supply chains moving, economic growth ticking along.

So there is an element of government support going into social housing provision (but I'd argue if government are supporting commercial house builders why wouldn't they support social house builders) but that is not to say as has been said here and on other threads in a very simplistic manner that social tenants have their rent subsidised.

I was going to say stop being jealous without reading your post but yes that is so ducking wrong what they are Doing.
Honestly I would say something to them they do not need that social house