Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Lottery winner keeping her council house.

195 replies

NickyNora · 12/08/2018 13:35

A lady i know recently won over a million pounds on the lottery. She has purchased 2 properties & put them in family members names.

She intends to keep her council house.
She didn't buy it as even with the discount, it woukd use up a large proportion of her win.

Is this even legal?

AIBU to think she's being greedy & should terminate her council tenancy & give back the council house?

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 12/08/2018 18:37

"benefiting from free repairs and a subsidized rent" People do not always benefit because repairs and works are "free" ask any tenant who has had work done by the contractor who wins the contract with the HA by giving the cheapest possible quote.

There is a service charge also payable along with the rent So what is this charge for then.

And subsidies ended in 2010 as featured on Dispatches recently The people who talk as if they still exist EIGHT YEARS LATER have questionable motives for doing this IMO.

HelenaDove · 12/08/2018 18:39

Maybe Queef is trying to point out the difference between social housing and affordable housing because they are NOT the same.

TheQueef · 12/08/2018 18:42

Grin I was hoping HelenaDove would explain it by now!

Because we don't rebuild houses when they are sold there is a shortage.

Social Housing isn't emergency housing, it's designed to mix up communities (lottery winner and neighbours in this thread) the lottery woman is doing the right and responsible thing (if you believe in the principle social housing)

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 18:42

In the U.K. there is no low income housing, only social housing

MingeUterusMingeMingeYoni · 12/08/2018 18:43

OP hasn't told us which part of the country this definitely not fictional pal of hers lives in. It's perfectly possible she's living somewhere demand matches supply, in which case there's no guarantee anyone else could use the property. If for example she were in Scotland, that would make a great deal of sense as she wouldn't have the option of purchase, so it would be keep renting or leave.

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 18:44

happyoldbat I don’t think you fully understand the social housing life cycle. S106 is simply a discount on the lifecycle to encourage building of affordable housing which we all accept should be encouraged

HelenaDove · 12/08/2018 18:48

Affordable housing is 80% of market rent.

Meanwhile i wonder what the tenants are paying for here. Cos it certainly aint repairs.

www.theguardian.com/money/2018/aug/12/housing-repairs-flood-sewage-london-quandrant

HateIsNotGood · 12/08/2018 18:48

I gave up my secure HA Tenancy to move to an area I had previously lived (but with no available social housing or shared ownership options) after I had received an inheritance that gave me enough to buy in the area I wanted to live but lower end of the prices and with a manageable mortgage.

My decision works for me, however I can see how some might see it differently.

Maybe the Lottery Winner might change their stance and spread their luck and good fortune without spending a penny - and give up their HA Tenancy to give another family the same chance they had
with or without their lottery win.

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 18:49

No, affordable rent is a tenure type.

Affordable housing doesn’t refer to that at all. It simply refers to housing below market price.

TheQueef · 12/08/2018 18:55

We don't have low income housing, instead we've managed to break a sustainable social housing system and at the same time reintroduce slum conditions while lining ll pockets along with the costs spiralling upwards.

Remarkable really.

Rarfy · 12/08/2018 18:58

I'm on the fence with this one. Dp and i are in a position where we can't get a mortgage. We can afford one but not a deposit. So we private rent. A horrible damp house down a back alley. My friend rents a newbuild via the council. Whilst paying full rent it was less a month than ours. It is a beautifil 2 bed spacious new build not even a year old. Now in receipt of hb so guess she isnt paying any rent.

Dp and i are not eligible for a council house because we dont have kids so are stuck in this type of housing. It's really not a fair system.

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 19:01

I agree with that queen. But low income housing has never been a thing in the U.K. it’s only ever been social housing

HelenaDove · 12/08/2018 19:03

n Boxing Day last year, Sarah Henley and her partner were asleep alongside their eight-month-old baby Rudi when they were roused by cries. Water was pouring through the bedroom light fitting on to their son, soaking his cot and their bed. It was exactly two years since the couple had reported water leaks over a stairwell in the shared-ownership block managed by London & Quadrant (L&Q). They claim nothing was done and the leaks then spread to their flat in the four-year-old building.

“In August 2017 we came home to find water pouring through the ceiling on to our bed, which is fixed and can’t be moved, and my son’s cot,” says Henley, who lives in the London borough of Southwark. “I then discovered that a report had been made six months previously but no action had been taken.”

The family complained again and scaffolding was twice erected but removed without any repairs being done. In December, water began soaking their bedroom again and the family was forced to move into a hotel and then a series of Airbnb rentals.
Once the biggest housing associations own 90% of social homes, tenants will lose out
Colin Wiles
Read more

“Because nobody could give us a timeline we had to completely re-arrange all our plans for our baby’s first Christmas and keep moving between temporary accommodation until the flat was habitable again,” says Henley, who was forced to move three times over eight days. Six days after they moved back into their flat, the leaks resumed and they spent three weeks shifting between Airbnb rentals and friends’ flats

L&Q is one of the country’s largest and most prosperous housing associations, accommodating 250,000 people across London and the south-east in homes built with the help of tax-payer subsidies.
Advertisement

In spite of – or because of – its rapid expansion, residents on some estates say they have spent years complaining of substandard living conditions and have had lengthy battles over repairs. All 43 reviews on the TrustPilot website mention neglected repairs and unheeding customer services.

Lisa Askew, a social tenant, launched a petition in 2016 to force L&Q to take action after two years of damp, mould, cracks and vermin in her home in Welling, Kent, which affected the health of her baby daughter. L&Q eventually moved her to another estate where, she says, problems have continued.

“I’ve been to hell and back with L&Q. They took two years to repair a leaking water tank in the living room, and our house appears to be suffering from subsidence with huge cracks in the walls,” she says. “I tripped over defective floorboards I had complained about, causing a hairline crack in my knee and soft tissue damage, and had to wear a cast for 12 weeks. We’re trapped in a house we don’t feel safe in because we can’t afford to rent privately or own a home of our own.”

L&Q says that a structural engineer was sent in May and concluded that the cracks were due to thermal movement rather than subsidence. It agreed to appoint another surveyor for a second opinion

On Henley’s estate, leaks that damaged four flats have been fixed, but residents have reported frequent and long-lasting breaks in the supplies of hot water and heating over the four years since the estate was built.

This month, in the height of the heatwave, the water supply was disconnected for a day without warning while repairs were carried out, and L&Q was obliged to reimburse Henley’s partner, Timothy O’Hara, for the cost of a pair of shoes ruined when he had to wade with his young son through raw sewage, which regularly floods the parking area.

In spite of the problems, the service charge has been increased by 18% for next year, some of it for services that have not been provided.
Right to buy puts 40% of ex-council homes in private rental - MPs' report
Read more

“Each time we have a meeting with L&Q we are promised that things will get fixed and dealt with and then nothing happens or things get worse,” says Graeme Legge, a resident who has called for help from his MP, the mayor of London and the housing ombudsman.

“Sometimes the hot water outages last as long as a month but the compensation we have been offered has been paltry and we have had to push for rebates when we’ve been charged for services we haven’t received

L&Q says: “We would like to apologise to residents for the ongoing issues that they are experiencing. Repairs to the roof were completed earlier this year and we are installing a new boiler system to address the hot water outages, which we expect to be complete by the end of next week. We are enlisting an external supplier to mend the sewage pipe in the car park as it is a specialist repair job. It is being dealt with as an urgent matter.”

It adds that service charges are based on an initial estimate of expenditure, which is later reviewed. “In the case of this year, the charges for this estate have increased because a caretaking charge has been added,” it says. “All residents have received additional refunds where services were compromised. We have and will continue to compensate residents on a case-by-case basis in relation to any issues still affecting them.”

Last year, Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, announced an £8bn partnership with the company to build 20,000 homes, in spite of denouncing its poor maintenance record in a BBC interview in 2010. A further 80,000 new homes are planned within the next 10 years.

When asked about resident dissatisfaction with L&Q, the mayor’s office said Khan had raised the issues with L&Q but has no remit to get involved in individual complaints

The mayor believes that no one should have to live in substandard conditions, and landlords must resolve any issues with their homes as a matter of urgency,” it says. “Unlike affordable housing investment, the regulation of social housing landlords has not been devolved to the GLA in London. Nonetheless, when housing management issues are brought to the mayor’s attention by residents, his team picks them up with councils and housing associations directly, as they have done in this case.”

Housing associations are not-for-profit organisations created in the 1960s to provide low-cost homes for workers. However, critics claim that standards and affordability are being compromised as they become increasingly commercialised. Figures compiled by the Times show that nearly 100,000 homes built for social rent at less than 50% of the market rate have been sold off or converted for higher rents since 2012. The Chartered Institute of Housing predicts another 80,000 social rent homes will disappear by 2020.

Meanwhile, housing association chiefs’ pay has soared, with an average salary of £166,205 in 2017. Last year, L&Q’s chief executive, David Montague, received a basic salary of £344,000, making him the fifth-highest paid in the sector

This year, in spite of a slight cut, he will take home £408,564, including a bonus and cash in lieu of pension, yet residents complain he has ignored all requests to engage with them over their years of unresolved problems.

L&Q says that executive pay is set by a governance and remuneration committee and reflects “value for money, current market levels, and the importance of talent retention for an organisation that is large, complex and commercially driven to deliver social goals”.

Government cuts have helped drive the sector into ever more commercial ventures. In 2012 the budget that subsidised social housing was reduced by 60% and in 2015 George Osborne, the then chancellor, imposed a 1% annual rent cut for four years, only a year after committing to a decade of inflation-linked rises. This reduced the income of housing associations, many of which fund social projects using the profits from building, selling and renting full-price homes.
Mayor to subsidise 'naked' homes solution to London housing crisis
Read more

Last year 40% of L&Q’s £1bn turnover came from rents and sales at market rates. Although it is one of the most prolific builders in the sector, only half of the 100,000 homes it plans in the next decade will be what it describes as “genuinely affordable”

n the past financial year it made a record operating surplus of £420m and it says it increased spending on repairs and maintenance from £120m to £173m.

Many of its residents have yet to see the benefits. Henley, who has spent £810 on emergency accommodation, has been offered £720 in expenses by L&Q and nothing to compensate for the stress and inconvenience. She is planning to take her case to a small claims court.

“The leaks have been fixed but the security gates keep breaking down, we are regularly without hot water and, until now, L&Q has blamed the sewage leak in the car park on residents putting wet wipes down the loo,” she says. “It’s hard enough living and working in London with a new baby, without having to move frequently and endure the endless admin to get problems fixed.

HateIsNotGood · 12/08/2018 19:04

'Affordable' Housing is set at 80% of Local Market Rent or 80% of Local Market Prices (usually top end for similar) and this also tends to apply to new-build Housing for Shared Ownership.

It is a distinct Planning Term and different from 'Social Housing'. It is a clever little ruse that Developers and Council Planners use to overcome building new homes at rents that are really affordable for the lower-paid in our society. Whilst claiming to do so.

HelenaDove · 12/08/2018 19:44

YY Hate

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 19:51

Shared ownership has nothing to do with affordable rent

unlimiteddilutingjuice · 12/08/2018 19:57

Its better that she retain the tenancy than buy it imo. At least this way it remains in public hands and will be used by other tenants after her.
Council housing was never supposed to be exclusively for poor people. It was intended as a fairly priced option for working class and middle class folk.
Part of the idea was that living together would promote unity and a sense of shared interests across class lines.
This should surely include the odd lottery winner.
When council housing is stigmatised and reseved for people with no other option, estates tend to go down hill and the community as a whole suffers.
If she's happy there of course she should stay.

Happyoldbat · 12/08/2018 20:20

Glintandglide. I do understand what a s106 is. In effect it means either that the development of affordable housing is being cross subsidised by the developer ( ie he is using profit from the rest of the development) or, if it is an exception site, the Land value is artificially low because planning permission would not have been given but for the fact that the application is for affordable housing. I would argue that the former scenario is a form of subsidy, albeit that it comes from the developer. My point was that social rents do not cover generally the cost of development even with the profit element stripped out and the funding gap has to be met somehow. If the lottery winner has been in her home for a very long time, it is highly likely to have been the subject of grant funding at some time historically (hag, shg, etc).

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 20:39

It does not subsidise rent or repairs. These are modelled at full value before any offer including 106 discount is made on the site

106 discount is for building affordable housing, the discount is on the land, which allows HAs to bid competitively for land as opposed to say, barratts.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 12/08/2018 20:57

Just to revisit my previous point, I realise the social housing "purchase discount" is based on time spent there and rent paid - whether personally or by housing benefit - but I'm still not sure what the justification for it is?

Surely if the housing stock is sold at all there's an obligation to get a market price for it, if only for reinvestment?

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 21:07

Is not really about justification. You’re taking about organisations with tens of thousands of units. If Mrs Jones has been there for 30 years then they’re not going to be able to get her out to sell it. Maybe as well sell now and take the cash

And yes it’s short termism. But just think about how governments/ HAs/ councils have to balance the books year after year after year. It’s easy to see the attraction

Happyoldbat · 12/08/2018 21:07

The s106 makes the difference between the affordable housing development breaking even or not. The ha gets the land below market value. The developer is paying for that.

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 21:10

Absolutely happy. But there is no subsidy to rent or repairs, which is what you stated on the previous page. The subsidy is to the housing association, not the tenant.

Happyoldbat · 12/08/2018 21:41

I did not mean directly to the tenant, but the ha would not be able to maintain the rents at an affordable level without the s106, so the tenant is not paying a rent sufficient to pay back the real cost of developing and maintaining theproperty. Not only is the development not for profit, but the land value is effectively subsidised( or discounted if you prefer) as well. It probably boils down to perspective. Management and maintenance costs over the life of the property all form part of the equation, as you say. For what it’s worth, I agree with Helena Dove’s comments about the salaries of ha ceos.

glintandglide · 12/08/2018 22:22

That’s not necessarily true, HAs develop 100% market same sites and push the profits back into the association all the time.

Also HA CEOs really aren’t paid much when compared to CEOs of similar sized organisations. I’m not sure I’d put up with all that shit for £200k a year

Swipe left for the next trending thread