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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Well off friend in council house

293 replies

toughtimes2001 · 23/08/2018 19:31

Please tell me if I am being unfair.

My friend and her partner (mid 20's) earn a combined salary of of £65K (no kids) and have a cheap council tenancy home with a massive garden in a lovely part of London (her partner sneakily inherited the tenancy from his deceased father a couple of years back). The have a lovely life with plenty of disposable income as their rent is very cheap and go on lovely holidays and are saving up a massive deposit for their own home which they intend to buy in a couple of years. I should also add, she has very wealthy parents who dish out money to them left right and centre for various things throughout the year.

Meanwhile, I a single mum earn £19K (no family support) privately rent a rubbish 1 bedroom flat (which is more in rent than they pay) in a rubbish part of town with no hope of ever buying a home or taking my DS on a luxury holiday. I have also been told I am not a priority for housing so no hope for me any time soon!

Am I right to think this is just completely unfair?

OP posts:
lasttimeround · 25/08/2018 09:34

To reassess need for council housing would undo the benefit of offering secure housing. So no to that.

But op save your anger for the lack of an adequatr housing policy in the last 2 decades. I think you can legit keep a council house tenancy on death. So the arent doing anything dodgy. Just lucky and it roukd be better if we all could have a bit more of that

Nichelette · 25/08/2018 10:02

I get that you are in a crappy situation, but I honestly think everyone (both you and them) should be entitled to housing stability which you don't get in private renting. They are doing the right thing by saving to get out and then the house will help someone else who needs it. 65k isn't such a huge amount in London, and if they are saving so much a lot will go towards the deposit as they will still need silly money unless they move out of London. I wouldn't begrudge them a few luxuries. It's sad that we don't have the housing we really need to help everyone, and I think mixed communities are much better than creating ghettos that people don't want to live in.

Shampoo0 · 25/08/2018 15:30

I dont agree the couple deserve the council house at all, they take advantage of our system like many but it's the government's fault to allow this happen. Perhaps they need to take advantage to get onto housing ladder.
Me and my ex were on minimum wage working and living in London some 18 years ago. We paid everything ourselves, we were poor but we didn't winge and expect handouts. We plan our future instead. We all should make effort to get out of this situation instead of winging of not getting enough handouts. Imagine what the country will be like if all we feel is entitlement.

Bluelady · 25/08/2018 15:40

When will people get it through their heads that council tenants aren't subsidised by anyone? Council houses - those few that remain - have been paid for over and over again by the people who live/have lived in them.

user1457017537 · 25/08/2018 15:48

Have you put your name down for a council/HA dwelling for you and your son. If not, why not? Are you not eligible op

gamerchick · 25/08/2018 15:48

I think this is one of those situations where IRL people would agree that it is ridiculous that the taxpayer is subsiding this couple who obviously don't need it

Yanno these threads where people repeatedly bang on about how council houses are subsidised and it's repeatedly said that they aren't. Do you people actually read the threads?

So since you've read the thread would you like to tell us how exactly the taxpayer is subsidising council houses?

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 16:51

"I think this is one of those situations where IRL people would agree that it is ridiculous that the taxpayer is subsiding this couple who obviously don't need it""

If you really believed that you would be saying it publicly under your real name both here and elsewhere.

This is not about social housing going to those who "really need it"

If it were there would be just as much outrage at them being sold off for holiday homes.

Shelter dont really help matters with refusing to acknowledge that the same problems now occur in social housing the same as they do in private renting.

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 17:17

Shelter dont really help matters with refusing to acknowledge that the same problems now occur in social housing the same as they do in private renting.

speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/dear-polly/

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 17:30

Prejudice against social housing tenants costs money too.

Mr Kebede is having to have police protection because of threats on social media despite the cctv of him leaving Grenfell Tower on the night of the fire shows him carrying no baggage at all. it was insidiously claimed that he packed a bag and just left He did no such thing. And this was backed up at the enquiry.

There are still people who trot out what they want to believe though......................much like on this thread.

elkiedee · 25/08/2018 19:46

Council housing isn't subsidised per se. Most council housing still being let at a council rent was built several decades ago and rents have paid the costs of the land and building many times over. And there has been very little new council housing built because the Tories under Margaret Thatcher/John Major had policies to actively discourage public spending on services and investment in social housing, and wouldn't even let RTB receipts be used to build more.

Where people are entitled to claim Housing Benefit because they are on a very low income (and there are plenty of incomes which are totally insufficient to buy or privately rent a home, particularly for families - 1 or 2 parents - with kids, but too high to get HB), HB payments go to the Housing Revenue account which covers the costs of ongoing housing management, often more than does so. Because private rents are so much higher, even with local housing allowances, more taxpayer subsidy goes to private landlords than to Council housing. Especially as families in need may be accepted on to the housing register and then their council may pay far more for them to live in one or two rooms in the private sector than it would cost for them to live in a council flat, if one was available. That isn't just workless families by the way.

SweetSummerchild · 25/08/2018 20:32

So, what’s the solution to this supposed ‘injustice’?

Let’s turf social housing tenants out of their homes once they earn over a certain threshold perhaps?

That sounds like a really good disincentive for families on low income to strive to improve their circumstances. ‘Get a good job and we’ll evict you’ is not very convincing is it?

So, let’s prevent anyone ‘sneakily inheriting’ tenancies by ensuring that all dependents are evicted once a tenant dies. Well, that’s going to work well isn’t it?

OP, you would be as well getting pissed off with the people who bought flats in your block 15 years’ ago and are paying 1/5 in mortgage payments as you are in rent.

ladyloopy · 25/08/2018 20:49

There's no point you comparing op. You'll tie yourself up in knots.

But for what it's worth, I think it's ridiculous that some of my friends who are very good earners are in council houses with really low rent.

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 21:06

From the blog post ive linked.........above.

"Now look at housing benefit in the social rented sector and we find that average housing benefit paid to both LA and HA landlords has increased by 22% and that average LA rent has increased by 36.6% over the same period and average HA rent has increased by 32.9%.

Is it any wonder that social landlords have become increasingly averse to the benefit tenant? Housing Benefit at 22% has chronically failed to keep up with very excessive LA (36.6%) and HA (32.9%) rent rises over the period and means the benefit tenant is a no-no and NO DSS allocation policies in social (sic) housing are ubiquitous for that reason.

Note that over this period prices inflation was 16.6% and working-age benefit inflation was 8.3% and wage inflation was 10.8% and are all way below the rent increases of 23% (PRS) and 32.9% (HA) and 36.6% (LA) – This means that rented housing is far less affordable and is highly likely to be refused not just on a NO DSS basis but also to the low paid and in-work tenant too and even in what we miscall as social housing too!"

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 21:11

HelenaDove Wed 13-Jun-18 22:21:34

With many Grenfell Tower survivors still displaced a year after the fire that killed 72 people, figures reveal millions being made from selloffs

David Batty

Wed 13 Jun 2018 07.30 BST
Last modified on Wed 13 Jun 2018 10.00 BST

Shares
305
Comments
593
Sutton estate in central London
Owners want to rebuild Sutton estate in central London. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

"Housing associations have made at least £82.3m from auctioning homes in five London boroughs since 2013, according to figures seen by the Guardian. Analysis by the Labour MP for Westminster North, Karen Buck, shows that Westminster, Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea sold 153 properties at auction through Savills estate agents – with more than half in Westminster where sales totalled £36.4m. The true figures are likely to be much higher as the data only covers sales made by one agency. The auctions are part of a wider trend of some housing associations selling off social housing in expensive central London to fund new developments, which tenants say are unaffordable or far removed from their families, schools and work.

Buck says: “I’m dealing with a family who are statutorily overcrowded and in the highest medical priority and I haven’t been able to get them moved in over eight years. That’s because housing associations [in general] say they don’t have the stock in the area and yet they’re still selling off homes.

Nationally, sales of housing association social homes to the private sector have more than tripled since 2001, with 3,891 social homes sold in 2016. Overall, more than 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost since 2012.
Social housing is being driven by profit. Tenants must fight back
Sham Lal
Read more

Bucks’ analysis shows that in Kensington and Chelsea housing associations made £5.3m from auctions in 2013 alone. Between 2013 and 2018, Brent sold £20.9m, and Hammersmith and Fulham £13.7m.

Although most auction lots do not state the housing association selling the property, Buck has identified many homes as stock of Genesis and Notting Hill Housing, which merged in April . Notting Hill Genesis manages 65,000 homes. A spokesman says before the merger, the two associations sold 497 homes between them in the past five years, using the proceeds to build more homes in less expensive areas in and outside London. Of these, 49 were auctioned last year, raising £19.7m, but the merged housing association “will limit sales to no more than 20 per year”.
The selloffs are fuelling overcrowding and homelessness, and undermining efforts to tackle the housing crisis, experts say. “They’re buying and leasing homes all over London as temporary accommodation yet housing association homes within these boroughs are being sold off,” says Steve Hilditch, former head of policy for Shelter and a housing adviser to the last Labour government.

Meanwhile, other housing associations are redeveloping their stock. In Kensington and Chelsea, local residents and the council have warned a public inquiry that backing plans to redevelop the Sutton estate, near the King’s Road, would give housing associations across the country carte blanche to not update social housing and replace it with private homes, which risks pushing thousands of tenants into temporary accommodation or homelessness. England’s largest housing association, Clarion Group, wants to demolish the red-brick Edwardian mansion block estate. The plans have fomented debate over the provision of social housing in Kensington and Chelsea, a year after the Grenfell fire in the north of the borough. Although there are around 200 vacant flats on the Sutton estate, many survivors are still living in temporary accommodation. Clarion has said the empty homes were not fit to be let.
Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you
Read more

Campaigners argue that if Clarion had better maintained the estate they could have provided more suitable permanent accommodation for Grenfell survivors. But Kensington and Chelsea council has also come under fire for failing to house enough people made homeless after the fire.

A spokesman for the council says it has spent £235m on securing 307 properties to help rehouse people affected by the fire. Of the 203 households requiring rehousing, 134 have a new permanent home, while 52 are in temporary and 15 in emergency accommodation.

But a report published this week by the North Kensington law centre, says many homes lay unoccupied for months due to damp, disrepair and access issues. Labour MP for Kensington and Chelsea, Emma Dent Coad, says: “We have heard they [the council] are reselling some of the properties bought in haste last summer,” she adds. “We have 30 [Grenfell] households including at least one person with disabilities, and only three homes with disabled access – and it seems these may not be of the right size.”

The planning inspectorate is due to submit a report on the Sutton estate inquiry to James Brokenshire, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, in late August. The minister is expected to make a decision on Clarion’s appeal by the end of the year.
Advertisement

says if the appeal is successful “it opens the floodgates to privatise social housing”. “This is a test case for social housing across the UK because if Clarion are allowed to do this, every other housing association will do the same. They’re a housing charity fighting to privatise charitable housing.” Kim Taylor-Smith, deputy council leader and lead member for Grenfell and housing, agrees. “It’s my view that Clarion’s intent from day one was to make money from the Sutton estate,” he says. “But William Sutton’s motivation was to provide homes for the poor. I would hope that they remember that.”
Housing associations' record profits are no reason to rejoice
Colin Wiles
Read more

Clarion has also last month submitted a revised regeneration scheme for the Sutton estate to the public inquiry, which the council accepts would not lead to a loss in social housing. But it has not withdrawn the original scheme and both will be assessed by the planning inspectorate. “We remain committed to the regeneration of the Sutton estate and to providing our current and future residents there with good quality homes,” says a spokeswoman. “No further decisions will be made until the outcome of the appeal is known.”

But Clarion told the public inquiry that if its appeal against the planning decision is rejected, it would rent out the empty flats privately, noting that it had already rented out three of them, or would sell off the whole estate. The housing association adds that the empty flats cannot feasibly be renovated and re-let as social housing because they do not meet the government’s minimum standards for public housing.

“They’re claiming they can’t refurbish them as social homes but they have refurbished and let three properties out privately for £1,800 [each] a month,” Henderson says. “Grenfell survivors have told us they would like to live here because they don’t want to live near the tower again"

Wheretheresawill1 · 25/08/2018 21:15

It’s probably not a fair system even I as a ha tenant can see that. I am also part of the new pilot scheme where I can buy my 1 bed flat with a £81k discount, I know I’m very lucky. However I’d give it all up to not have had bipolar for 22 years which led to me leaving a promising career as a Dr, being declared bankrupt, the disruption to relationships and the fact I’m single and childless. This flat was the ONLY good thing to come from my diagnosis when I had no money at all. I will buy this flat to continue to experience stability in my life- very important with my illness and make no apologies for that. If I didn’t have the damn illness I’d never have been in the position to need social housing.

I like to think I contribute to the neighbourhood. I now work full time. I’m lucky to have had a new build on a very nice estate. There should be a mix of residents or you do get some really rough areas- so not only for those on benefits. Some of the patients I work with get more in benefits than a lot of people on minimum wage so why shouldn’t these properties be for workers as well? The biggest issue is lack of building of social housing over the last 30yrs but people ignore this and blame people like me who are working and shouldn’t get a property or blame right to buy- except councils didn’t replace stock like they should have done

MaisyPops · 25/08/2018 21:23

But why should the taxpayer fund social housing so people on £65k a year can live cheaply when they are no doubt paying a mortgage.

We need to stop people automatically inheriting tenancies.
I agree.
There should be more social housing that's affordable for more people but you shouldn't inherit council tenancies from parents. It's social housing stock and if you are not in need then you shouldn't have the right to take it over.

I don't get the grief the OP is getting. Of course she's going to feel down with her situation when others have more money, a more lavish lifestyle and will be buying a property off the back of having years in social housing they have no need for.

NapQueen · 25/08/2018 21:42

Taxpayers do not fund council or social housing properties. Council and HAs make their income from rent, plus any services they deliver to other companies, plus any build to sell properties they invest in. Governments do not give an income to HAs or council housing.

wafflyversatile · 25/08/2018 21:45

Council housing should be for anyone who wants it. It's not your friends fault there isn't enough council housing. You should ve angry. Direct your anger where it's deserved.

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 23:32

The othering of people on disability benefits has coincided with a rise in hate crime towards disabled people.......................................i will leave people to draw their own conclusions as to where these attitudes towards social housing tenants could lead.

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 23:34

Maisy when they buy a property they will be moving out and freeing up the property they are now living in.

Are you able to think critically what with .................you know being a teacher and all.

HelenaDove · 25/08/2018 23:43

From the long article i linked earlier as some peoples attention span seems very low

"Housing associations have made at least £82.3m from auctioning homes in five London boroughs since 2013, according to figures seen by the Guardian

Nationally, sales of housing association social homes to the private sector have more than tripled since 2001, with 3,891 social homes sold in 2016. Overall, more than 150,000 homes for social rent have been lost since 2012.
Social housing is being driven by profit. Tenants must fight back
Sham Lal
Read more

Bucks’ analysis shows that in Kensington and Chelsea housing associations made £5.3m from auctions in 2013 alone. Between 2013 and 2018, Brent sold £20.9m, and Hammersmith and Fulham £13.7m.

But Clarion told the public inquiry that if its appeal against the planning decision is rejected, it would rent out the empty flats privately, noting that it had already rented out three of them, or would sell off the whole estate. The housing association adds that the empty flats cannot feasibly be renovated and re-let as social housing because they do not meet the government’s minimum standards for public housing.

“They’re claiming they can’t refurbish them as social homes but they have refurbished and let three properties out privately for £1,800 [each] a month,” Henderson says

150"000 social homes have been lost since 2012 Sales of HA homes into the private sector have more than tripled since 2001.

And people on this thread are clutching their pearls about one house

Now my maths aint fucking great but last time i checked 150"000 was more than one Has that changed?

What this is really about with the haters is making sure no one is percieved to have more than they have.

LeighaJ · 26/08/2018 01:04

I don't think the OP is coming back, looks like another...

OP: AIBU? 🤔
MN: (majority) YES! 👍
OP: NO I'M NOT!!! 😑
MN: 🙄

MaisyPops · 26/08/2018 08:49

Maisy when they buy a property they will be moving out and freeing up the property they are now living in.
I know...
I just think when there is a shortage of social and affordable housing it should go to people in need, not people on £65k salary who are living a highly comfortable life (because their rent is so low).
Are you able to think critically what with .................you know being a teacher and all
Are you the same poster who turns up threads I comment on and seem to bring up 'because you're a teacher' on all of them even though it has nothing to do with the topics? Confused

Lethaldrizzle · 26/08/2018 08:57

Council housing should be for people who need it when they need it, not just blindly being passed on through generations what ever their financial circumstances may be. I lived in council housing as a kid and now I don't. My life circumstances changed. The system sucks and is wide open to abuse.

SweetSummerchild · 26/08/2018 09:18

you shouldn't inherit council tenancies from parents.

So, child X is brought up in a council property by a single parent with no siblings. Child X works hard at school/college and gets a decent-paying job. We’re not talking City banking here - just ‘better than average’.

Child X is in early twenties and saving for a deposit. They have massive student debt and can’t afford to move out of parent’s home yet. Parent allows them to live at home rent-free on the condition that they save for their deposit.

At age 23 child X’s parent dies suddenly of a heart attack.

Are you seriously suggesting that child X should then be evicted? So, how exactly would this work? In what sort of parallel universe would this be seen as fair and equitable?