Council homes: which one is it; envy or stigma?

[EddyF]

Or both? When I read threads on here or even in general, anyone posting about waiting for a council home, or about their council home, the replies tend to be "be grateful, you've got a 'free' flat" blah blah blah. But on the another hand, there's is always a whiff of 'stigma' attached to them and not being the first choice for most people. But if the latter is the case, why does it cause outrage/sneers that people should be grateful for paying lower rent etc?

I know someone is a bit of a snob (I like them though😄) who lives in a London typical 70s brick solid small flat with mixture of houses and other flats in the area. Her rent is so reasonable. She complains a LOT about the lack of attractiveness of her building. Inside her flat is GORGEOUS to most people's standards. Brilliantly decorated, high end stuff, kitchen and bathroom she ripped out herself years ago with no permission from the council (as most of her neighbours). Honestly it's beautiful inside. The block is outdated. This person I know can afford to move out. She complains the council encourage their buildings to be attached to 'roughness' hence why council properties have a stigma, and of she had 'proper' money, she would be put like a shot. She stays bcos she knows she has a good deal. Her 19 yr daughter is at uni, had her at 17, brought up her child with no trouble in the same property/area. It's sad she cannot see the beauty in her environment (a struggling London borough) but could be worse. All of London has pockets of deprivation. Her flat inside is so nice I just can't see the issue!

How can it be in 2019 that there is a stigma to housing when everyone knows the difficulties of getting up on the ladder?

I feel like I may have gone of tangent here😅.

People's views vary, some see it as a stigma, others don't. There is no one view held by society.

I grew up in council housing and to be honest, I'd always rather be able to afford my own, given a choice. Generally if you're in council housing it's for a reason which isn't positive. Yes circumstances may change, but if you were originally given one it's not normally becaus you could afford your own.

I think there's a stigma because people associate it with housing benefit so getting it for nothing cos you aren't working / working enough to pay your own way so you're just expecting the state to fund you and your lazy arse whilst you have baby after baby etc etc. It's easy to forget the people who DO work or don't work because thry can't or who have had difficult lives etc.

And then the "be grateful..." isn't envy so much as "I have to work to pay taxes so I can cover your rent so how dare you complain when you get all this stuff for free and I'm working to pay for us both"

I’m envious! We are trapped in expensive private rental. I feel so guilty that my son doesn’t have a secure home. He’s had to move school and area because we have struggled to find somewhere to rent.
I’d love the security of a permanent place (either bought or council) where we know we won’t get turfed our, and which we can decorate and adapt to suit us. Sadly we don’t qualify for a council place and we are really struggling to save for a mortgage.

I just hate people saying that those in council properties have been given a free house etc.

Err no, they haven't. I know people who live in social housing who work full-time and pay their own rent and bills.

A free house would surely have no rent.

It used to be that social housing had affordable rent but I've lived in Two properties which belonged to two different social housing associations, which I had to pay a top up on because the local authority didn't pay enough housing benefit to cover them.

It's not fucking free.

I was brought up to be prejudiced against people on benefits and people in social housing. Which I hate and once I was old enough to work things out for myself I changed my attitude. But I'll always have those thoughts at the back of my mind, which I wish I didn't. But they're down to experiences I had, living on an estate.

I think I just feel sorry for the people, it certainly isn’t envy and not at all stigma. Council housing around where we live is in the worst areas, lots of crime and terrible schools. You’d stand no chance trying to raise a family in a nice environment, they are full of unsavoury characters on the wrong side of the law. Maybe other areas are different? I refused to buy a house anywhere near council housing because of the crime/antisocial issues.

Depends on the property.

I'm in London to and over the years have seen a wide variety of council properties and housing association properties.

People who live on large housing estates or high rises feel stigmatised for living in social housing. This is due to the fact that even if their estate/high rise doesn't have problems with crime, troublesome families etc it has that stereotype.

There as people who live on smaller estates, low rise blocks, flats in converted houses or houses on normal streets feel fine as people don't tend to realise immediately they live in social housing.

Council housing around where we live is in the worst areas, lots of crime and terrible schools. You’d stand no chance trying to raise a family in a nice environment, they are full of unsavoury characters on the wrong side of the law. Maybe other areas are different? I refused to buy a house anywhere near council housing because of the crime/antisocial issues

See there are not many big council estates left near us, a lot of it was sold off years ago. So if you get a council house around here, you've a good chance you'll be in the only council rented house in the street.

A lot of new builds get allocated to be social housing too so you have a good chance of living somewhere nice.

The council rents are a bit but not loads cheaper than private renting.

The whole thing of "you get a free house" is bollocks, everyone I know who has a council house pays full rent. My friends council house (comparable size, mine probably in a slightly better area) is more expensive than my mortgage.

I personally don't think there should be a stigma at all. Council housing is needed for a reason.

Living in council accommodation in London - envy.

Living in council accommodation up north - stigma.

I've lived in both and the envy in London I had was phenomenal to the point where I didn't dare say it was council. £388 a month rent for me but the private renter upstairs paid £1500 a month for the same 1 bedroom flat. There is a forum for the area I lived in and they'd often get upset that there were council tenants in flats that had river views. They were also delighted that the Heygate was knocked down because it meant less poor people in the area.

When I moved back to the North I was embarrassed to say I lived in a council tower block though so got out of that as fast as I could afford. The rent on that was also £388 a month.

Everyone who realises my home is HA is envious. New build, nice estate mainly privately owned yada yada yada.

Definetly not free though. Pay rent which is affordable. What I don't think people realise is it's not subsidised by the tax payer, it's affordable because HA are not for profit organisations. So the rent is set to pay off the true costs of the property, without it profiting any one or any organisation.

I live in a council house in a nice area, i pay just over £450pm rent and don't claim any benefits.
I've had friends of friends assuming that i'm on benefits, unemployed and living in a deprived area when I've mentioned that i rent from the council. Funny thing is, a lot of the nice new homes being built in this city are in the worst areas and people are paying a fortune for them. A work colleague of dp has just bought one these new build luxury flats in an absolute nightmare area

I pay full rent in my council flat. Tbh I shouldn't be as some months we really struggle but they dont seem to understand weekly paid zero hours contracts.

I have however had full housing benefit as well. Mainly as I got my house with only the clothes on my back after my ex husband made me homeless.

I hate the building however as it's full of junkies, murderers, drunks, just generally unpleasant people.

But it what's we can afford just now and when we are in and the door is locked we are in our own little bubble and it's a decent sized flat etc for the 3 of us.

I live in a three bed council house in the north. It’s in a lovely area, it’s a warm and solidly built house with a huge garden. Brand new kitchen and bathroom, boiler, doors etc when I moved in. No social problems. The neighbours are professionals or retired people. Mix of owners and tenants.

Rent is £83 per week. I work full time. Single parent with two children. Don’t get housing benefit. I was in private rented accommodation but put myself on the council list and after about four years eventually made the top for my area. A very middle class area.

It’s the best of all worlds for me. I feel very lucky.

Her house might be palatial inside but if it's in a turd hole location then i pity her.

Well I suppose if you were to move all the council properties into the private market it would relieve housing issues to a degree in areas of high demand for the population at large. Why should someone get to live in a discounted flat in London for example when there are so many people who work in London and would be willing to pay much more in order to shorten their commute. I think that’s what’s behind it, the sense of injustice.

I think it depends entirely on what people think of when you say 'council house'.

The spectrum of council/HA houses and tenants is rather broad. Some are full-time workers paying full-time rent (just to a HA rather than private landlord). Some are people who 'play the system' and EXPECT a rent-free taxpayer funded house.

The reality is that there are people all across this spectrum, people's opinion is just derived from the examples they first think of.

Our house is a council house.
We pay full rent and receive no benefits.
It's a good area.
We have savings and could put a good deposit down on a nice 3 bed semi in our area. We choose not to as we get all repairs done and we don't have to worry about/spend our money on the external upkeep/modernisation and basically waste our savings that we'd rather enjoy in other ways than put in the property drain.
Maybe I'm naive but it seems more sense to us.
Most of the houses in our street were bought from the council years ago and are privately rented.
30+ years ago I was mortified that I lived in a council house and wouldn't want my friends to know. I don't think my DC are bothered about this and seem happy and proud of where they live.

www.insidehousing.co.uk/insight/insight/the-rise-and-fall-of-council-housing-56139

The policy shift reflected a political division between Conservative politicians who believed council housing should properly be reserved for the neediest (the market would provide for the rest) and those on the left who saw it as serving ‘general needs’.

Full employment and rising living standards after the Second World War reinvigorated the sense that council housing catered predominantly for a relatively prosperous and aspirational working class. But, from the 1970s, politics and economics combined to lower its status and that of its community. The National Rent Rebate Scheme implemented in 1973 (it became housing benefit in 1982), increasing access to council housing for the less well-off, was a significant factor in the shift.

The 1977 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, prioritising council housing for the most vulnerable and cementing a system of needs-based allocations, was central to it

In the 1980s, residualisation may have been a partly unintended consequence of housing policies pursued with varying ideological intent.

Since 2010, and more so since the return of single-party Conservative government in 2015, we’ve seen something further: welfarisation – ‘a conception of social housing as a very small, highly residualised sector catering only for the very poorest, and those with additional social “vulnerabilities”, on a short-term “ambulance” basis

Yes, there is a sense of injustice - especially if the tenants are earning enough to pay private rental rates, then it's very unfair. Why should some folks be heavily subsidised at the expense of others? Also council housing should never have been sold (thus enabling enormous profits for some at taxpayers' expense), should be on fixed term lets and reviewed at intervals, certainly not handed out for life, nor passed on by family members. It's not theirs to pass on, it belongs to the council and should be allocated to the people actually in need.

DH and I would love to live in a low rent house, never having to worry about maintenance or updating. However we work and earn enough to be responsible for our own housing needs without state subsidy. It means going without fancy holidays and the latest gadgets, but housing should be the priority (which it doesn't seem to be for some, if they know the council will house them). Not all, of course...

Ah another one who has confused social housing estates with hostels.

@gamerchick Here we go again.

I can see why people are envious. Whilst I don’t support fixed term tenancies as have previously been implemented, when local authorities have thousands of households on waiting lists and there are families living in cramped temporary accommodation miles from their support networks, it’s hard to justify lifetime tenancies for people who basically lucked out years ago when social tenancies were easier to get.

I’ve worked in the social housing sector for over a decade and a significant number of tenants of any given place I’ve worked have been people who received a social tenancy many years ago when a) their circumstances were dire, or b) tenancies were much easier to get and who are now benefiting from a social tenancy they no longer technically need. People earning several times the average wage; people who have since inherited other property which they let out for an income because their social property is in a nicer area; single people occupying three bedroom homes. Not small numbers. Often around a quarter of all households with tenancies.

The answer is always that we need to build more social housing. Of course that’s the answer. But come work in housing association finance as I do and work out the maths and logistics of trying to build and receive payback on a unit to let out at a social rent of less than £200 a week when you have - in London at least - a build cost of approaching half a million on that unit.

We're in a housing association property. We aren't currently in a position to buy. We've always privately rented before. Yes the house isn't the nicest, and it's not in the nicest place, but it's a roof over our heads. Renting also comes with the benefit that if things go wrong, they aren't our financial responsibility (boiler breakdowns in the middle of winter etc.) Luckily we've always been fortunate to have had good landlords. We have, however, been stung by private landlords issuing notice because they're selling the house. This isn't an issue with out current housing association tenancy which gives us security that makes the not the nicest house and not the nicest area worthwhile.

What I don't think people realise is it's not subsidised by the tax payer, it's affordable because HA are not for profit organisations. So the rent is set to pay off the true costs of the property, without it profiting any one or any organisation.

I think nevertheless such housing would meet most people's definition of "subsidised".

The HA has a certain amount of capital. It is allowing a small number of people use that capital in the form of housing at a rent which is below market value. (Someone else mentioned paying £388 for a flat which would rent on the open market for £1500). The HA could redeploy the same capital to provide an awful lot more housing at market rents. In doing so (particularly if all social housing providers did so) by increasing supply it would bring down all rents.

In effect the assets owned by these organisations are being used to benefit enormously a lucky few when they could be used to benefit many more people to a lesser degree.

Why should some folks be heavily subsidised at the expense of others?

They're not. This attitude irritates me. HA and council houses are not for profit. The rent they charge reflects the true cost of mortgage repayments (when needed) and building maintenance. They're empty shells (as in no flooring or wallcoverings) when tenants move in and tenants are fully responsible for the cost of decorating and sourcing/fitting carpets or floor coverings. My HA went a step further than ripping up the brand new carpets the previous tenant had in and actually dug up the entire back garden

I can afford to rent privately, the reason I don't is security. Private renting is not secure, LLs aren't vetted and despite the MN myth of all LL being holier than thou, good samaritans who are providing a much needed public service out of the goodness of their hearts, most LLs are cowboys and rip-off merchants. I wouldn't go back to private renting if I was paid to live there. I'd much rather pay full rent in my HA property and know I am securely housed with a LL who will sometimes attend to repairs when they're needed.

I work full time, and have done since I was eighteen. I don't see why I am less entitled to security than someone whose exH didn't become a violent, controlling alcoholic.

OP, it's both. People are envious of the 'free/subsidised' and housing and also assume you don't work/don't work enough.