Wealthy people living in Housing Association houses?

[Bookofdead]

Before I start, can I just say I am absolutely NOT making a dig at anyone that lives in HA properties. This thread is for information purposes for a relative of mine.

I have a relative who retired a few years ago and was struggling to make ends meat. She wanted to be able to give her DC some money for a house deposit and free up some equity to live on as she was struggling on her pension. She sold her house and bought another but in a not very nice area and one which was an hour away from family (it was the best she could afford) After 2 years, her car being vandalised and and house being broken into, she wanted to be in a nicer area but couldn’t afford to do so in the county she was in. As such, she made the decision to move 300 miles away from all her family to the other side of England where property was more affordable and she could get a small house in a nice, safe village. This was 2.5 years ago now and she came back for a visit last month, I think COVID has hit her hard in terms of she was isolated, alone in her house for months whereas she used to come back here for visits and to see her family every 6 weeks or so.

I’ll cut to the chase, I really miss her, her children really miss her but none of us are in a position to offer her a home with us at the moment. Now this isn’t 1st world problems, she’s got a house and is safe, roof over her head etc I know. My issue is...

I have often thought ‘I wonder if she could apply for a HA house around here.’ There are some really nice ones in nice villages all around us. I thought no, she really doesn’t have a lot of money but ultimately she’s probably got about £100k in her house so she DOES have a house and an asset so wouldn’t be eligible.

I have a horse and years ago used to keep it at a yard with another lady who had a very expensive horse, a nice lorry, a good job etc yet she had a HA house?

Yesterday I was on FB and saw a post on a local village community page from ANOTHER lady I used to keep horses with asking if anyone wanted to swap houses? It was clear from the post that she meant HA houses. This lady has 2 horses, a new trailer and 4x4, multiple foreign holidays a year and her husband runs his own successful business.

Now I’m sat here thinking, hang on, what is the criteria for HA housing then and would my relative be entitled? Don’t get me wrong, I like both of the above mentioned women, but It just seems wrong that they lead relatively affluent lifestyles and can get a HA around here in nice villages, close to their family and friends yet someone like my aunt has had to move 300 miles away to the other side of the country away from everyone she knows in her older age in order to be in an area that she feels safe? (This isn’t anyone else’s problem I know and like i said above, it’s not a 1st world problem at all but I am now starting to think I’ve had this all wrong and you don’t have to be on the bare bones or your arse to get a HA house?)

They can have all sorts of criteria. Income may (or may not) be one of them

For example, three rural villages not too far from me have had housing association projects within the last decade, all aimed at keeping local families and young people in the village. The key qualifying factor is a connection to the village - the people I know who are now living in them aren't super rich but have reasonable jobs.

@IrmaFayLear What that council turned a blind eye to was those residents concerns about the refurb and the cladding. They didnt listen and even threatened them with legal action if they didnt shut up about it.

And the reason those people you mentioned were prosecuted was because THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GRENFELL TOWER. THAT WAS THE FRAUD. Are you so blinded by classism and racism that you would come out with this nonsensical crap. Yes i think you are.

@IrmaFayLear The council there DOES need to change but not for the reasons you are going on about.

@Yoloyohol Go for it. Id love to see their faces when you use that phrase.

@Yoloyohol Heres another one..............they cant live in applause.

We need proper community housing. Like Somerford Grove which had different dwellings built for everyone at all different stages of their lives.

This problem goes further back than 1980
The 1953 White Paper stipulated the continuing of promotion by all possible means the building of houses for owner occupation.

In 1954 private housebuilders were freed from the obligation to secure building licences one of the main ways by which local authority housing had been prioritised in the immediate post war years.

The big change came with the 1954 Housing Act which required that future council efforts be concentrated on redevelopment RATHER THAN general needs.

Where we are now is the result of decades of changes going further back than 1980.

What?! I was talking about those who had illegally sublet their flats. Nothing else. Please do not make further nasty accusations.

Link please.

What do you want a link to helena?

Sigh. A quick google will show any number of articles. One in the Independent even remarked that it was a matter of public interest what the council was doing about illegal subletting. many newspaper stories commenting on the amnesty for illegal subletters in return for information on to whom they were subletting so that casualties could be identified.

This was not exactly a small story and not very long ago.

Even the red tops didn't stoop so low as to claim original tenants who had sublet were now trying to pretend to be survivors while living off their sub-letters.

In fact in the evidence given at the inquest that I've read, there was no suggestion of profit being made through sub-letting, just people hanging on to council accommodation in name in case they needed or wanted to return, while sub-letters paid the rent.
It isn't right, but it is a different problem to what is being suggested here.

You have to bid on properties now, it used to be far easier to obtain one. There’s very specific criteria that awards you points.
Anyone can bid, she would have to use savings to pay the rents The property will go to whoever had the most points though.
What about a private rental?
Contact the council and ask them what your local criteria is.

Why dont you look at your relevant nearby HA rules then op?

[quote bigbluebus]@lyralalala Even an incentive for the singletons to swap to the 2 bed houses might make a difference. But building more properties for single people/older couples would solve some of the issues. I know of a couple with 3 DCs who had to move from their 2 bed HA to a 3 bed private rent as they were so desperate for space - whilst one of their parents was living in a large 3 bed HA around the corner with her partner.[/quote]
The issue here was that a lot of the 1 and 2 bed places were flats and on the outskirts of the village. Obviously a pensioner who spends the bulk of their time in their garden and who walks to the shop is not going to jump at the chance to move to a second floor flat a bus ride away from everything.

The last two lots of building have included cottage flats, where everyone had a least a little garden, and the 37 one-beds I mentioned in my last post. They are little terraced bungalow style houses.

The HA then made their smartest move, imo, when they linked up with a removal company. Struck a really good deal and allowed people to pay that cost over a few months. It wasn't subbed, but it just let people afford it. The moved at least 20 people, that I know of, from bigger houses into the 1-beds.

Re Grenfell Towers
I'd like to see any link for both parts of this:
Some of the disgusting f-ers even claimed to have been in there when they were living somewhere else on their subletting profits.

We know that there was subletting going on.

Not one of the scammers claiming to be there, turned out to be a named tenant living elsewhere and subletting.

Other than on this thread I've never before seen anything claiming any of the Grenfell Tower survivors actually weren't living there then claimed they were.

Shared Ownership, Affordable Rent and Social Rent if they have been grant funded (via Homes England, Housing Corp or Homes & Communities Agency) have very strict & ridged eligibility criteria. Most Local Authorities adopt the same criteria if the homes have been built through a s106 agreement with the developer.

Shared ownership - it is your only property ( only where explicit permission from HE has been granted will this waived), you have a household income of below 80Kpa and the house (outside London) is less than £250,000. To purchase one of these your relative will need to apply through the relevant Home Buy Agent who will ensure she is eligible to purchase.

Affordable Rent - it adheres to the Local Authority Housing list cascade. There are instances where people are lower down the housing list that take up Affordable rent tenancies, but only in areas where there is less demand.

Social Rent - it adheres to LA housing allocation cascade. These are offered to people who are in highest priority need.

Organisations that are landlords (Registered Providers - of which housing associations are a form) must be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing if they have received grant funding for those properties (2008 Housing Act) or are charging Affordable Rent ( a whole subject that cures insomnia)

@Glamazoni

HA houses are available to anyone who pays the rent, regardless of how much money they have. Of course your relative wouldn’t be at the top of the list to get a HA house and would probably have a long wait.

Absolutely FALSE! You cannot have more than £60k in assets or savings and you are means tested now. Started about 6 years ago

@User45

HA houses are available to anyone who pays the rent, regardless of how much money they have.

Which is an absolute joke.

It's not true. Above quote is incorrect. You cannot have more than £16k in assets or savings AND you are now means tested before acceptance and every five years

It's not true. Above quote is incorrect. You cannot have more than £16k in assets or savings AND you are now means tested before acceptance and every five years

That's simply not true everywhere.

@Dylaninthemovies1

This is an eye opener. I honestly had no idea that you couldn’t get an HA house if your income was over a certain amount or you had assets.

You can't. Pp are incorrect. Please see my above comment

@notalwaysalondoner

My understanding is that once you are in a housing association house you won’t be asked to leave, no matter how your income goes up. The classic example was Bob Crow, the head of the RMT union who lived in a council house despite earning £145k. I think it’s terribly unfair - housing association property should be reserved for those who need the help, not a lifelong guarantee. Yes, moving house is tough especially if you’ve got kids or have been there a long time, but there is such a shortage of properties that once you can afford to move or rent privately then you should have to release the property for those who need it more.

On the other hand, your relative doesn’t sound like they have a real need either.

It's changed now. You're now means tested every 5 years

@Badbadbunny

there is no legislation advising you must leave when your circumstances change

That's the problem and it's about time it was changed. There should be something like a 5 year review to check that occupants still meet the criteria. I'd suggest "renewal criteria" isn't as strict as original criteria, so that people aren't forced out for modest improvements in their circumstances, but it should identify those who have benefitted from major improvements (promotions, inheritances, new partners, etc) and would be able to make their own arrangements in the housing market. There needs to be some kind of system to stop "house blocking" by those who don't need support.

There is a five year means testing system. It was introduced 6 years ago now. I was intensively means texted for my current HA property

Bob Crow was in an elected position and could have been voted out.

The thing is, it’s probably fairly irrelevant whether the HA has assets as part of the criteria...

Because they usually don’t allow you to apply if you own a house and selling a house to apply for one means you’ve made yourself intentionally homes so again can’t apply.

Where I live OP there are very strict criteria getting a HA property. It is run on a points system and if you are able to afford a mortgage, no matter how small you are not eligible.
If you have savings you will be expected to rent privately.
There are some people who abuse the system by telling the HA they've split with their partner get a HA property, move back in with said partner and sub let the property out.

Why should I have to give Up my home if I get a better. Paying job?

It isn’t your home, it is rented accommodation. If you want a home for life, buy one.