To want social housing for most

[Jillybons]

I find it strange that in the U.K. we are so protective and proud of public healthcare and see it as a universal right regardless of household income (which I fully support).

But when it comes to public housing we vilify it and criticise people who have public houses as ‘less’ than those who rent privately or own houses.

Shouldn’t public housing be the standard for 90% of the population and private housing be the ‘option’ just like private healthcare?

What do you think?

YANBU.

A third of households in the 70s lived in social housing. But so many have been sold off, and not enough built or bought to replace them.

I would like to see a system where virtually all housing was owned by the local authority by default, and as many as were needed for social rent were let out to people (with a secure/assured tenancy, so they can stay as long as they want), then the rest could be sold to owner-occupiers.

Then if they want to sell it, it goes back to the council so they can reassess their stock and decide whether to let or sell it again.

Exceptions could be self-build, where the building family owns it to start with, but then if they sell it (rather than hand it down to their children to live in), it goes into LA ownership.

Even holiday accommodation could be owned by the LA (e.g. mansions and caravan parks etc).

But anyway, nobody should be making profit from housing, e.g. buy-to-let, property businesses gouging fees every way they can etc. And nobody would sell directly to other private individuals, so the housing market wouldn't be so unstable.

If two children have inherited a property and can't agree what to do with it, they wouldn't be allowed to sit there letting it out and making money from it; either they'd have to sell it to the council, or live in it. And even then, if one can't afford to buy the other out, but only one wants to live there, they could let the council buy it and then have priority to rent it back. Same for anyone who wants to sell their house; they could rent it back afterwards instead of moving.

And since it's council-run, not government, there would be more housing sovereignty as it's easier to have control over local issues.

So this could start by councils (or ALMOs) automatically getting ownership of houses that are left empty for a certain period of time, and refurbishing them to add to their stock. And at some point (which could be different for each council), once they have enough money to start buying them, private sellers would be forced to offer the council first refusal. And then later, once they'd built up plenty of reserves, everyone would have to sell to them. There could also be government grants for councils buying houses during the transition period.

@00100001

Maybe people should also have realistic and lower expectations for their homes?

For example, my friends DD is 22, and is saving up for a 2 bed semi. She doesn't want a 1 bed flat that she could afford right now.

Then you have parents propping up their children's deposits, pushing and keeping prices up...

It's not black and white

This is pretty sensible though. Every time you buy a house you have to spend money on legal fees etc. A 2 bed house will probably be perfect for her for the next 10-15years, maybe longer. She can also get a housemate to assist with her costs. Saving for maybe a couple of years longer may well work out better for her in the long run.

OP - I agree with you and NoCar

There is writing on Universal Basic Services that includes shelter, but even within that I've never seen any that are aiming at 90% in social housing or any percentage aim. I don't get why that would be an aim - I think there are better targets than what percent of the population is in social housing like reducing homelessness & waiting lists, quality housing, better handling of complaints of poor housing, better handling of adaption needs & updating them, legal protection for renters, and so on.

I agree there is a weird difference between how the NHS is discussed vs social housing on a large scale (though I've personally found this depends a bit on demographics - my in-laws and many of their friends in the much older age range had far higher thoughts of it than many other Brits I've met); however, health care goes well beyond NHS and many people spend significant amounts on health care whether just normal every day health care bought at a chemist to things like medical equipment and adaptations for homes which often comes more out of social care/charity pockets than NHS when it isn't coming out of the person who needs it specifically's pocket.

Maybe that's not typically seen as healthcare, but I think treating those things as 'an option' when for many of it's what we need to function doesn't help - especially not when we've more than a few threads on here lately about how it's practically impossible to get a NHS dentist in many places (and the varying attitudes around that), similar with mental health care, I've seen plenty of this in discussion on chronic conditions, and when there are people, me included, who left social housing because getting a place that actually suits our disabilities is another layer of difficulty on top of the typical lack of social housing issues (and I noticed that after leaving that my spouse suddenly wasn't getting flagged as often for checks on benefits as he used to, I'm a little suspicious of that).

There is no point aiming for 90%, or even 50% or any percent, if it doesn't suit the population's needs. There are better markers for improving housing and there are a lot of integrated issues that means we can't look at it in isolation of percent in social housing.

[quote cheesebubble]@EddyF I'd be surprised that person wouldn't want to buy a property then if on 60k even if he's in social housing now, however my views might be dated or not even true / correct because I do not know one person in social housing. [/quote]
@cheesebubble why would they? Especially in London where prices are extremely high to buy? You need deposit/good enough credit as a start.

I guess I know a mixture of people with different tenure which can be a good thing to have an overview idea of how people live/life in general.

I know someone who lives in London considerably older than me, I think she’s nearly 70 (I’m 31). She’s a family friend. When her partner buggered off leaving her with three kids she got a lovely flat in Richmond as part of a housing co-op - this happened before I was born but she has told me this. When her boys left home she’d been working again for a few years and was in a really good financial position but she didn’t leave the flat and buy a property - she has a lifetime tenancy and pays 300 a month in Richmond, she couldn’t hope to get something of the same standard if she bought. I also know my friends and I lament the absence of small housing co-ops like the one this woman is in, because it’s so hard to get on the property ladder. I’ve been trying to buy a flat for the past year in London (hasn’t happened for reasons beyond my control) but if a small co-op offering lifetime tenancy, affordable rent and freedom to decorate, in return for attending a monthly meeting and contributing to the running of the co op, existed, I’d drop the idea of buying in a heartbeat and choose that instead.

[quote Sammiesnake]@EddyF I don’t think people are jealous of people in social housing, at least that’s not my experience at all. More that there’s a stigma attached to living in HA housing.[/quote]
Maybe you are right. It is just the few threads I have seen here on MN, there seems to be seething resentment on ‘free’ houses and such. There seems to be two notions: either you are piss poor to get a ‘free’ property or “why do you deserve a ‘free’ house when my family are paying triple that for a 1/2 bed.

All you to look at is the swanky apartments in Stratford in London. A good portion of them are council tenants paying way below the market rate/good disposable income. Yes, I believe there is envy in some aspects unless there is that old notion of thinking that council homes are falling to the ground so I can’t have envy.

For most families, decent/low rent is a lottery win.

If you’re talking about people’s perception of social housing, I don’t think swanky London apartments is what comes to mind when people consider their opinion. The vast majority of people in the country already own/ aspire to own their own home and social housing is viewed generally as fulfilling a need for people who can’t afford to own. I do think people look down on those in HA accommodation and there seems to be stereotypes of people living in them. So rightly or wrongly, I think your assertion that people are jealous of those living in council houses is inaccurate.

@00100001

Maybe people should also have realistic and lower expectations for their homes?

For example, my friends DD is 22, and is saving up for a 2 bed semi. She doesn't want a 1 bed flat that she could afford right now.

Then you have parents propping up their children's deposits, pushing and keeping prices up...

It's not black and white

Your friend is being very sensible.

@OliviaBensonsEyebrow

We eventually got a council house and there is definitely a judgement issue, from the very same people who use the free health care.

Do you mean use the NHS? The NHS is free at the point of service. It's paid for out of taxation, so it's only free to those who pay no or little tax.

Absolutely, what an absolute joke of a post, I assume the poster in question has never used the NHS ?

And no, as I’m mortgage free in my 40s I think the whole premise of this idea is shit, I’ve worked very hard as has my husband. We were able to semi retire when the mortgage was paid off in our early 40s.

Social Housing tends to pay for itself. Give most people a secure tenancy and they'll look after it and pay their rent. If their rent is reasonable then a proportion of their money goes back into the economy.
Reducing private landlords at the basic end of the market would bring the FTB market down and probably prices overall. There are a set of people who would lose a lot of theoretical money (me included) but my dc would then have the house buying opportunities I did. My first house was 3 times my salary.
We would need to sort out social care if house prices aren't paying it.

The residulisation and welfarisation of council /social housing.

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

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

The biggest problem isn't with providing a SH for all, but being able to deal with the demand for expanding families over time. If anyone watched that channel 4 council house series on a while back, a couple are given a 1 bed SH property. Three years later they have 2 children in said property, the couple have MH issues due to overcrowding and are saying it is ridiculous that they have been on waiting list for 18 months and haven't been rehoused yet.
OTOH Jean lives in a 4 bed maisonette where she brought up her five dc, who have all left home now. The council want Jean to downsize to a one bed, but shes refusing to do so until they offer her one in the same area.
There simply is not enough adequate stock to accommodate everybody.

Social housing, as it was originally intended was a good model. A decent, secure, affordable home for the average working family. That is why many of the original ones are three bedrooms with large gardens. They were based on the average 2.4 children and expected families to grow some food as they had during the war era. Council houses when they first became available were much better than the properties many of the poorer people had been living in.

I have a council property. It is a nice size home with gardens. Non estate. I have an assured tenancy and rent I can afford. Repairs and maintenance is done as needed. As someone who would never be able to afford to buy a family size property I am incredibly grateful I ended up in this house. I privately rented for a few years and that was a complete nightmare.

@EddyF I live in London and bought a property 3 years ago in my 20s. No matter how low the rent would be, owning a property is a good retirement investment, compared to staying in social housing. Surely that person would have been able to save enough for a deposit if their salary is 60k. If you have the means, I personally think the percentage of people is lower than low who'd choose to not buy a property and continue to live in social housing - why would you?

I've worked within Social Housing since 2007 and the biggest problem is Right To Buy. Its all very well having these properties but a LOT of them (especially now - possibly due to Brexit maybe?) are being bought via Right To Buy which then obviously takes them out of the SH market. It needs abolishing IMO.

Given the incompetence of our LA, I don't fancy this option at all. Plus the idea of giving the state power over 90% of the housing stock is chilling.

SH should be more easily available, though.

I think the rental market is the issue rather than home ownership, but because of the gap between eligibility for social housing and being able to get onto the property ladder, people are forced into renting. I think eligibility should be widened, and potentially access to home ownership widened also, because after all even if in social housing you pay a controlled amount of rent, you don't get anything 'back' as you would when you buy, which still gives home owners an advantage. My friend has actually saved a 10% deposit and was refused a mortgage because they said she didn't earn enough, but she pays £350 more a month in rent than a mortgage on average for the amount she needs would be! I know it's a risk for them, but it's ridiculous.

There are faults in the system at the moment. I think the absolute worst thing is the right to purchase council properties as that decimates the stock.

I also think a council property shouldn't be a house for life. I think every 5 years you should put a case forward as to whether you still need it. I.e if your children have left home you get down sized. However you don't necessarily get upsized for having more children as that was your choice. I know an adult couple living in a 3 bed semi. They should be moved to a 1 bed flat. It's not your home, it's somewhere you are given to live to prevent you being on the street.

I also think a lot of resentment comes from the system of x % of new estates having social housing. I have a friend that has just bought a £400k brand newly built house only to discover that the houses around them are social housing. No one can say they wouldn't be a little bitter about spending that sort of money only for next door to have it for free.

Finally I wonder where A) aspiration and B) personal responsibility come into this. I worked hard to earn more to buy a nice house. Like owning my own house as do many other people so even with a big social system,many would still want to buy so you would end up back at square one.

Also as an adult I know that where I live, whether I can feed and house my children is my responsibility. If you are gifted a house and money it removes a level of responsibility. Social housing should be there for those who fall on hard times for the period of time they need it.

No, I disagree. I don't think it should be available to everyone. Definitely more than it is available to, but once you earn a certain amount of money, you shouldn't need to live in social housing. You should be able to afford the maintenance of a house yourself. I say that as someone who lived in social housing for years, but I own now.
What need to change is the price of houses, and how difficult it is for young people to get on to the property ladder. It's almost impossible to save a decent deposit and rent at the same time. If that was easier, more people that do have to rely on social housing wouldn't have to, and there would be more to go around to people who are desperate. None of this 10 year waiting list shite.

I think there should be more, but for people who really need it, so no temp accommodation the way it is now. But past that no, it’s too much a communist ideology for me, and when any government has tried to put what your suggesting into practice the results have been disastrous for the population.

The Uk will always be a capitalist society, not a communist one.

@omygoditsearly

The problem with social housing is that the supply is limited and that it is targeted to the wrong people. To obtain SH you should be working, to keep it you should have to show that you are looking after it, much as per the original requirements when SH was introduced post war. Yes something needs to be done for the less capable portion of society but SH has been tarnished by drunks/drug addicts playing music at 4am who wants to live next door to that even if "its not their fault"!

So what about people who can't work? You shouldn't HAVE to be working to deserve a roof over your head. There are shitty neighbours and disrespectful people in all walks of life. Having a job doesn't ensure you will look after your property or be a good neighbour!

@Countrygirl2021

There are faults in the system at the moment. I think the absolute worst thing is the right to purchase council properties as that decimates the stock.

I also think a council property shouldn't be a house for life. I think every 5 years you should put a case forward as to whether you still need it. I.e if your children have left home you get down sized. However you don't necessarily get upsized for having more children as that was your choice. I know an adult couple living in a 3 bed semi. They should be moved to a 1 bed flat. It's not your home, it's somewhere you are given to live to prevent you being on the street.

I also think a lot of resentment comes from the system of x % of new estates having social housing. I have a friend that has just bought a £400k brand newly built house only to discover that the houses around them are social housing. No one can say they wouldn't be a little bitter about spending that sort of money only for next door to have it for free.

Finally I wonder where A) aspiration and B) personal responsibility come into this. I worked hard to earn more to buy a nice house. Like owning my own house as do many other people so even with a big social system,many would still want to buy so you would end up back at square one.

Also as an adult I know that where I live, whether I can feed and house my children is my responsibility. If you are gifted a house and money it removes a level of responsibility. Social housing should be there for those who fall on hard times for the period of time they need it.

There is a lot of ignorance in this. For starters, not everyone in social housing lives there for 'free', many pay rent but it's controlled. For example, my parents have both always worked, but in low paid jobs as they both left school at 14 to work and help provide for their families, as was quite common back then. They have then paid rent every month just as someone in a private rental would, it's just that it's around £450 instead of however much a landlord would charge. If you do the maths, that's around £5400 a year, so at a rough estimate, they have paid over £172k for their rent, and will never get anything back from that. In return they have had a secure tenancy, and if things have broken they have been repaired, but to a very basic level, nothing to be 'jealous' of- especially now where things will only be fixed if it's a safety issue.

To be eligible now largely those who live for 'free' will do so because of circumstances out of their control. Your snobby friend may feel bitter, but would she really want to be counting pennies? Dealing with poor health or a multitude of other experiences that have landed them in that position? My sister lives for 'free' because her ill health meant she could not keep working in the job she trained hard for. She struggles just to get up in the morning and carry out day to day activities, she has gone from earning nearly 6 figures to counting every penny and prioritizing whether to eat or pay for her gas, in a home she didnt choose but has to feel 'grareful' and 'ashamed' of having. Would she like to swap places so she doesn't pay rent? You'll probably say well I'm not on about genuine people, but you have no idea what others are going through.

Ot also doesn't stop someone being an alcoholic or drg addict.

Sounds like this could be or turn into some chicanery for The Great Reset.

As a pp said, there seems to be a lot of ignorance when it comes to social housing. People have this strange notion that it's free housing for everyone, but it's not. Also the council are terrible landlords. They don't repair things unless they absolutely have to, and even then it's a half arsed job, and doesn't actually fix the problem. They don't come and maintain your property, unless you're elderly or disabled, even then it's a quick cut of the grass and maybe hedges of they are there and a glass check once a year. If you are in a very low paid job you have little chance of being able to adequately maintain your property. So many council houses are riddled with damp and mould, doors and windows are cheapest of the cheap and not fitted well, so let in draughts and collect condensation. Boilers don't work properly. I could go on and on.
Social housing is nothing to be jealous of.