To think these changes to the housing waiting list are not “cruel” but simply realistic?

[Eastie77Returns]

Our council has announced changes to the local housing waiting list from next month. There are tens of thousands on the list who will never be housed as they are not deemed to be in urgent need so they will now be removed.

The council has said they will be offered “personalised support to explore their options” which probably means advising they leave London, advances to help with private rent etc. I understand in many cases that is really not helpful but a close relative of mine who works in housing has been on the phone to me in tears because of the level of abuse she has faced from frustrated residents who have been on the list for years and are being removed.

Now a parent from DD’s school is organising a march on the town hall to protest all of this and has asked parents for support. She has been offered a council house 100+ miles outside London and is refusing to leave as her support network is here and I fully understand that. However, I do think a dose of realism is needed. There are 15,000 people on the waiting list here and a few hundred council properties become available each year. This parent has been told she does not fall into the 3 bands that will be kept on the list so she will never get a council house and she has responded by accusing the council of unimaginable cruelty

I don’t understand where she expects the council to magically just find thousands of homes and change that situation?

I know someone who lived South, who was offered a council property in the Midlands & has made a wonderful new life

I've moved multiple times for work
I don't live near my family, I've made new friends & a new life

In the past people have emigrated for a better life, to unknown countries

I don't understand people's reluctance, when they are offered a council property just a few 100 miles away

I don't understand people's reluctance, when they are offered a council property just a few 100 miles away

Maybe their personal circumstances aren’t conducive to moving.
Some people have aging parents that need care.
Or parents that provide free wrap around care enabling you to carry out inflexible shift work

Or are self employed so can’t just pack up when you have employees etc

Look at any thread where someone needs to save money or improve their housing situation or find a new career and one of the first posts is ALWAYS ‘move to a cheaper area, the north west/north east/wherever is cheap and has good schools’

But every social housing post about relocation is full of handwringing about how awful it is to move away from a ‘support system’

MN hypocrisy at its finest!

If we were talking about Cornwall everyone would be up in fucking arms and housing would be kept back for locals
But London is just London

Yanbu. The council are being fair to people by being realistic.

I think for a long time the hope of eventually getting a council house has led to people making choices and decisions that don't work out well long term. Eg:

• remaining in an expensive area, paying high private rents, in order to remain on a local list
• remaining in overcrowded conditions thinking it will speed up being allocated a house
• not co-habiting with a partner, when actually it would lower costs, because it might affect eligibility

Even if all the councils started trying to build enough housing tomorrow, it would decades to build enough. People need to be encouraged to make housing decisions based on the situation today - and the reality is very few people will get a council house.

@Sparechange

Look at any thread where someone needs to save money or improve their housing situation or find a new career and one of the first posts is ALWAYS ‘move to a cheaper area, the north west/north east/wherever is cheap and has good schools’

But every social housing post about relocation is full of handwringing about how awful it is to move away from a ‘support system’

MN hypocrisy at its finest!

It’s not when it’s a choice. This is literally homeless vs being moved miles away to a town you’ve not researched, not chosen.

Its not subsidised.The majority of council houses were built decades ago and the cost of building them has long since been repaid many times over by tenants paying rent to the council. There is no subsidy. Council housing is actually a public asset that brings in more money for councils in rent than it costs to manage and maintain.*

It is subsidised, in that it is tying up state owned assets and not generating the return on that wealth that it could if rented at market rates. Remember our government is in debt. Imagine those houses are mortgaged heavily and the rent is not even covering the interest, and you've about got it.

YANBU and completely agree with PP

If you have the carrot of a council house potentially just around the corner, you are less likely to look at other options.

I think it is very sad when people have no choice but to move away from family. I live in the north so this is not a problem for me. But it is also unfair to allow people to live in false hope when they could be building a life/support network for themselves in another part of the country.

People need to be encouraged to make housing decisions based on the situation today - and the reality is very few people will get a council house.

I don’t disagree with this. However I think it needs to be done with more choice
E.g you can move to this area in a month.
Or wait at least 10 years, by which point your youngest will be 18 so that will affect your eligibility. You can at least have a choice and autonomy over your life. You could make that decision on your own circumstance

Not just “accept this, or your off our list”

@Sparechange

Look at any thread where someone needs to save money or improve their housing situation or find a new career and one of the first posts is ALWAYS ‘move to a cheaper area, the north west/north east/wherever is cheap and has good schools’

But every social housing post about relocation is full of handwringing about how awful it is to move away from a ‘support system’

MN hypocrisy at its finest!

Not always. Moving makes total sense if you are already privately renting or mortgaged and if you have kids, have jobs that will allow you to afford childcare and / or to travel to see family.

Many though not all social housing tenants don't have the financial means to afford enough childcare to work without family helping, nor to travel to see family elsewhere and support with their care if needed. That's before even thinking how they could gather the savings for a rental deposit.

When you also move people who might be disabled or elderly or unable to work out of a central London HA flat, for example, you end up with (a) central people living in a homogenous and wealthy bubble where they don't see hardship and have plenty of council tax funds for comfort while (b) poorer people moving to cheap areas further increases the pressure on councils and systems where they move.

I'm still in favour of making tenancies shorter term, given the current social housing stock, but it's not always as simple as telling people to move. I don't want segregated cities nor people who have been managing ok in a flat to be kicked out to destitution as soon as someone is more in need. There need to be incentives to leave council housing - deposit loans, or moving support and similar and underlying.changes to stop the current system that inflates housing prices, allows Airbnbs to proliferate in areas where workers cannot find homes, and gives council tax breaks to those who leave a second home empty most or all of the year.

I don’t really understand how big companies make a fortune out of letting a property portfolios. Yet the council or government running one

“Naaa. No money in it”

Taking people off a list they are never going to get to the top of is not taking their choices away.

@EvilPea

I don’t really understand how big companies make a fortune out of letting a property portfolios. Yet the council or government running one

“Naaa. No money in it”

Social rents are much lower than market rents, so there isn’t the same level of profit; much social housing is now older stock and requires significant investment to bring it up to standard. Councils simply don’t have the money available for that, hence why so many transferred stock to HAs and ALMOs.

@PixiKitKat

I think social housing tenants need to be assessed after a period of time. I use to work with someone who between him and his wife must have earned at least £50k between them but they lived in a housing association flat that she got years ago by being homeless. I think they were wrong to continue living in that flat on those earnings as they could easily afford private rent but instead they chose to keep the cheap flat and deprive someone else who is homeless of a place to live.

I think some housing associations do reassess after 5 years (don't know if it's just the initial 5 years or every 5 years).

An acquaintance has just got a housing association house (3 bed) after waiting 4 years. On the basis that they were overcrowded in private (2 bed) as she has a boy and a girl who need separate rooms (boy is over 12).

I don't know what will happen in 5 years, as the boy will be 18, so assuming he won't be classed as a dependent then. So in theory she will be the opposite of overcrowded then as she will have a 3 bed house but only entitled to 2.

@Suddenlyfamily5

I can understand the frustration. My friend (A) came from Poland with 2 young DC. She was renting privately but was then given notice so applied for a council flat. She was given a spacious 3 bed flat in London near Cannonbury; couldn’t believe her luck

Our joint friend is a Londoner born and bred living with her DM and her toddlers in over crowded accommodation. She’s been waiting years for a CH.

It sadly ended their friendship as friend B couldn’t get over it.

The acquaintance I mentioned in my other post is from Poland. Given social housing is so limited, perhaps there should also be a nationality requirement too. I have no issue with immigration per se but think that perhaps foreign nationals who are unable to house themselves here shouldn't be given social housing.

You're wrong, social housing is not subsidised and it pays for itself via the rents collected

I am not wrong, and I used to work in this area. The rents come nowhere near covering the true costs, and that is where the land and buildings are already owned.

In an ideal world all housing would be social insofar as affordable, fair priced rents. It's not, and it never will be so I think it should be reserved for the most vulnerable in society - the disabled, sick etc- and key workers earning under a certain amount in high need areas. Why should high earners (doctors, solicitors, barristers) benefit from low cost housing?

I grew up in social housing and it generally creates a sense of entitlement. All of my friends who grew up in the estate found it disgusting that "non locals" were getting housed in the estate. They felt it was their right to get handed keys because they grew up there.
Does anyone remember the insta mum who both her and her sister got social housing flats each in Notting Hill at 18 as that was the policy back then? Despite being a high earner and spending the whole summer at her parents second home every year, it was "her right" to remain there. Which it is obviously, but I think that is where the system is wrong.

I don't know what the solution is as the lists are growing on a daily basis. I know as a private renter (and no I don't consider myself privileged) it is a nightmare, we've been homeless, overcrowded and in other precarious situations but I have to demonstrate some level of personal responsibility at a certain stage. I cannot blame the council/LA/government for not being handed a house in the area that I want. I've had to move all over to what I can afford, and if I have to leave my support network then so be it, that is life.

What is the criteria to reach the top?

So now we have established that council housing is actually a long term benefit to the public purse, what is the objection to having more of it?

Well you are starting with a false assumption there so that might be where the objection comes in.

Social housing for those who need it is necessary and should be provided, but it is a cost to the public purse, and that is the objection. We should definitely suck that cost up, but pretending it is not a cost is not convincing.

@TheYearOfSmallThings

You're wrong, social housing is not subsidised and it pays for itself via the rents collected

I am not wrong, and I used to work in this area. The rents come nowhere near covering the true costs, and that is where the land and buildings are already owned.

This is broadly true. Social rents are pegged to a specific formula which means they often don’t reflect the true cost of maintaining, repairing and managing the property. At the last housing association I worked for, almost 30% of our stock was loss-making: the rents didn’t cover our costs. This is particularly true of Lindon and other major cities where the majority of stock is blocks of flats which come with high-ticket costs like lift maintenance and exterior repairs.

The reality is, if you wanted a profitable property portfolio, you wouldn’t choose to start with a collection of 1960s system-built tower blocks badly in need of investment and 19th century tenement blocks which were never anticipated to still be standing; and to then rent each flat out for £600 a month in a neighbourhood where the market rent is closer to £2,500 a month, to people whose low incomes mean they don’t always prioritise paying their rent, and who often have social problems and lifestyles which manifest in antisocial behaviour and requires you to employ staff whose specific job it is to manage that. That’s what most council and housing associations are operating with.

@FanGirlX

Have to agree apart from genuine refugees.

@woodhill

Yes, agreed. Refugees are very different from economic migrants.

Getting social housing in London is the equivalent of winning several million on the lottery these days.

The Tories won't build more social housing because the £25billion plus paid in housing landlord benefit keeps all their rich private landlords mates rich and voting Tory. That's why they won't divert it to building social homes.

@kinzarose I do agree about the sense of entitlement that SH can create. We have a relative who has lived in various council properties since she was 20. She had 3 small children when she was first housed and so was very clearly in need. However fast forward a couple of decades later, all 3 children have left home and she lives with her partner in a large council property that could easily house a family of 4-6. She will not entertain the idea of downsizing but is very quick to judge anyone else on her estate that she feels doesn't 'deserve' a council house.

The nature of her job means she is able to do quite a bit of work cash in hand. I would guess from what she has told me that their household income is in the region of £100k. She has said she will only consider moving if she is given another council property that meets certain criteria (large garden, dropped curb/driveway for the car..).

On her income she could easily rent privately but on the occasions I've suggested this she has looked at me as if I am crazy. And I get it: giving up an assured tenancy at below market rent to rent somewhere privately just doesn't make sense.

I don't really know what the answer is.

@lonelyapple it is probably as likely but it doesn't stop people moving to London in hope of one. I know a handful of people who uprooted themselves and their families to live in overcrowded flats (purposely, as they know this will push them up the list) hoping that London will offer better job prospects. They all think they will get a council/social property at some stage. It's the same with economic migrants from overseas, everyone wants London or another major city.