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?

Perfectly good social housing has been pulled down and replaced with less SH and more expensive housing. Its all in the book i mentioned.

Dont let it get in the way of your prejudices though. These attitudes are why i never bought the "all in this together" bollocks with regards to Covid. What they really meant was that we should protect our "betters"

The ideal would be for social housing to be expanded, but as sadly that is very unlikely to happen, it does seem pointless having people lingering on a waiting list for decades.

I have very limited sympathy for those having to move away because like many I did to afford a decent home for my family. I grew up in south London, my brothers and I have all left. If you are not working (for whatever reason, I'm not judging) then expect to be housed somewhere cheaper, only those in key occupations should be prioritised for housing where there's a huge shortage.

Some parts of the country have lots of houses (and few jobs - that's an idea, incentivise businesses to move!)

Some of these attitudes here are what led to Grenfell

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/02/doreen-lawrence-grenfell-tenants-faced-institutional-indifference

@flippertyop

I agree tenancy for life is ridiculous. It's social housing why should you just be allowed to stay there forever. I'm afraid if you want to benefit from state subsidised housing you don't get to choose where that is

This is the bit that people simply cannot answer when complaining about social housing situation. If you are not reliant on social housing, you cannot pick and choose like those wanting subsidized housing in London want to. Basically, if you pay for your own housing, you do not have the privilege that London social housing tenants seem to be demanding. It’s bizarre and makes no sense.

I think the single biggest thing the government could do to relieve poverty and provide some security in the UK is a massive expansion of social housing. And before people start with the 'we can't afford it' bollocks, housing generates rent, how do you think so many buy to let landlords got rich?

Housing might generate rent, but social rents are too low to provide a sustainable business model for obtaining lending in parts of the country where land is expensive. Over 20 years, a standard loan term for development, the average one-bedroom unit in a London borough will generate around £125,000 in rent. It costs far in excess of that to develop the unit in the first place, which is why social units are cross-subsidised with shared ownership and outright sale properties.

If owning your own home is not a privileged position to be in then give it up and rent. Then you can have the same privileges yeah?

@Upamountain43 Yeah that worked so well in communist countries, forcibly taking away people's property.

I think if you have to rely on the council to house you and you are unable to work but perfectly healthy, you need to take what you are given. Even if it's 100's of miles away.

It's shit to move away from friends/ family but unfortunately we just can't make social housing re-appear after it has been sold.
Building more is great, but again, in a city like London there is a slight space issue. New (social) housing will be built in outskirts or in run down areas marked for redevelopment. People on housing lists will have to move areas as the population grows.

Because a secured tenancy is better long term for housing and the tenants mental health. Otherwise you might as well just call all social housing stock "temporary accommodation".

You would be saying to some of the most poorest people "your housing isn't secure". Change anything to better yourself and you are out on your ear.

This also leads to tenants not taking care of social housing stock "because it's not forever". So I'm not improving or caring for it.

Tenants would also quickly learn what would get them "moved on" meaning tenants would "stagnate" for want of a better word. Because keeping a roof over your head is number one priority.

You don't build communities and policing/ securing mass estates where tenancy is fleeting would be a nightmare with "temporary accommodation".

Social Housing was always for those who could not afford to buy or let from reputable landlords. And to a certain extent they still are. Low income families and elderly/disabled.

For instance mass amounts of our housing stock was built in 1919 post WW1 as "homes for heroes". The city demolished the slums and moved the Tennant's to "park estates" where health outcomes were better, schooling and communities were born. Children had better outcomes in these garden estates than they did in slums where cholera was rife and childhood illness.

It's an industrial town, so if you weren't tenanted working in the copper works you were in the slums. If you weren't gentry and land owning/house owning you were in the slums.

Tenancies for life are crucial for communities, they are crucial for children who live in these houses. Children with parents with secured accommodation have better outcomes.

They made this situation. They should never have sold off council houses and those in a council house should be reassed every few years.
It's ridiculous that a single person or couple can stay in a 3 bed council house after their children have moved out and even if they can afford to rent privately.
If they had a decent system in place there wouldn't be so many problems.

It's devastating not being able to live within even 100 miles of where your children have gone to school, where your friends and family are and where your job is. I was born in London and it's where my roots are. It's my home yet I can't afford to live there so we moved to another of the country. Funnily enough, the locals in this part of the country get a great deal of sympathy for not being able to afford homes. It's just Londoners that are selfish and entitled for wanting to live in the place that they've grown up in and put down roots

I agree tenancy for life is ridiculous. It's social housing why should you just be allowed to stay there forever. I'm afraid if you want to benefit from state subsidised housing you don't get to choose where that is

It's not subsidised.

Councils and Housing Associations want longterm tenants because they want people to build communities and all that goes alongside with that, people who will put down roots, take pride in their home and their area. They don't want a lot transient/short term tenants because it goes against that idea.

Social housing is for anyone who meets the criteria for that particular Local Authority l, how long you'll wait will depend both on your need and that area. My entire street is social housing in a nice area, none of us were on the list for longer than a few months, all of us bid on the properties we are in so took them by choice, and all of us have at least one adult in the house who is working with me and Mrs Next Door being exception but our husbands both work. The only person under-occupying is the very elderly lady on the corner but she has lived in her two-bed house since 1953, likely couldn't cope with a move, and she has occasional overnight carers who use the second bedroom so a one-bed would be no use to her anyway. We don't all live in ghettos while claiming all the benefits, you know.

Tenants would also quickly learn what would get them "moved on" meaning tenants would "stagnate" for want of a better word. Because keeping a roof over your head is number one priority.

This is another reason why councils encourage long term tenancies and don't reassess circumstances. If you knew that you would be evicted if your income went over a certain level then where is your incentive to progress at work and to climb the ladder? Your children are settled in school, you have roots in the community, you are happy in your home, why would you take that promotion if you knew it meant losing all of that?

I think tenancy for life is ridiculous and at the expense of those who also need that break. It should be outlawed.

In terms of 'can't move out cos I need support' what about anyone else who is in private accomodation or who own their own home who are priced out and don't have the luxury of this?

I can understand the argument being put forward about needing to stay in London for certain jobs which provide a critical role, and they should be prioritised to stay in London.

But if you haven't got that as a reason, and its only for social reasons - even if thats support, then no I don't think its a fair justification to think you get priority over everyone else who has to make those kind of tough decisions.

I can understand why people who have been on any waiting list for years and are now being removed might be pissed off. If they'd known waiting on the list was pointless then they could have been making other plans rather than hanging on.

I don't get the idea that you have a god given right to live in any particular place, if you can't afford it you can't afford it. Many of us have moved away from family, to towns/countries where we knew nobody for a work promotion or first step on a career ladder, or for Uni.

Tbh, YABU.

A council should not be artificially cutting its waiting list because it has decided it won’t be able to house everyone. Councils should want to know how many people in their area want or need more secure and affordable housing so that they can plan to provide it - and the easiest way of gauging this is by having a waiting list for affordable, secure housing. Sounds like they are trying to hide their heads in the sand tbh.

And, no, no one should have to move 100 miles to find an affordable home.

The reality is London will find itself running into difficulty with recruiting key workers if it doesn’t get to grip with its housing problem, as will other places.

It's unpopular, but I agree, OP. That is just the reality of life. There is only so much social housing to go around, and most people will never be considered a top priority for what they want.

@KingsleyShacklebolt

I can understand why people who have been on any waiting list for years and are now being removed might be pissed off. If they'd known waiting on the list was pointless then they could have been making other plans rather than hanging on.

I don't get the idea that you have a god given right to live in any particular place, if you can't afford it you can't afford it. Many of us have moved away from family, to towns/countries where we knew nobody for a work promotion or first step on a career ladder, or for Uni.

It’s so complicated isn’t it

If you’ve moved away for uni, to be lucky enough to buy etc it’s a choice. It’s a researched, thought out choice.
It’s not a choice if the council say you have to go.
Chances are you aren’t in a position to privately rent (this could be for lots of reasons, it is hard to be accepted). So you don’t have a choice. It’s homelessness or going to a town you haven’t chosen.
That town might be great, or it might not. Either way it’s not a choice.

The reality is London will find itself running into difficulty with recruiting key workers if it doesn’t get to grip with its housing problem, as will other places

This is already happening with the commuter belt expanding and covering such huge swaths of the country which is pushing the house prices and rent rent up.

If they'd known waiting on the list was pointless then they could have been making other plans rather than hanging on.

If they are capable of making other plans, they should have been doing that in the first place, not choosing to hang on to let the council sort out their housing when they could have done it themselves.

I suppose that’s the thing about a policy of taking people off a waiting list. It will become apparent who really does need social housing and has to be moved out of the area and who didn’t need to be on the list at all.

This is a hill I’ll happily stand and defend - if this government doesn’t sort out the housing crisis they won’t be the government for as long as they may wish. Ignoring it won’t solve it and neither will pretending it isn’t a problem.

Secure and affordable housing is the foundation for everything else - work, study, family, caring, community, financial planning - literally, everything.

This is the thing that will push people over the edge.

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.

@EvilPea

The reality is London will find itself running into difficulty with recruiting key workers if it doesn’t get to grip with its housing problem, as will other places

This is already happening with the commuter belt expanding and covering such huge swaths of the country which is pushing the house prices and rent rent up.

Understandably so. There’s a limit to how long anyone wants to stand with their nose in someone else’s armpit on their way to a job that promises them little hope of not ever having to travel to work for hours on a train with their nose in someone’s smelly armpit.

It’s not a life really, is it; it’s an existence.

If they'd known waiting on the list was pointless then they could have been making other plans rather than hanging on.

But surely if other plans or opportunities were available to them they would have already taken them rather than wait years for a council property to possibly become available ?