AIBU to think social housing homes should be temporary?

[Shannoncakequeen]

I know a lot of people won’t be happy about this view so I’m prepared to get flamed for it.

I don’t agree with people living in their social housing homes when they’re no longer ‘entitled’ to them.

By entitled I mean their children have left home so they have extra bedrooms they don’t need but continue to outlive their life there, and so preventing another family from enjoying a suitable home.

It’s not a bash about social housing per se as I know it is there for a very good reason. I was raised in council properties myself so I understand the importance of them being available to those in poverty. I feel many people abuse the system that keeps it fair for those who need it.

As an example, I have a neighbour who lives alone in a 3 bedroom house, large garden, garage and driveway. Ideal property for most of the population. Her children left home over 10 years ago and she is in her early 50s. She told me she had decorated the spare bedrooms for her grandchildren to sleep over in the future (they are currently babies). Whilst I’m flabbergasted she would want to stay put rather than downsize to something small and suitable for one adult, I am human and understand the memories/emotional connection/a house is a home etc, but it isn’t her property and is rented from our local council and therefore I’m shocked the council haven’t got stricter policies on this type of thing. I understand they can’t legally turf out people from their homes, but there should be an incentive to rehome these people so families aren’t stuck in one bedroom tower block flats whilst single adults live in luxury.

Maybe I am bitter because I have to rent and pay extortionate money for the privilege as I cannot get a deposit to buy so I will never be able to raise my child in a home like she has. The house would be £400k+ if it was owned privately, yet she gets it for free and for life just because she joined the list many years ago when it was easy to get social housing. I know many other people in similar places to her and they all believe they morally own the property and have no concern for the housing crisis.

Does anyone else agree that there needs to be stricter rules to make it fair for everyone to have affordable housing whilst in need only (up until children leave home) and not for life? If you are in this position what makes you stay and not give up the property to a family in need? If you plan to stay in your property when your children leave home what offer would make you rethink staying? I’m aware there are new rules for new tenants but this is aimed at long term tenants.

Again I understand this will trigger some people, but morally I can’t come to grips with the entitlement of some people (excluding those who still need the property for health reasons).

That's why people have to pay bedroom tax now.

Blame Thatcher for selling off council houses not people who are doing nothing wrong by living in them .

You are not unreasonable OP. If a person wants a bigger house than they need, they can go find it (fully) themselves.

was raised in council properties myself so I understand the importance of them being available to those in poverty.

This is the issue IMO. In the UK (or England, at least), council housing is so scarce in most places that you have to be in quite dire straits to get a look in. So the association is poverty or people in acute need. In other countries there is enough social housing (and of a good quality) so most people aren’t too interested in under-occupancy, council flats being inherited etc.

The system here just doesn’t work.

Is blaming Thatcher your default reponse to everything. Did you even read the OP?

If you want to be annoyed about unfairness and inequality, how about you look to the rich people first instead of shitting on people with less?

Unfairness is unfairness. Everyone should not be selfish- rich and poor.

Our local authority do offer smaller home to people like you have mentioned but usually their tenancy states they don't have to move. If they are paying their rent on time and in full what can they do? They are a landlord just like any other and they benefit more from people paying full rent than those who require housing benefit.

Bedroom tax only impacts those on housing benefit.

Yanbu, makes sense.

Years ago in Ireland the councils used to offer people money to swap. So people in a two bed looking for a 3 bed or even offer them an incentive to downsize. There probably isn't even the stock these days though to offer to someone to downsize and they can't just turf people out on the street.

The house would be £400k+ if it was owned privately, yet she gets it for free and for life just because she joined the list many years ago when it was easy to get social housing. I know many other people in similar places to her and they all believe they morally own the property and have no concern for the housing crisis

For free? Does she not pay rent?

The main issue with social housing is that it's not been replaced when it's sold and also there's never been many that are suitable for aging /elderly residents. Where do you suggest this woman moves to?
In an ideal world the council would be able to move ppl to smaller homes but they just don't have them, it's a vicious circle.

I agree, the system has to change given the lack of stock. There needs to be a more dynamic way of housing people to fit their needs, moving people out of large homes they no longer need. I suspect it would be too hard and costly to administer.

Of course, a lot more stock needs to be built too.

I actually think this is a massive factor in the UK housing crisis. I work in social care and know so many older people in big houses while young families are in B&Bs or one beds. It really isn’t fair. My own next door neighbour is the son of a council tenant who inherited the tenancy for his 3 bed semi from his late mother. A single man in his 50s, no kids, seems stupid.

It’s not their fault though who is logically going to give up their 3 bed family home, and associated memories for a one bed flat unless they are forced to?

Why should you have to move just because you've gotten older?
Maybe councils could offer smaller homes to people but they shouldn't force them.
This is just another way to shit on poorer people rather than deal with real systemic issues.

The answer is to build much more social housing, not to turf people out of their homes. You're looking at this from the wrong angle, get angry at the government, not people legitimately renting.

I thought there weren't enough one bedroom properties for people to downsize into?

I actually agree.

In my local area they are actually working to improve this.

They offer cash incentives for redecoration and moving costs for people to move from their 3/4 bed council homes to other properties.

They are mainly getting a response when people are offered new build properties in nicer areas.

But maybe that's more of a solution?

Build more smaller 1/2 bed properties compared to the 3/4 bed and transfer people to them so the bigger properties become available.

Much better than building less 3/4 bed in the same space and demand not meeting supply?

And btw I also live in HA property.

I have a 2 bed and my ds who has a disability lives with me.

I'd happily transfer to a 1 bed if he ever leaves home (although bedroom tax doesn't affect me because I don't get HB or UC) but if I'm honest I wouldn't move from this nice area to somewhere that wasn't comparable. I've already been here 15 years and got it off plan so it is my home iyswim?

@loveisanopensore But why should older poor people be given preferential treatment over younger poor people?

I was expecting a typical mumsnet flaming so I’m pleasantly surprised! Would like to hear from those who voted that I’m unreasonable though?

Benefits for parents with children such as universal credit expect them to work certain hours when their children reach certain ages. Why can’t a similar program be introduced for housing? When the children reach adulthood they can be placed in a more suitable property and a family in need can take on their larger house. If there was a system where it rotated then everyone in need would get a fair amount of years in a suitable home to raise their children before passing on to another and settling into their permanent home such as a 1 bedroom flat, bungalow or maisonette. If you need the help and support from the council the luxuries such as gardens and driveways shouldn’t be a factor for these adults, a roof over their head is still a privilege as if you aren’t in poverty and haven’t got children the system doesn’t support you so they will still be in a much better position than many.

My neighbour doesn’t pay rent and doesn’t work so it is free for her. My local council have built over 1000 flats in the past few years and have a lot of stock so it’s a shame they haven’t made a system like this, they are putting families into these flats which seems very unfair. Toffee-not many people in social housing have less, my road is full of rich people paying their £300 a month rent with 3/4 brand new cars on the drive. But my argument is about housing not what these people have or earn.

Unfairness is unfairness. Everyone should not be selfish- rich and poor.

Time to ban second homes and buy-to-let properties.

How are communities supposed to be strong and look out for each other if we force people to move out because they are older?

It's not moving just because you've got old, it's moving because the provided house for you is no longer the most suitable for your needs (e.g an older single person in a three bed semi isn't in a home best suited for their current needs) and when there's an ever growing list of people who are much more suitable for the property, there should be a mechanism for re allocation of social property surely?

Otherwise you'll end up with lots of older people with no children in family homes that are council owned, and younger families in small flats or temporary housing.

I know a couple who used right to buy to buy their house (one of their parents was the original council tenant) who could have afforded a non social housing house, but got that one much much cheaper. I think if they're selling council houses, it should be at market value so the council has more money to put towards new social housing stock (or to stop selling it all together!)