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).

The government schemes simply inflate house prices.
The government has been propping up house prices for a long time.

What is needed is rights for private renters. If tenancies were more secure then privately renting is more attractive. At the moment so many people are forced to move frequently. What elderly person is going to want to do that?

YABVU

I'm in a similar position to you. I rent an ex council house at extortionate rates. My next door neighbour does have all her kids and grandkids visit, and the house is full of joy at the weekends, if under occupied during the week.

You should be able to access social housing. I should be able to access social housing. But resentment towards those who have it is pointless.

Thatcher sold the council houses. People bought them. The money was not put back into more social housing. Blame the Tories.

They are supposed to be homes for life. If someone lives in social housing and then gets a better paid job, what would you have them do? Move to an extortionate private rental? And then what if they lost that job? Just get another council house?

More social housing is needed. Not more pitting the people who are struggling against each other.

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

I certainly think there should be less buy to let properties which have contributed to the inflated housing market. A Conservative or centre left
party won’t I imagine though pass banking laws to decrease the buy to let market. The rise of buy-to-let properties whilst at the same time selling off social housing have enriched some and made it much harder for those on lower incomes.

Paraphrasing something I read apparently the deregulation and liberalisation by governments of the credit market in the 1970s and 1980s kick-started a shift by banks towards a preference for mortgage lending over other activities, as banks and building societies were for the first time allowed to grant credit to households against the value of their homes. The incentives for banks to prefer mortgages is if a borrower doesn’t keep up their repayments, the bank ends up with the house and the land it sits on. Other forms of lending require more involvement on behalf of the bank and are simply riskier: if a bank lends to a business and the business goes bust, the bank gets nothing. With the majority of UK loans now funding mortgages, most new money in our economy is being pumped into land and private housing. A political party that would decrease buy to let and replenish the depleted U.K. social housing stock would have my vote. With housing so expensive in many parts of the U.K. now and many more private renting there are a fair few working who need housing benefit support. Social housing would work out cheaper for a government in the long run.

Moofolk agree.

Following the localism act, many local authorities and some housing associations started to issue fixed term tenancies. The idea being that at the end of 5 years your circumstances (ie earnings, tenancy conduct, household make up) were reviewed and a decision was made as to whether or not the tenancy would be renewed.

In practice it was incredibly difficult for landlords to do this. The time it took to review every tenancy was one thing.

But also there was a strong argument that you were disincentivising people improving their circumstances. "Why should I go and get a better job if it means I'll lose my home?".... which is very true, and we don't want social housing to become just for people who are unemployed or on low income.

Also, the courts hated them. So if you ended up in court, judges really didn't like the grey areas if there wasn't a clear tenancy breach to end the tenancy, even if legally you could. Reputationally, if did a lot of damage if a landlord was seen to be "evicting" a good tenant.

Many housing associations have reverted back to issuing assured tenancies for this reason.

I’d happily downsize if a suitable smaller property became available. And I think my council does incentivise that, but perhaps they need to be more proactive in terms of contacting tenants and showing them what is available? I don’t think it should be done by force though.

Elderly people wouldn’t need to be turfed from their home because they would have been adequately housed between the age of 40-60 depending on when their youngest reached adulthood, and would be settled and secure by retirement.

oddly enough I was discussing this exact scenario on another thread a few days ago. this ‘keep the elderly in their family homes at all costs’ is nuts. By hanging on until they are physically unable to climb the stairs (and usually falling around all over the place, costing the NHS a fortune, but that’s another story), they end up moving when they’re in their late 80s or early 90s, when they’re very vulnerable and weak and find the whole thing very traumatic.

by comparison my Nan moved into a bungalow in her 50s, everyone laughed at the time and called her an old lady, but now she’s in her late 70s, she’s very settled there and surrounded by neighbours she has known for 25+ years. If she gets to the point of frailty the house is more than suitable for her needs, everything is on one floor with no steep drive etc and it’s small enough to be manageable for her.

i plan on doing the same thing because I’ve seen how brilliantly it’s worked out for her.

Strange ways- it was an example of a worse case as that’s what happened to a friend of mine. I know some councils and areas can be good but my friend had a hell of a time getting housed and only just exchanged from her tower block flat to a house after a 3 year wait. She had her baby in the hostel surrounded by dangerous people, if the majority of people who can afford to private rent or buy gave up their council property then people like my friend wouldn’t have been in that traumatic situation and may have been housed quicker.

The government should have over the years built more council properties.
The council housing sell off should stop and as people die the council properties should become available again for further families

Up until the 1970s one third of the country lived in council properties, whereas now that figure is 17%

I swear unread recently there were plans to sack off this you can't afford a cheaper than your rent mortgage bollocks.

I want to say yabu but unfortunately i have to agree. Doubt it would happen tho

One of the Tories winning promises in the last election was to bring back right to buy... complete shambles!

Absolutely this. Now, in cities up and down Scotland (and probably the rest of the UK as well) the only council properties available to rent are in god awful areas, drug, crime ridden areas, basically the dregs that no one wanted to buy.

Should, should, should… yes I agree but they’re gone now; and not coming back anytime soon. So the priority should be housing people somewhere proportionate to their needs. SH tenants are owed accommodation that is clean, of a reasonable standard and of a size that can adequately house them. They’re not owed a house bigger than they need, for life, even when they earn 70k. Not in my view anyway.

Why do people bang on about moving into private rent like it's a step up? It really isn't. Who would choose to go into that if they didn't have to... It's a weird form of thinking.

Definitely an element of looking into your neighbours bowl to make sure they don't have more than you thing going on.

All that would happen is less demand would allow the government to justify building less.

Wouldloveanother- I completely agree, it makes more sense to do that than leave a frail lady alone in a 3 bedroom house that she doesn’t need and cannot physically manage. Anyone can become unwell at any time. I’d want the reassurance once my children had left home that I was in a property suitable for any possible issues I could have as I aged. It’s far more traumatic to move to a home than ensure you’re in a suitable property well in advance. Plus it guarantees a property you chose if you were to exchange to a bungalow for example.

if the neighbour’s bigger bowl was being funded by my taxes yes I would be a bit annoyed. I’m sure you would be as well, if you could bring yourself to admit it!

Are the rich occupying social housing then or is it just another box ticking jibe? I'll try and keep it simple for you, the two things are not exclusive.

I think most would agree with you @Wouldloveanother but the decision around duty is made at the time that the person presents as homeless or in need of accommodation.

Later on down the line when their family changes or their income/savings increase, that isn't taken into consideration. Ultimately people should be free to improve their circumstances and encouraged to do so.

But I agree, that it is frustrating that this does result in a "bed blocking" type situation with social housing.

I've worked in social housing for many years now and there's no easy solution.

But if you have a system where as soon as you improve your situation through hard work (he's working, she's become a teacher - a key job contributing to society), you get punished by losing your home, you make it undesirable for people to try. You make a trap where she's better off not retraining and not contributing.

Also, people with long tenancies can feel able to invest in their communities and in the homes they live in. if you know you're getting booted out once your kids hit adulthood, where's the incentive to look after the place or join in with neighbourhood activity in a positive way?

I think the answer is to stop the obsession with home ownership and have more rent controlled, long term tenancies where people can feel secure. To have more social housing. To stop treating homes as investments.

Government schemes aren't always responsible for inflating housing costs. Not the one I mentioned at least.
Demand for housing does inflate housing.

But I don't think giving tenants in the private market secures housing, look at what's happening in Wales at the moment. The govt are imposing new rights in favour of tenants & landlords are selling off their stock because they cannot cope with the new demands on top of the rental tax rises. People are being made homeless because of this, lots of people.

YNBU.

My friend split with her partner a year ago and her and her small son are living in her mums house with other family members. It’s overcrowded but there are no properties available and she’s a single mum on minimum wage. The cost of private rent has suddenly gone through the roof and most landlords choose a tenant according to their income. Don’t get me wrong, she’s grateful to have a roof over her head but her mum is a hoarder and she’s struggling with lack of space, etc.

My parents-in-law live in a lovely 2-bed HA house. Housing Association don’t know their youngest moved out a year ago. They both earn around 40k a year, paying £500 pm rent. She got a council house in the 90s when she was struggling. Her financial situation has changed considerably since then but she managed to get a swap a few years ago. Once you’re in the system that’s it.

I do like her but it annoys me!

Ok. Then maybe you can answer the age old question on here and tell us how it's being funded by your taxes.

Some councils used to offer incentives to people to downsize. I think one of my mums friends got about £10k to take a 1 bed flat and give up her 3 bed house.