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).

Of course they are homes! and they have not been ‘given’ but rented. Nobody should be forced to leave their home. Incentivised possibly, but somebody else should absolutely not be making that decision. You are in danger of utterly destroying community with this line of thinking.
I don’t really understand at what point council or HA rentals were only deemed suitable for those in dire need - at the same
time that the term ‘social housing’ came into use, I think. It was never used when I was council estate kid.
Council and HA housing is much more suitable that single property private landlords’ housing which often has dreadful terms such as very short terms rentals. If private landlords were required to comply with similar standards as HAs and councils, this would help solve the problem. I feel that too many landlords see rentals as a way to
make a profit but without actually considering the importance of the service they are selling. I much prefer the Belgium model where all types of landlords provide long term assured tenancies and landlords own blocks or estates.
Having a home is a right not a privilege imho

Because it prevents people in genuine need from using that housing, meaning they have to be housed in private flats using HB?

Many housing associations do the same too, though possibly not as generous- more like £1500!! But it does help, in some cases, to create some movement

@Wouldloveanother if they're claiming HB they'd be claiming it whether in social housing or private rent. They can't claim more than the local housing allowance in any case....

Accidentally voted the wrong way!! Meant to say YABU - community stability, and the ability for families to invest their time and commitment in an area, come with permanent tenancies, and the promise that if people improve their financial circumstances they won't be turfed out from the community where they've built their lives, where their social support network is and so on.

If you make tenancies conditional on people staying within certain incomes etc then you are saying you're fine with that community always being transient because people will move on given the chance. Successful communities (ie ones where people support each other and get along well) also include a range of people from different demographics and income ranges, homogeneous ones tend to be less successful.

Whilst I’m flabbergasted she would want to stay put rather than downsize to something small and suitable for one adult
Do the rest of the population downsize as soon as their children fly the nest? Of course not.

yet she gets it for free and for life
It’s not free though is it? She pays rent or will be entitled to benefits for whatever reason.

I disagree social housing should be temporary because without proper reform in the private renting market it would leave vulnerable people at the mercy of landlords.

They're going to be able to afford 500 quid a month all of a sudden when getting a SH property?

Try again? How are the taxpayers forking out for SH? You can't use Hb because that applies to all kinds of renting.

Well said! This mentality of people being 'given' the homes ignores the fact that people pay rent on them, for life, with no equity built up at the end.

And this.
Years ago when people moved into social housing it was a home for life. Nobody ever mentioned being "moved on" like cattle because they weren't selling the stock then. Now they've sold nearly all the stock people are suddenly deciding those that a spare room/rooms need to give up their home they've lived in all their life so someone else can have it.
No. Maybe change the system so people are aware they'll be turfed out one day before they move in. See how well it goes down.
Or find your home before having kids rather than expect to take someone else's.

Rights for renters have been/more are being implemented which is why landlords in the PRS are getting out of the business and selling up. The effects of yhis is low availability and huge demand on what's left = higher rents. Mine have increased in one area by 20%.

Haven’t read the whole thread, just the first page. But totally agree. Of course she should be moved when she no longer has dependants. Make way for families who need that larger property. It’s absurd that this isn’t acted upon.

@Shannoncakequeen
Voted unreasonable because if they moved, they'd then be poor again, with sky high rents, so then claiming working tax HB etc...

Obviously if they become merchant bankers or win Euromillions, then sure kick em out!

The answer, as always is not a race to the bottom but to have sufficient Council housing, after all, we used to be able to do this.

Using private rented to sort out social need, is very expensive, poor housing standards and dead money, if councils had built housing one for one as they sold them off years ago, they 'd now be sitting on assets worth billions.

It costs more in "tax payers" money to administer renewing everyone's tenancies at the end of the fixed period than it does to let the rent come in and use that to build new homes

@Sweetlikechocolate6 , Labour had many years in which they could have ditched Right to Buy, but they didn’t. Presumably because they thought it would lose them votes.

The unique thing about social housing from the renters point of view is the security of the tenancy. We need more housing like that, not less, so no, the terms should not be restricted.

The problem of wating lists should be solved by all secure tenancies being offered to highest bidder, with no criteria other than their attractiveness as a tenant. To be clear, highest bidder means anyone in the country, millionaires can bid if they want. Any extra rental profit that results from this can be reinvested into more housing.

I say "any extra" because some people deny that social housing rents are set below market rates. They ought not to be, we have a system for subsidising housing, via housing allowances in the benefits system, and that should be the only way they are subsidised. We should not be offering houses at below-market rents because then we end up paying uncontrolled subsidies to the wrong people.

No issue with right to buy but replace sold housing with another Council House, one for one.

I really don't believe that people, like dh and me, should face being turfed out of our homes simply because we get older.

Social housing is not 'free'; and we're as much a part of our community as our neighbours are so I don't see why we should be forced out when our dc grow up.

It's good that people feel secure enough in their tenancies to make the houses they live in their homes: this security helps build strong communities; if we had the threat of eviction hanging over our heads for nothing more than aging or being given a pay rise then we wouldn't be inclined to build relationships with the people we live near, or to look after the property, as it wouldn't feel like home. The result would be segmented, transient, broken neighbourhoods where there is no sense of community and a much higher crime rate.

Social housing tenants do spend a fortune on their homes because they live in them and want to live in a nice environment and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yabu. Very much so.

There are very few private rentals. Landlords of private rentals find it too risky now to rent out properties. Landlords have had all their rights taken away from them, if faced with none payers, they can’t evict without being prepared to take part in long drawn out court battles. And there are very few one bedroomed homes. Therefore you can’t blame people for wanting to hold on to their council homes. The alternatives out there are practically none existent.

I forgot to say that the bigger problem from an economy viewpoint is help to buy. Tax payer funded private ownership. There should be much higher interest on the loan but even if there was all its done is artificially push up prices. Bad all round

There is no easy answer here and I do think we desperately need more social housing built. The right to buy has messed everything up as they are not replaced.

I think it should be means tested, over a certain income you pay full market rent, I know a family with two adult kids, 4 good wages going in, 4 new cars outside plus a very posh and huge motorhome outside, long haul holidays and cruises…..laughing all the way to the bank. It’s ok to say it’s their home, they have invested in the kitchen, garden blah blah…..but at least get a decent rental from houses like those and plough the money back into repairs and rebuilding more.

I’m with you Freezy.

@FreezyFreezy Totally agree, some people have zero empathy.

the ans is build more, not kick people out, this would then lower rents in PRS as less demand....

I think it’s a good idea in principle that people should live in properties that meet their needs.

However, for this to happen there needs to be far more building of decent quality smaller homes - one and two bedrooms, with decent size kitchen and living space - both in social and private housing. Smaller shouldn’t mean worse, but at the moment it really does.

When I moved into my council house it was a shit tip.

No flooring apart from kitchen and bathroom. It was filthy. And I mean filthy. A week of scraping in the hall alone.

I tiled the bathroom and papered and painted the entire

I spent 1000s of pounds and hours on it. I don't want to do it again. It's not like private renting with white goods and flooring and you just move in! I am staying!

You’re angry at the wrong people. If successive governments (of all stripes) had ensured there was enough housing both private and HA/council, this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s her home, and there probably isn’t anywhere to move to anyway, not without turfing her out of her community/family/friends.

This sort of thinking is what allows government to get away with it. Redirect your anger.