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).

Yes, not give those council scum any ki d of security. Who do they think they are?

That’s the same feeling us in private rent have. It’s not our home and we know eventually we’ll be moved on but we accept that’s the way it is. Social housing is similar in that you are renting it and it’s not yours indefinitely. I still look after my home even though it’s not mine and I have mostly nice neighbours who I have built a relationship with. The risk of my landlord selling doesn’t prevent me from living how I should. You’re housed because you have dependants, it’s so the children aren’t homeless, once they have moved on with their lives the councils duty has been completed. They aren’t legally allowed to make you homeless but you have to see that just because you lived there and made a home from it, it isn’t yours regardless of if you spent a million pound on it or £100 is irrelevant. People who are willing to make the changes can exchange for something else, it wouldn’t be a case of ‘get what you’re given and go away’. It may be a lengthy process to find what you what in return but I have respect for those who are trying to downsize and give their home to a family in need.

Old people who have lived in a house for over forty years will not thrive if forced to move - they are comfortable in the area, they know their neighbours, grandchildren take turns coming to stay the weekend...A house is more than a building - it is a way of life.

I live in a four bed social housing. I am on an old style lifetime tenancy with low rent. I would happily move into something smaller when all my dc have left home. However that would mean me taking on the new style tenancy ( renewed every 5-7 years) and only getting the new " affordable" rent! So I could go from paying £650pm and a lifetime occupancy to paying between £800-900 a month ( for a two bed) and a tenancy which imo is not as secure! Im never going to do it am i! I think this will stop many people from down sizing.

What if she’s bought it? Would you still think she should move? If she’s a secure tenant and she abides by her tenancy agreement why should she move? I worked in Council housing. Old people want to stay amongst their long-standing neighbours. If they do move they only want to move to bungalows not flats. Council bungalows and ground floor flats only go to people with medical priority, blocks of one bedroom flats often house young people and she may not want to live in a flat in such a block. I own my house- I worked hard to keep it after divorce. I’ve certainly no intention of moving to somewhere smaller when I get older.

I've always thought so, should be reviewed every couple of years. İt would be a brave government that implements it though.

So are the occupants going to be reimbursed for what they've spent?

My niece, a young single mother is in SH. She was moved to a grotty 2 bed house that was really neglected. She's a really proactive and hard working girl, and over the years has renovated it from top to bottom, learning varying DIY and decorating skills along the way. She's installed (by herself) new flooring throughout, put in some integrated appliances, and the garden is lovely.

It's taken her ages, and a lot of saving and budgeting.to make it happen. I'm really proud of her.

Unlike private renting, this kind of stuff is down to the tenant and not the landlord. So many people will have ploughed thousands into their homes and gardens.
If being moved out at the council's whim becomes the plan, tenants simply will not look after their properties (why would they, if it's going to be money down the drain?) and areas of social or mixed housing will start to look pretty crap pretty quickly..

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

No I don't agree. Social housing promotes social stability and is an asset to local councils/housing associations. If you want to change something, ban buy to let and return houses to social housing.

I hate these threads.

How do you mean she’s got a 3 bedroom for free? Is she claiming housing benefit for the house? Because if she has two spare bedrooms she will have on inform the housing and pay bedroom tax. Unless she hasn’t informed them and they still think she still has two adult children living in the house.

But yes circumstances should be assessed every so often. She could downsize to a one bed flat and the house go to a family.

I agree. I've been a Council/HA/SH Tenant myself for about 10 years and happily handed back the keys once I could go my own way.

Whilst a lot of SH 'blocking' is caused by human selfishness, a lot is caused by the existing systems and local implementation.

Such as:

The Bedroom Tax has never applied to Pensioners

Most LHAs are not proactive in helping Tenants to downsize - most directing their Tenants to 'exchange websites' instead.

The devolution of new SH provision to the planning system and therefore Private, profit-making Developers.

The setting of 'Affordable Rents' at 80% of 'market value' - a consequence of this is that the rents for new-build smaller properties are much higher than the rents for older and larger SH properties. So many tenants that would like to downsize can't because they'd pay more for less, usually at a time of life when tenants are older and their incomes are limited.

I'm sure there's more....

@ginghamstarfish it was implemented in 2011 with the localism act and fixed term tenancies. It didn't achieve much,

blog.shelter.org.uk/2016/03/fixed-term-tenancies-failing-on-everyones-terms/?amp=1

Worthwhile piece to read.

This. Op You’re so far off the real issue with equality and unfairness that I wouldn’t attempt to educate you.

but why should you be afforded privileges that privately renting tenants don’t have? Particularly when you pay much lower rent? Plus the house won’t be suitable for you as an elderly person anyway.

I was originally housed as a single person who had not long since finished college. That was near enough 20 years ago. I am still with the same housing association but living around the corner (we moved because they were knocking the other estate down so they relocated us). My dh and children came after my tenancy.

I really don't believe that making people feel as though they can be uprooted at any minute is at all a good thing.

Someone I know lives in a 5 year old, 4 bedroom housing association house. Kids are all now over 18. She, and all the other housing association tenants on that street, have just been given lifetime tenancies. So with the money that she's just inherited from her mother, she plans to buy a holiday home in France.

To be honest with you @Wartywart from a social housing point of view, 4 beds are a pain in the arse to fill. Every now and then you'll get a large family not more often than not anything bigger than a 3 bed is a risk due to bedroom tax issues.

Housing stability is one of the big benefits of social housing. It would be far better to increase the amount of social housing, spread some of the benefits of social housing to the private sector and build enough housing to meet needs.

I think having the lower rents of social housing be means adjusted would reasonable. But I don’t think you should kick someone out when their circumstances change.

Social housing should be a helping help in your time of need, not a life long entitlement to a secure home at a discounted rent.

What is needed is for council tenants to be re assessed, say every 5 years, to establish whether they still need the house both in practical and financial terms.

I know a couple of very well off people who, still live in council homes they were given during rough patches in their lives. Unfortunately the system says they get to keep them forever, and more deserving people miss out, whilst they continue to buy brand new cars and expensive holidays etc.

I live in a council house no bedroom tax though as we pay the rent and not housing benefit.

I suspect we won’t live here forever as we are due inheritance which will enable us to move out and buy.

Other than that our rent is affordable so I’m not killing myself saving for a house deposit when we have a lifetime tenancy.

No point being bitter OP. We had a flat and we were repossessed (long, long story but not a happy one). Waited 10 years for this home whilst being severely overcrowded with kids. Wouldn’t give it up now for private rent either.

No one just gets given council housing! There’s always a story behind it.

It's not the number of bedrooms that I was pointing out really - more that lots of people on this thread are under the misapprehension that lifetime tenancies are a thing of the past. They very much are not.

I think if you have a home bigger than what you need, you should be found a smaller home with affordable rent.
Or If your on a high income with 4 cars in the drive.... You should be means tested and assisted to renting privately because you can afford to. I believe this will eventually happen regardless of what anyone says because their is a genuine housing crisis.
I could never think about having a 4 council bedroom house and i was by myself or not using all of those bedrooms, when i know families are desperate for a decent sized home. It's plain selfish.

@Doris86 5 year fixed term tenancies are already in place and being used but don't work. Many housing associations have given up on them.

They really aren't the solution.

Doris86
Social housing should be a helping help in your time of need, not a life long entitlement to a secure home at a discounted rent.

Why? This is an entirely new attitude towards council housing. there's no good reason for it.
The rent is not discounted. That's how much rents cost when you aren't paying rent to a private landlord who 'needs' to make a profit.

I completely agree op,
There will never be enough money for the millions of new council homes required, how will that be paid for?
The only immediate way to start to ease the backlog is to force downsizing , as carefully as possible.
No family should live in a b and b at astronomical cost to the taxpayer, not to mention the negative impact on school age children.

Why should they take privileges away from people such as me? We should be levelling up not down. And how do you know the house won't be suitable for me when I'm older? The previous tenant lived here into her 80s and was, by all accounts, very happy and a well respected member of the community.