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).

@Wouldloveanother

Agreed. Lifetime tenancies foster social cohesion within certain areas. I think a lot of the bitterness comes from private tenants which I get but maybe their frustration would be better concentrated on how the Tories allow such ridiculous policies on house buying.

If you’re not missing private rental payments this alone should be proof you can pay a mortgage.

The issue is a huge lack of 1 bed properties suitable for older people. My aunt lived i. A 2 bed ground floor flat. She offered to move to a one bed flat but there were none available. The issue isn’t people being selfish but a housing policy years ago by Thatcher that meant lots of social housing stock was sold and none built to replace it. We are now seeing estates sold to property developers under a promise to provide “affordable” homes that aren’t affordable and the amount they promised to build cut as its not “profitable” enough.
We have a huge housing shortage, we’ll we don’t have a shortage of housing as such but a huge shortage of affordable housing or social housing. There are enough empty houses,some owned by foreign investors, to fill the Borough of Westminister.
It’s easy to point a finger and assume people are being selfish but it’s often not that simple.

For free ? 🤣🤣🤣 hilarious please point me in the direction of free housing lol

Haven't read full thread but my mum is in a 2 bed on her own. Been there 10 years. Past year alone. Previous 30 years in a crumbling home on a main road so busy the whole house shook. Her 2 bed was given to her absolutely bare and was inhabitable. Took her 3 months to get it to bare minimum and she then spent all of her savings installing bathroom, kitchen, windows, doors (they were falling out and council wldn't replace!). She wouldn't mind a 1 bed but is only offered more shit, in shit areas and no longer has money to make it nice. And you're saying she shld be forced to move?! Shame on anyone who thinks that's the answer and not asking the real questions ie. Why don't we have good quality, affordable housing for all?

Thats not how society works. Nobody should be inherently privileged by the state while others are not. The only difference between you and a privately renting tenant is that your ‘landlord’ is the state, oh and you get your rent much cheaper. The cheaper rent is privilege enough, this entitlement to hang on to your property that you don’t own when there are others in need is deeply unfair. To me.

No, they shouldn't.

Imagine getting married in your early twenties.
You live with a parent and you go on to having one or two babies.
Life is very hard.
You can't afford a mortgage as you do menial work and private rentals are scarce. (1960s/70s)/80s)
Eventually you get accepted by the council ( who owned nearly all social housing) and you were given a small three bed semi with a bit of garden.
You are in heaven... your own home!

You might have one or two more kids and it's a squeeze but you manage, you pay your rent , you do DIY, you tend your garden and life is fine.

20/30 /40 years later your kids have left home.
You're on your own and you're done with adventures. You love your garden and lovingly look after your home. It's your sanctuary as you've retired and can't afford holidays anymore. Your home and garden are sacrosanct.

One day, a cunt turns up and tells you that you're selfish grabbers and must leave to go live in a tenth floor flat overlooking a warehouse and surrounded by dealers and aggro merchants.
Your previous home will be let to a priceless 'family' who expect 'someone else' to turn up and do every bit of painting and grass mowing as your previous home has been sold off to a letting agency.

Your post is somewhat naive but asking someone, who may have lived in their home for a very long time , to give it up , is cruel.

Maybe take your issue up with councils who are hell bent on disposing of social housing.

It’s unlikely they will scrap lifetime tenancies. The 5 year tenancy didn’t work and was a complete disaster. My HA abandoned them years ago and it pretty much covers the whole of the West Midlands now.

Because there is a massive shortage of social housing. One way to address the problem is to re-assess those with SH tenancies to see if they still need them.

Ok use the word cheaper rather than discounted if you prefer. But why should those who can afford to pay private rents not be made to do so, to free up social housing for those that can’t?

Thelnebriati · Today 22:40

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.

This ^ is completely wrong, the rents from council owned properties do not even cover the repairs and maintenance, so it is a huge cost to the country, and that is without building new homes.

On average l think it would take somewhere in the region of 30 - 40 years to break even on a 2 bed council flat.
So building what is needed is sadly not going to happen.
Therefore downsizing gives many more the chance of an appropriate home.

So I assume you think private renters should be afforded the ‘right’ to stay in their home as well, presumably?

Calling social tenants 'privileged' is ridiculous. Don't pretend that shuffling people around like pawns on a chess board is creating a society.

My sister was given a lovely 3 bed house (30 years ago). Single mum, not working (then). She’s still in it (just her). Well paid job etc.

So should she leave her home and now rent privately or buy so her social housing can be used for someone more ‘needy’ (as she was in 1992)?

She pays her rent (and bedroom tax) but has often commented that the rent she does pay is much lower than a private 3 bedroom house.

Private landlords don’t kick you out because your kids have left home, though. So being able to continue renting the same social housing place after your kids leave isn’t a privilege over being in private rental.

It is actually a case of get what you are given. You get 4 offers. If you don’t like first 3 because they aren’t suitable you have to take 4th “choice” these things stop people from coming forward as well. There are also policies to try to move families out of more expensive areas like south east and push them up north mikes from family support.

What is deeply unfair is removing people from their homes because they either get a better job or their children grow up and leave home.

It's not that my rent is cheaper, either; it's that private landlords are allowed to charge pretty much what they like in order to make a profit so their tenants' rents are higher.

So should she leave her home and now rent privately or buy so her social housing can be used for someone more ‘needy’ (as she was in 1992)?

Yes.

I really, really don’t understand this mindset that social tenants have some kind of superior emotional bond to their housing that should guarantee them possession of it for life. I have never seen anybody suggest this about privately renting tenants - why not?

and don’t get me started on ‘there should be enough social housing for anyone who wants it’. If a 3 bed house with a good garden for £300 a month was available to anyone, literally EVERYONE would want one. So this literally isn’t possible.

I’m not sure about other councils
but the situation has changed in mine. Older council tenants will have the lifetime clause in their original contracts, but that has been changed for more recent ones. I have a council property, I’ve been here for 9 years now but have no right to buy and have a clause that allows the council to rehome me if the property is under occupied. I’d be very surprised if most councils aren’t doing it the same way now.

But if private rents were in line with SH then you wouldn’t need SH would you? So it wouldn’t exist, and neither would lifetime tenancies. It may be your ‘home’ but the house belongs to the state - you have no more right to it through emotional attachment than a private renter who loves their home 🤷🏼‍♀️

Not read TFT but more housing in general is what we need. There are so many abandoned houses, empty office blocks, shops & dept stores - they should be made use of first.

Simple answer, yes of course she should leave. A clear example of the broken social housing system that lets people like your sister block houses that could be used by a family much more in need than she is.

Of course if I were your sister I’d be staying put. It’s the system that is wrong, but I don’t blame people for taking advantage of it,

If a private renter pays their rent and loves their home, why should they have to leave?

It is not just about rents. If private and social rents were exactly the same my parents would still have wanted their council house because they had a secure tenancy. My father had mild dementia and could not have coped with moving private house every year.

That was in regards to a social exchange as opposed to going on a bidding system. There are options for them to pick something they like if they downsize via exchange on an app like homeswapper. I wouldn’t expect it to be a list of what’s available and they have to take that option or be homeless, I’m not completely heartless. I just think it’s being considerate to let everyone have their fair share, everyone’s situation is different but the fact is that everyone in social housing were lucky enough to be supported when they needed it whether it was handed on a plate or a long stressful process they still got the end result. I don’t have a lack of empathy for thinking single adults shouldn’t have a 3 bedroom house, I think it lacks empathy for those who would benefit from the house and are left to suffer in hostels, to think the current system is fair and equal.

Yes, we would need social housing. There should be more of it. Even if our rent was the same as that if my neighbour, who rents his house privately (and has not been kicked out despite his children having left), I would still rather be a social tenant than rent privately because, in my experience, they're better landlords who actually support their tenants and look after their properties. Private landlords are generally only after the money. A lot of them bought council houses and now make money from the people unfortunate enough to rent from them.

I haven’t read the full thread but work in social housing so might be able to offer a different perspective.

I worked in the South East for some time and very often the opposite was true - older people who wanted to downsize were affected by both the relatively higher rents (as understandably, the amount of housing benefit they’re entitled to drops as their children move out), and the bedroom tax. They were often left in properties they were unable to afford, while their debts spiralled.

In principle, you may have a point, but where is the supply of one bedroom properties coming from? The amount of people who require a one bedroom property often massively outstrips the number who needed 2+ bedrooms, and there’s no magic list - those downsizing are entitled to a financial incentive, and are given a slightly higher priority, but there is certainly no abundance of one bedroom properties to offer them - they just join the ‘list’, or the bidding system, along with everyone else.

I’ve also worked in a large city the North and the problem was very much the same there.