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).

It should absolutely be means tested every year or so. I have family member who is in a council house, has been for almost 20 years.
He's worked his way up in his career, as has his wife. They now jointly earn over £110k a year, but have no intention of leaving the council house until all 4 children have left (youngest is 5) and then they will buy a house. They currently live in a lovely, spacious 4 bedroom semi with a drive and huge garden.
Makes me so angry, even though it's family.

Absolutely agree with you. To answer your question re if you're in this situation and not moved - my getting elderly parents are living in social housing property, paid for with housing benefit, a huge 4 bedroomed house, with a garden they don't need and parking they don't need, because there are NO suitable smaller properties for them to move to, even private rented if they could ever afford that, within an area they can easily get to all the amenities they need. Namely the GP and the hospital, (both being their second homes!).

They've been waiting to be rehoused for 5 years. Not a single bungalow or ground floor flat in sight. They can barely afford the extra bedroom tax and know full well they don't need, nor want this excess space.

I was in a large ha three bed with a back and front room and big garden with three children. Two left home and have their own rentals. I did an exchange to a tiny two bed flat in a better area. I still earn the same low wage so couldn't afford to rent privately.

Nope. I don't begrudge anyone having a home, whether it is state funded or self funded. Shelter is a very basic need.

Totally agree OP. I live in an area with many decent sized, 3 bed council houses. Some are now privately owned but the majority are lived in by only one retired/elderly person. There are families desperate for reasonable housing.

After dependent kids have finished full-time education, their needs should be reassessed.

But there often are no smaller social housing properties to move to.

Oh piss off op.
Affordable housing should be available to everyone! It's not the tenants fault that it isn't.
Blame the government that sold them off, and didn't build more.
Blame the ones that are buying houses to live in 3 wks of the year.
Blame the fat cats that don't have to worry about money.
Don't blame the ones that were lucky enough to get social housing. That have lived there yrs. And have looked after and spent money on their homes. That have paid rent every wk/month. That could never save a deposit to buy a home.
That have the security that everybody deserves.

No one is begrudging anyone having a home, quite the opposite.

If those in social housing who could afford to rent privately did so, and those who could downsize did so, it would free up more homes for homeless people and more people would have a home.

Someone earlier said councils should build more social housing. More social housing is definitely needed but councils are often unable to as they are now given very little direct funding from government for social housing and as we know since 2010 councils funding from government has reduced dramatically.

Good info from Shelter in the massive shortage of social housing.

england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/social_housing_deficit

A lot of these people probably have secure lifetime tenancies as they used to be given routinely but in many areas that’s not the case now

But in most cases, it would mean moving away from neighbours. My mother wanted to swap the council house for a smaller one. But when she looked at what there was it would have meant moving quite a way. She got a lot of support from neighbours she had known for many years. She received low-level PIP.
Away from neighbours, she would have ended up in residential care paid for by the state.
I have no skin in this game as my parents both died in a traumatic accident.
But people are talking as if these are young people we are talking about who can easily move across town. Not elderly and disabled people who have local support systems in place. And we are largely not talking about younger retired people. People for some time have been given shorter-term tenancies that can be renewed. Only those who have been in housing for a long time have lifetime tenancies.
This would cause as many problems as it seeks to solve.

Do you honestly believe that even under the
most socialist utopian government, we could afford to let everyone live in houses suited to their needs for 300 quid a month? Really?

So force 80 and 90-year-olds out of their home and into small flats in tower blocks. It will lead to many more needing state-funded carers and residential homes.

It used to be that about one-third of people lived in social housing.
And my parent's rent was far more than £300 a month. They paid £450.

I keep seeing 300 quid a month as well. Another one to tick off.

My council house is £500 per month where does £300 come from 🤣🤣 surely it depends on area and size

But when social housing was introduced it wasn't because people couldn't afford private rents, it was because there was not enough decent houses to rent for the people in this country. It was never aimed at providing homes just for the poorest in society.
The problem is the rise in private rents because of people making money out of renters. All the people with buy to lets have pushed up market rents, as well as house prices..

Totally agree, a work colleague was able to rent an affordable social housing property and did it via her partners friend who worked for the HA so that annoyed me in the first place as it wasn't advertised and they were more or less handed it on a plate. She now has a managerial post and could easily afford a mortgage but isn't planning to budge. Very unfair.

Spot on. Given the increased costs of heating a larger home it would make sense to downsize. Also one level accommodation is helpful where there is a risk of decreasing mobility.

Excellent point, echoing my previous post that the point of council houses was to provide decent houses at a fair rent and a reliable landlord to anybody who wanted/needed to rent.

I clearly stated excluding the elderly and disabled as their needs are completely different. This post is about single adults or couples taking up a family house they don’t need just for the sake of greed/spent thousands/cheap rent with no concern about the housing crisis and how they could help tackle it.
In regards to uprooting people from neighbours, really? I’m sure they can stay in touch. People move house all of the time. You don’t always get to pick. The majority of people who bid on a property are offered something suitable for their needs and if they refuse the property they lose their position in the queue, it could be 5 miles from where they have always lived and they don’t get to demand such and such area or a certain road. The way this country is today we just have to make do and accept what we can.
I have a relative who had to spend a lot of money to make their house presentable before they could sell it. They lost a lot of money because of the area and had to accept the loss after a lot of time and energy to make it look like a nice welcoming home. Not everything is fairy’s and rainbows, you can decorate your home like Buckingham palace, it still isn’t yours.

It really is, because you have security for life which the tenant of a private landlord does not. Also you can do whatever you like to your HA home, while some private tenants can't even knock a nail in the wall to put a picture up, never mind decorate to their taste. And many landlords go entirely rogue, whereas a council HA had to stick to the rules.

So private tenants pay a lot more for a lot less.

How come your neighbour pays no rent? She's only in her 50s, is there a reason she not working and paying her own way?

I'll keep our house thanks

There's no other way of downsizing so here we stay ( taking up a home for a 'family')

i have a friend who lives in social housing. He and his “wife” earned around £100k each a year. Both are director level in different companies.
They are in 50s, got the house when they were late teens as they were young parents.

In the 20yrs I have known them they have extravagant holidays several times a year. They have lovely new cars.

They are financially able to buy. But the system has enabled them to take the piss! All these years later of abusing the system they are now able to buy the house at a massive discount under the right to buy!

There are people who genuinely need social houses. People like this CF don’t need social housing.