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).

I’m in a 3-bed CH - rent £85/week. There are 8 houses like this in my street.

2 were sold under right-to-buy, still confused as to why it’s their/maggie’s fault. They didn’t fucking vapourise when they bought them, still live there and continue to need a roof over their head. they didn’t take a bag of cash and then live in a tent in a fucking forest.

of the remaining 6, only 2 house families - the other 4 couples.

but we’re not in London.

root of problem? Too many people and too many greedy BTL thinking they’re doing the great unwashed a MASSIVE favour by hoovering up affordable housing stock.

Also just another point to consider is sustainable communities. I work and I’m a HA tenant ( and a lot do). Some don’t. Some actually can’t.

Personally I think we need more social housing rather than insecure unregulated in price private rents

Totally agree with this

Ah the lovely localism act. I mentioned earlier that FTT don’t work. Ever ended one based on income or capital? Nope. Just one big admin pain.

Grrrr, I hate when people mention ‘other countries’ like there are these mythical lands that have solved the problem. @TheWayTheLightFalls , can you be specific? I live in the Netherlands and if you want social housing, particularly in the big cities, you will have to be on the list for years.

Family homes of three bedrooms or more are extremely scarce and new, so called affordable homes, are usually much smaller and the rent considerably higher. I live in a one bedroom flat with my 15 year old daughter and I have a sofa bed in the open plan living room. I am very fortunate, my last home was a disgrace fortunately it was demolished to make way for new homes which gave me priority when searching for a new home.

I completely agree OP. I live on a council estate and there are many, many families who have council properties because they once needed them but they wouldn’t qualify if they applied now. It seems crazy that the tenants aren’t regularly means tested, especially given the huge waiting lists. Why should a person who has a healthy income be allowed to continue to take from the state while others remain homeless?

Absolutely @CornishTiger ... for the organisations who actually got to the end of the 5 years, the admin was a complete nightmare, engaging with tenants was a nightmare... and ever try not renewing the tenancy??

The costs involved in the admin alone were a reason to drop them. Totally miserable.

Imagine rocking up to someone's house, who had looked after their home, paid rent and been part of a community for 5/6 years and saying "Thanks for being a brilliant tenant. So, you had have a pay rise? New partner? Great. Now you need to find somewhere else to live"

But actually it totally went against the values of most RSLs and creating sustainable communities which is why I'm glad they died a death.

All of this.

My view is that they should continue to be means tested. I know they are when they are allocated, but I was shocked when I first came to the UK that people could continue living in them, at a reduced rent, indefinitely even when (relatively) well off.

In which case, people would pass up promotions to keep under the bar, while the self-employed would go for cash in hand.

@Wouldloveanother

Where are these 3 bed houses with big gardens that charge 300 pounds a month? Lol.

I pay a lot more than that and I’m not down south either. Deluded.

The only full security you get in housing is if you buy and that’s only with the knowledge your job is secure enough for you to continue paying your mortgage to the end.
There was a small block of flats near my town centre that were knocked down several years ago to make way for a supermarket. The tenants were rehoused to new flats. I’m sure the families living in them had made plans to stay in their home long term, May have spent a fortune decorating too, but the fact is those flats didn’t belong to them but the council who can do with them as they wish so they had no say in it. It’s never fully secure, they can ask you to leave for noise disturbance for example, an assured tenancy comes with rules. There are people who move into their home and make it nice but then have problem neighbours and are bullied out of their home, they have to leave behind the hundreds they spent on new wallpaper and flooring but do so to avoid the bad neighbours. Some people have health issues and realise they can’t manage the stairs after a year of moving in and so have to leave behind the 100ft garden they spent a fortune planting flowers in. These are the risks they take in a property that isn’t theirs. So why is asking a family to downsize to another property when they no longer need 2+ bedrooms such a bad thing? We know the government is shit so surely it’s about community consideration to care about those worse off ie those in hostels and temporary properties just so you can stay in your 4 bed for life.

I would respectfully suggest that if people have thousands to spend on their properties they shouldn’t be taking advantage of social housing.

This comment demonstrates why social housing should be means tested and reviewed regularly. People take advantage and feel they have a right to something that others need more. We need to move away from this home for life concept - housing should be a stepping stone for those who most need it. There isn’t enough housing available to provide a home for life anymore, particularly when some earn well and could feasibly buy their own property but choose remain in social housing while there are families with small children living in poverty in hostels. It’s not at all unreasonable to ask people to move to a more suitable property to make room for people who need it more.

However I do think there needs to be greater investment in order to make this possible. For example, purpose built retirement properties to enable elderly people to move somewhere with a community and free up their larger homes. I also think that right to buy should be stopped - there’s a shortage of social housing as it is so why on earth is the limited stock still being sold off.

@echt

Agreed. Also said person who lives on the estate may find anti social behaviour would increase with her ideas. It’s a shame people can’t think with a wider lens.

It wasn't Thatchers fault, it was the fault of the millions of people who voted for her, that our social housing was sold off. Vote in haste repent at leisure.

If we had a ban on building new houses then you would be write, because we would be limited to the housing stock we had and would have to manage it incredibly slowly. But that's unnecessary when we can just build more houses, and more social housing especially.

I hate hate hate the bedroom tax. It's a punitive sanction based system of trying to make people move, which often instead has the effect of having them dig their heals in deeper, because when your living in poverty you need your community more than ever. Being uprooted to a new area with no Money to decorate of furnish a new home and no way of visiting family and friends and local support, is a terrifying prospect even if you agree that the home is too big for you and a family would make better use of it. You can't just give it back, you have to find a swap with somebody else which is complicated and time consuming and often involves a chain of swaps, which anyone can pull out of. By this point the bedroom tax has crippled you financially so that your missing bills, your broadband supply gets switched off until you pay, you can't afford mobile phone credit or a bill, and your library is rarely open, so the hours spent online trying to organise a swap become even more difficult. And you've got all the other worries that grinding poverty bring, your mental health is crap and eating from the food bank.

I think incentives could work, if the council offered a decorating budget for new tenants (there used to be a pot of money for this but there isn't now) so they could afford that. Plus moving costs covered. Maybe even a cash incentive beyond that's If there was a way of councils organising swaps for people, and taking that burden off them. If there were suitable homes for them to downsize to. That might encourage people to move. But punishing them for living in their home is no kind of answer. It's just another way to punish the poor

My Aunt used to live in a rented house in Perth, Scotland. I remember visiting when I was little and thinking I’d never seen anything like them before. They weren’t council owned, some sort of housing association but each one was like a chocolate box house, detached with a large garden in a gorgeous part of town. It looked idyllic. I’ll try to find the link if I can remember the name.

People wouldn’t bother bettering themselves with a higher income if that was the case. I’ve just achieved a 1st class degree whilst living in my secure tenancy. Not sure I would have done that if I was getting means tested every few years as it most certainly led to me receiving a higher wage. I pay full rent because of this and don’t rely on housing benefit.

Grrrr, I hate when people mention ‘other countries’ like there are these mythical lands that have solved the problem. @TheWayTheLightFalls , can you be specific? I live in the Netherlands and if you want social housing, particularly in the big cities, you will have to be on the list for years.

(apologies, my reply may post twice) @AgentJohnson we’ve just spent a week house-swapping with an Austrian friend. They were on the waiting list for three years and have recently moved into a new-build flat in an outer (I think- I don’t know Vienna that well) district of the city. Two professional people and a child. Very low rent and the right to pass on the flat to descendants. The flat is probably around 1000sq ft / three bedrooms or two beds and a study.

But then they do property very differently there - my DH lived there long-term but couldn’t buy a property as a foreigner because he’d have needed to secure a special municipal licence to allow him to buy a specific, named property, which made it very difficult to buy. Priority for local residents. Compare this to the UK, where new-build flats are often marketed to foreign inventors. And property as investment generally.

Had to ask my Mum the name but here you go. Social housing done right. They’ve recently built more and won awards. Housing of various sizes so that people can live in the community all their life and the new housing is adaptable so folk can grow old there. Wow! Why can’t there be more places like this. It’s as idyllic as I remember it. Guess it takes a rich person with a philanthropic heart to put up the money first. But it can be done.

www.gannochytrust.org.uk/

Margaret Thatcher has been dead now for quite a while and she' was last in power in 1990 ,that's a hell of a long time ,successive governments including Labour could have reversed the right to buy and build more social housing t and they havent that is the issue

Once you are in social housing, why would you ever move out? You have the security of knowing you can stay there and don't have the higher cost of private renting or getting on the housing ladder.

The problem is that once you are in, there is no incentive to move out.

So if children reach a certain age(18?) are their parents just supposed to kick them out? Where is the 10 year old going to go? Where are the parents going to go (as they have to downsize)?
They will be going to the council and 2 properties will be used instead of one. How is that going to help.
We moved in to social housing this year. Eldest is 16. In two years should I throw her out or am I supposed to be able to magically afford to privately rent in two years.
You makr it sound so simple but unless you have plans to kick your child out at 16 or 18 then you wouldn't understand.

@Luckydip1

I plan on moving out of my council home in time. The plan is to save for a cash purchase. This will take me 20-30 years and I should also receive some inheritance. This is just so I can pass at least something down to my kids. I wouldn’t buy this council home it’s structurally very, very old so I’m not sure it would be a wise move even with the discount.

Having said that if I didn’t have kids then no I wouldn’t leave my council house but then If I didn’t have kids I wouldn’t have been offered this house anyway.

If there’s a 10 year old then no when that 10 year old is an adult. It’s not about leaving social housing it’s about downsizing to one that meets your needs. You’d still be under the social housing system but you would free up a house for someone who needs it and move to a property that meets your new needs ie someone without small children who doesn’t need extra space. The adult children should be encouraged to live their life not stay at home with their parents indefinitely, but that’s a different subject to the one I’m focusing on. If there was abundance of housing in every area then why is it better for a parent and their adult children to live in a 3 bedroom house for example as opposed to them being separately housed in a 1 bedroom flat each? The rule would make it more likely for those children to plan well as they’ll be aware when they reach adulthood they need to secure housing themselves. It isn’t the governments responsibility to provide for adult children.