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).

@LuaDipa just because someone can spend a little on making their council tenancy nice, doesn't mean they can afford to buy!

We used to live in a council flat. (We moved to buy). On our floor was a lovely couple, the wife was a home carer, I can't remember what her husband did but although it was regular job he wouldn't have been earning £££. Their flat was lovely, they'd done up the kitchen, put in a shower and carpets. At a guess they'd probably have spent about 3k, this was in the 90s.

If they'd moved, they'd probably have to spend that much and more in doing up a new place, and that's without a deposit, Solicitors fees, and moving costs. I think they probably thought that as they can't afford to buy they may as well make their council flat as comfortable as possible. And why not? It was their home.

We didn't but we knew it was temporary until we'd saved up to buy.

I was waiting for some sarcasm, I’m surprised it took 18 pages, if you’re completely against sharing out social housing fairly then this isn’t the right thread for you but thanks for popping by

@Shannoncakequeen I've committed 16 years of my working life to working in housing and homelessness, so I can quite honestly say I believe in nothing more than social housing and people being treated fairly.

Difficult if you like the area, don’t drive and are established, I can see why a woman in a nice bigger house, than smaller flat.

"outlive their life" what?

"understand they can’t legally turf out people from their homes" - but you'd like to wouldn't you?

I have always wanted a social home, I suppose I'm who you are talking about. This home is mine until I die in an "assured tenancy" and I hope to stay here until I die, at which point the home can be given to a person or family who need it.

What's preventing this wonderful cycle is the option to buy the home, which I don't get, because it depletes housing stock. Also the failure to build new social homes.

I'm not outliving anything, I have a home for life that I pay for via work. I don't want a mortgage and should not be forced to have one, in my opinion.

Do you have a reason I should be forced to get a mortgage or private rent with no security because my child has left home? I don't want to owe a bank a huge amount of money. I want to be debt-free. I work to pay my rent, have worked all my life, and will receive state pension and live modestly on that and pay rent when older.

Genuinely interested in your issue with this?

My comment wasn’t aimed at you Andy, those who can’t open their mind to the system being completely wrong I can’t come to grips with. The people who think I’m unreasonable must be ok with Mary down the road in her 4 bedroom house while their family of 5 is in a studio flat for example, where’s the fairness in that?
A system that makes it fair and equal for everyone to get ‘their turn’ to raise their children in a stable home should be a right not a dream. Adults should not be owed a duty by the council once the council have fulfilled their promise of a roof over their children heads, it’s a privilege they are allowed to continue to stay in that property. I know not everybody is in a good financial position to buy or rent, but those people that feel entitled to every benefit and social property they can get without helping themselves are the ones who need educating.
also nobody should be spending thousands on a new kitchen or bathroom, the council have a duty to make it safe and usable so if it isn’t they need to act on that. Doing it for cosmetic reasons is again the tenants own choosing knowing they cannot take it with them when they eventually leave.

What happens if you need to claim rent from the council? If you need a care home who’s going to pay that as you have no home to sell? You may be debt free but you are hugely banking in the tax payer to contribute to your old age.

The gall for me is that a few years ago a social housing block was built opposite me with a couple of shared ownership flats, when I looked into buying one it turned out to be more than the extortionate rent I'm paying now. I have to sit and look at them knowing I'll never ever get one.

@andyethereweare
There are two types of housing association tenants, affordable housing and social housing.
The rent for social housing is generally paid from universal credit or housing benefit at a cost to the taxpayer.
The affordable rent is generally 80% of market rent.
Housing Associations are funded at a preferential interest rate by the state to buy and build blocks of flats which again is a subsidy provided by the taxpayer.

But for some it IS a house for life legally as they have secure tenancies with succession rights . Most local authorities stopped offering these but for those who had them they can’t change that so it’s just waiting till those ones end

I’ve said before I don’t understand why they rip out carpets /flooring

do they take wallpaper off walls ?

I think this is a huge fundamental issue with care as it is at the moment and I do feel that homeowners who end up with care needs shouldn't then have to sell their homes to cover care costs, but the government thinks differently.

If as a society, we were more comfortable with having these difficult conversations, people should consider gifting their homes to a family member (usually someone younger, like a child) so that in the event of them having care needs there is no asset to extract money from. (It may have changed but I believe so long as the property is gifted 5 years prior to the care needs it becomes nul and void)

@Shannoncakequeen

Of course I’m all for sharing that is why I plan to return this house back to the council and buy my own (and not this house with right to buy).

I have just got to the point whereby I am genuinely laughing at your 20 year contract idea. If people know they will have to give it up after that amount of time I can assure you they will just end up buying their council house. So your plan is ludicrous. It would worsen the housing crisis.

Yes they do and they don't do a very good job of it our walls were left with old bits of wallpaper still stuck them.

As previously mentioned, issues around items being gifted and then the ongoing maintenance of them. The role of the social housing landlord has changed a lot, so in many cases the representative dealing with the customer, isn't having direct contact with the contractor who just does "standard" works on empty properties, so isn't able to have the conversation to say "oh can you leave those carpets behind"

The organisation I work for does take a sensible approach to carpets and window coverings and will leave if they are clearly in good condition. But it's made clear they are gifted and we take no responsibility going forward

Though we have still been bitten (excuse the pun) when a week after a tenant moved in, it transpired the carpet was covered in fleas...

Where are all the 18 year olds that don't go to uni, going to live?

"Hello private LL I'm 18, earn NMW and have no money for a deposit.....can you rent me a house/flat/ room please?"
Yeah that'll work.🙄

I particularly liked the idea of a tenancy clause requiring social housing tenants to be grateful. I'd imagine Grant is kicking himself for not introducing that idea when he was floating pay to stay in its glorious inoperability.

Part of the issue here is the lack of importance given to housing policy by the government. The department is a revolving door of ministers who have very short term focus and a desire to have a funding stream in their own name. Plus a real lack of understanding of housing markets operating differently in different part of the country - the removal of regional government offices has been detrimental in this regard. I endured hair pulling conversations with Ministers and civil servants discussing how the bedroom tax would pan out in our regions...

However, nice to see so many housing bods on the thread!

If they can afford to buy their house they shouldn’t be in it, it’s as simple as that, the right to buy needs to go. As others have said that’s why there isn’t many social properties left which follows on from people feeling entitled to keep their large house indefinitely and also feeling entitled to take it from the list for another family when they pass away. A better contract for new tenants would change that because they would know it isn’t permanent and they would have to either rethink their housing situation or accept a smaller property when their children leave home. I’ve never once said the adult children need to be turfed out, again I stated when they have left home. Some have to stay due to disabilities or financial issues, but the majority of adult children fly the nest to marry and have children of their own and that’s when these properties need to be passed to a family in need.

I have a friend who got herself a social housing flat in outer London. She now has a mortgage with her husband and illegally sublets her flat. Have a cousin who now owns a house as she got a deal where the LA paid a deposit for her to get her out of an inner London flat. Still lives in Zone 3. All her friends have fabulous inner London flats. I cannot afford to live in the Southeast if I want to buy so have had to move away. The system is way to easy to game, and it leaves people who truly don't have the wherewithal to navigate the system in misery.

This is a common misconception.

Council housing in England is self-financing and has been for many years. The housing revenue account of all LAs in England is ring fenced, improvements and repairs to council properties are paid for from this account and it covers all the management costs.

Housing association properties are a bit more complex, because many of the older ones were built with grants from the Housing Corporation. But newer ones are also self-financing, with rents being used to repay the build costs as well as cover service charges and maintenance.

The biggest beneficiary of state subsidy for housing is the private rented sector. Private landlords receive billions in housing benefit and UC every year, which not only provides them with an income but in many pays for the cost of repaying the BTL mortgage. The "state" is paying for the assets of investors.

In the medium to long term, it would be cheaper to build more social housing than to support tenants to pay PRS rents which are invariably higher than those in social housing.

Addendum: the position in Wales was the same pre-devolution, but may well have changed since. The system in Scotland is probably different, but I don't know so can't comment.

@Shannoncakequeen

Being able to afford your council house is a lot different than being able to afford another house on the market.

The discount is rather large. You can also use your discount as a deposit therefore just because people can afford to buy their council house doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t be in it.

The deposit is essentially paid for you if you utilise the discount. So no actually it’s not just as simple as that. Your theory would worsen the housing crisis as it would most certainly push more people into buying.

My neighbour ended up buying her council house as it was cheaper than paying the additional bedroom tax. She’s medically retired so still had the funds to do so.

They will never scrap the right to buy that’s highly unlikely so you are pissing in the wind with your contact idea.

Contract.

@Shannoncakequeen You're assuming that at the end of the tenancy/or when circumstances change, tenants should and would just leave quietly.

Nope.

It's hard enough to get an order to evict a tenant when there's been a clear breach of tenancy (ASB/non rent payment) let alone because the landlord wants the property back because the tenants circumstances have changed. There's not a judge in the land that would let that one slide through.

I've carried out evictions myself (due to clear breaches) and despite it being miserable, it's expensive when you consider the turnover of properties and works you end up carrying out to a property. Then you have the housing team from the local authority up in arms because a family have just rocked up at their office with all their worldly belongings in the back of a car with no where to live.

We need more social housing and pressure on developers to increase the mixture of rental types on these new build developments that get away with the bare minimum of social housing (usually shared ownership!)

People living on temporary licence agreements for years is both illegal and immoral and not what anyone wants.

I might add that it was Gordon Brown’s raid on pension funds that helped to fuel the buy to let boom - many people lost trust in pensions and wanted to put their money into something tangible, that they had control over.

Not to mention that he scrapped mortgage interest relief for owner occupiers, while retaining it for landlords. How was that ever remotely fair, or in the public interest? I can only assume that by encouraging buy to let, Labour thought that would mean they didn’t need to bother too much with providing adequate social housing.
God knows I’m no fan of the Tories, but at least they finally sorted the mortgage interest relief one.
But the fact remains that there isn’t nearly enough affordable housing, whether council or privately rented, and new regulations to protect tenants’ rights are resulting in a lot of landlords selling up, which means even less on the rental market, and consequently rents being whacked up - just because the landlords can.

In a SW London area I watch, where not long ago £1500-1600 pcm was the going rate for a nice enough 2 bed flat, I’ve recently seen the same type advertised for £1800 or even £1900.