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).

@x2boys

I know right. She will soon have a place of her own (security) but wants to start a thread about how council tenants are entitled? I’m not buying it. She’s furious she has to save for a deposit whilst privately renting ,whilst her neighbour sits pretty living an “idyllic lifestyle” and no doubt cheaper rent.

That is basically the whole thread summed up.

I know a couple with a joint income of around 90k with one of them working part time (they both work for tfl so also get good holidays, pensions and annual leave), they have one child who is now 16, yes when they got their council house they were young and in poverty, they are now in their fifties and well off, multiple long haul holidays a year, Mercedes on the drive etc. There are young families or single mothers in refuge in their borough (east London) who are in hostel accommodation or worse for years because there is nothing available. They have the means to support themselves, they should do so, the leg up was there when they needed it.

It's not just their house, it's their home where they've put down roots, brought up a family, made a life, built a support network.

I think it's extremely sad for incredibly wealthy people to have ginormous houses with multiple rooms that they hardly use while there are families in BnBs and people on the streets. I think they're more morally bankrupt than the people who have made a life in a council house often after adverse circumstances and would like to stay put to be able to have their grandkids or help out adult children when needed, or just to stay in the communities and home they love.

Isn't it a disincentive to get a better job if you would then have to give up your council house? Better to stay on benefits in that case.

Yes I think it would just lead to a culture of people declining better paid jobs or dropping hours etc to avoid losing their home

Even if it was subsidised by the tax payer, which it isn't, as multiple people have pointed out over the thread, it's as though they don't believe that us council house tenants don't pay tax; as if they think we're somehow exempt from paying tax!

I work as full-time as I can be (I'm a supply teacher and work as much as I can) and pay tax on my earnings. Our household pays full council tax. We pay road tax. We also pay VAT on almost everything we buy and most services we pay for. How are we not taxpayers?!

It isn't a "free" house either; we pay full rent (works out at around £420 pcm for a 3 bed semi in West Yorkshire) and by the time we die we'll have paid more rent than our neighbours who bought theirs for £110 a few years ago. When we got a new kitchen, our rent went up to reflect that.

I added an extra "don't" in the first sentence. Whoops!

FreezyFreezy You’d have a job paying road tax - it was abolished in 1938 😂

you probably pay car tax if you pollute, electric cars and a few others are exempt

Have to LOL at the naff old trope about social housing being funded by the taxpayer. Always comes from people who are bitterly jealous that they haven't got social housing. Oh it's also UNTRUE.

Also @Shannoncakequeen you say YOU grew up in council housing. So I gather then, that your parents handed their tenancy in on their council house some years ago, seeing as how their children are not living at home anymore? Of course you will probably say you've got a multitude of younger siblings now won't you??? .... (conveniently...)

Also, you do know, do you not, that many social housing landlords do not give out lifelong tendencies anymore? So at least get your facts straight if you're going to carp and whine about people. You really do get more bitter and jealous with every passing post.

we need to build more social housing, not turf people out of existing homes

Agreed. Most people with lifelong tenancies are in their eighties and nineties.
No politician is going to want stories of elderly people with dementia forced to move house, and quickly leading to a home of their death.

Most council housing contracts are around 5 years now, but can vary from as little as 1 year (a starter tenancy) or as long as 7, 8, 9 or 10 years. Nobody gets a life time tenancy anymore, but most people will have it renewed unless they no longer meet the requirements for it.

Over a million people are waiting for a council home, and it's estimated that over 100 thousand children are homeless in the UK. Some areas the wait is a matter of months, but for many its years, sometimes even decades.

We have a housing crisis, a cost of living crisis, and are at the beginning of a recession that is already devastating the lives of many, and effecting the lives of more. So those numbers and waiting times will get bigger. There will be considerably more people, including considerably more children, living in emergency and temporary accommodation, which Is an incredibly inefficient system which generally results in people living in inadequate housing, paying over the odds (using housing benefits to pay for it because universal credit housing allowance just would not cover the cost of rent) to private landlords, via the council, who also do not benefit. It's money going out of the public purse and straight into the landlords hands. And unlike in long term council homes, the landlords do not have the same responsibilities to the person living there, who will be under a tenant or license agreement which does not give them any of the same rights as a private or council tenant normally would. These homes often are overcrowded or severely overcrowded. We have returned to the slum landlords of the early 20th century before the welfare state and investment in social housing pulled people out of devastating poverty and destitution and gave them homes they could be proud of (alongside jobs that paid and public services paid for through NI, and that the wages went back into the public purse so could be reinvested in more house building and all the other wonders of socialist policy like the NHS healthcare, NHS dentistry, education, public health, and social services/ social care, unfortunately all things now being dismantled, some more obviously than others). And now we are seeing the resurgence of the kinds of diseases and social problems that we had made progress in reducing, and in some cases eliminating, and it always starts with the premise that not everybody deserves a home, healthcare, heating, hot water, education, a car or petrol to put in it, money from the government for their living costs, dental work, etc. It's not even to do with deserving it, if we can afford to give every citizen a adequate quality of life including a place to call home, why would we not do that?

Literally signed a lifetime tenancy last year and I’m 50.

Council homes weren’t originally intended for those in desperate need, they were there to give affordable housing to working class families so they had a forever home. This ensured a stable workforce and community. That is the main reason they give life long tenancies.

They aren’t subsidised by the tax payer. Mine is rented on a non profit basis which means the rents are used to maintain the properties which will have been paid for many times over by now as it’s an older house. Because the rent is at a sensible level for a low income I can pay it myself without help from housing benefits. I would need help with private rental rent prices.

The real problem isn’t that tenancies are life long but that housing stock has been sold off leaving fewer available for the number of families who can’t afford
current private rents or get mortgages.

Assured tenancies are given out these days as the costs and lack of success of fixed term tenancies meant it didn’t really work @Crochetandcoke See previous posts by @andyethereweare and myself.

Succession rights aren’t as generous though ( localism act 2011)

A lot of the rents aren’t that cheap either. When I signed mine at 70% of “market value” I really did wonder how the valuer could justify their valuation. Other comparative houses were not 30% more. Maybe now they are but they weren’t 5 years ago.

When I used to sign up new tenants too you could see the relief with some people that they were finally able to set down roots, relax with security, not have to deal with rubbish landlords not doing repairs. They could make their house a home. It was the best part of the job. I’ve seen many families able to improve their circumstances with the security of a home.

Decent housing officers have a good sense of which tenancies will run well and which ones you need to watch.

I have always said access to secure decent accommodation is a right but one that comes with responsibilities to look after it.

The amount of true social rent homes being built is very low, just 6,000 in 2020.

My parents in their 50s/60s are still living in a 4 bed HA house, my adult sister is currently living there but that still leaves 2 bedroom free. They do have 4 adult children so have grandchildren who come round etc.

They love the area and will be there for a while yet...

Yes @Luckydip1 and that was a government decision - requiring more properties to be let at "affordable rents"

Yep @Luckydip1 - often it looks like more because developers will show "affordable housing" on their plans without specifying that many of these will be shared ownership, and very often affordable rent which is not much less (20%) than market rent.

You're so right @CornishTiger - can you imagine how much more satisfied these tenants are knowing they have a roof over their heads, how much more willing they'd be to invest in their communities and make their house/flat a home....

Giving someone the stability of secure accommodation is something we should aim to do for everyone, not take it away.

@CornishTiger

Sorry that's what I meant that an assured tenancy gives they tenant considerably more rights than somebody in temporary or emergency accommodation who often are a licensee not a tenant

@CornishTiger that’s lovely to read. 😍 my housing officer popped around to see how I was settling in just as I was trying to bundle the kids into the car. I greeted him like an old friend and we always joke about when I’m getting my en-suite. It’s hard to put the value on a secure tenancy.

@CornishTiger I can only dream of this.

@Crochetandcoke remember that 40% tax is likely to be paid straight back to the government on the private rents paid to landlords. The government loves this.

The government also get capital gains tax when the landlord sells. Many landlords have sold already, as BTL isn't a good way to work anymore following all the changes in legislation that make it unprofitable, eg the reduction in costs that can be claimed. This means higher rents for the even lower housing stock available.