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 think that if you commit a crime during your tenancy, while your name is on the tenancy, your social housing privileges should be removed. You wouldn't be homeless but you'd have to private rent. People take the absolute piss.

@Bobbimagee many tenancy agreements do state a clause about criminal activity and the impact this may have on the tenancy, particularly if in the local community.

Probably also worth adding that in can be really difficult to get some police authorities to share info relating to crime. In some areas it's much better than others. landlords may not always be made aware, or be given full information unless it's in the public domain.

@andyethereweare

Yep, we were checked for offences prior to signing. We then had 1 year whereby any sniff of anti social behaviour we would be removed and then after the year we got the lifetime tenancy.

@Bobbimagee only certain crimes give mandatory grounds for repossession. Schedule 2A of the housing act 1985

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/schedule/2A

However it relies on the HA knowing the information, it’s not routinely notified! Then it needs to be a portionable response- what about partners and kids then becoming homeless?

Yep, proportionality is always the sticking point! Particularly if there are contributing factors such as mental health.

I've had so many "disagreements" with DP because he will say "I don't know how you can house (insert type of criminal) etc..."

But my view is, it's better to know where certain people are, than not know...

So should they give up their house now that they earn more? I live in social housing which I got when I earned about 20k. I now earn significantly more but cannot afford to buy a house, should I give my flat back for that reason and take me four children to private housing? It doesn't work that way

If we didn't have people in social housing communities that were improving their circumstances we would end up with slums of destitution with nobody having any incentive to improve their circumstances, would anyone really want this?

It would take a lot for us to consider downsizing when our children are grown and gone. We've spent a lot of money in the house and a significant amount in the garden. I dont think it's selfish to be reluctant to give up a home we've spent years in and time and money making nice. I also wouldn't move away from the area we know and love

No it doesn’t work that way, but the whole point of this thread is that it should.

I don’t blame you for staying put in secure social housing, rather than moving to private renting. Whilst the system allows it you’d be mad to move. I’d do exactly the same in your position, as would 99% of other people.

The point is the system needs changing to force those who can afford it (like you) to move to private rental. Thereby freeing up social housing for those who are in desperate need.

Okay, so in theory - those who can afford to should move to private rental, thus freeing up social housing in desperate need.

What then happens to a family who do this and find their landlord wishes to sell. The family can't keep affording deposit and month's rent up front for another private rent. And who's to say this family are then not any more worthy than those having been giving the house they've vacated.

I think social housing estates should remain a good mix of those who were given their house and now have maintained it well, and new tenants when in due course houses do go back to stock. Like I've said, those wishing to bring up families on housing estates, don't and shouldn't have to live in ghettos with a high turnover of tenants, little pride in the area, antisocial behaviour etc.

The real scandal is people buying their homes on RTB for next to nothing - think £10,000 to £20,000 years ago and now selling them back to councils for £450,000 to £50,000. Two of my neighbours have done this. That's a lot of money taken out of the mix which should have been shared around for public services.

Anyone who thinks people should willingly step down to private rents is off their rockers personally. Huge step down.

If they can afford it why shouldn't they? The same as everyone else. Of course they won't do it willingly, but it should be reviewed every 5 years whether they're still eligible for the social housing and if not they give it up

@Brieandcamembert
'They are not their homes. They are places the council has given them to live to keep them off the street.'
This is so wrong in so many ways.. for a lot of people having a housing association/council home is the only security they will ever have. It is where they will bring up their families, their children will grow up there and will be part of a community. People will take pride in and love and care for their homes and gardens, this will improve the community and area for everyone. Having the security and stability of a long term home is vital for families. Many deprived areas have a surplus of council houses too, especially in the North, it is not the same as in London, where children are having to live in office blocks and shipping containers. If you cannot understand how important it is for people to have 'homes' and not just temporary living solutions.....

@Brieandcamembert Actually think it's chilling that there are such cold and heartless people like you.

I'm genuinely curious to know what countries have plenty of social housing that is good quality? I think (but may be wrong) that this is a sweeping generalisation. I may be ignorant so am interested to learn.
For example - the projects in the US. Mostly not good quality - also over populated.
France - over populated, unsure of quality, but from what I understand quite run down.
Asia, Africa and Middle East - social housing pretty much non existent people live in shacks. I'm mixed Middle Eastern and Asian so have seen this all my life. You MAY find some social housing in North Africa that were French territories but these are generally very low quality.
Eastern Europe - the friends I know growing up had large families (let's say 8 people) living in flats that really were for families of 3 or 4 people and not great quality.
Happy to learn though so if anyone can enlighten me I would be really interested.

Holland

They are their homes yes, but they are homes provided by the taxpayer at a subsidized rent. So it is concerning that, for example, they are under occupied by pensioners who get the full rent paid by benefits when so many people are living in overcrowded accommodation because of a lack of available social housing.

there’s no perfect solution but I definitely think housing benefit should only be available for housing you need (for everyone including pensioners). We need to build more social housing but it’s also helpful to allocate the housing we do have better. We also need to stop right to buy at huge discounts.

Time to ban second homes and buy-to-let properties.

So where would people live if private renting did not exist? There is a shortage of rental properties as it is.

That comment is so short sighted it's actually ridiculous.

@QueenieL1 the only “surplus” social housing even in the north tends to be in the sort of areas where no one wants to live.

What have ‘rich people’ done that makes you feel as you do?

So we're back to the pensioner rattling around in a council property that's too large for them funded by benefit.

Well, not all rent is funded by benefit.

Two, that property will eventually find it's way back to housing stock. There's a shortage of smaller properties for these pensioners to move into. Does anyone really deny them living out their lives in homes they've made their own? Sad.

No one is suggesting anyone would or should willingly do that. The point is the system should change, with regular re assessment of eligibility, so people are forced to do that.

@Doris86 it’s been explained that reviews just don’t work.

Why not? If the will was there, a workable solution could surely be found. Perhaps the relevant authorities don’t have the will for whatever reason.