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 these people know that and understand why it doesn't work. They also know that social housing is largely self funding and that even if it were funded by the tax payer, that social housing tenants are tax payers also, and that many of them, my family included, work and pay full rent and don't claim housing benefit.

They know this but for some sick reason they want to inflict more misery on those unable to afford to buy their own house rather than be happy that we live in a country where, in theory, everyone has the right to live in good quality, affordable and secure housing.

Social housing is for everyone; anyone can apply. There's nothing stopping anyone on here filling out the form and applying for a council or housing association house and waiting for one to come available. The reason they're not available is that people bought them cheap and then a lot of them either sold them or are letting them out: that's the problem. It's not people like me or other members of my family who rent a house and stay there.

@FreezyFreezy
Well said!

I don't live in a Council or HA property but have done in the past and fully support everyone the right to have affordable and secure housing.

I’m glad you agree with me. Affordable and secure housing for all. That’s why we need to move people on who can afford alternatives, and offer social housing to those who are homeless and more in need.

Where did I say I agreed with you? I agreed with @FreezyFreezy . Stop twisting my words.

We both agree on affordable and secure housing for all.

Council housing was always designed to be a home for life, if so desired. It's only been the last 40 years that the public have started looking down on social housing. Probably since Thatcher's era, tbh. And in many parts of the country, affordable and secure alternatives to council tenancies are few and far between, that's why many people hang on to them.

Yes I moved out of my council flat to buy, but that was nearly 30 years ago when housing in London was much more affordable. You'd be crazy to move out of council housing to rent privately simply because, you know, council housing is affordable and secure which is more than can be said for privately rented accommodation.

I maybe seen as a bit hypocritical as I used some money I inherited to buy a property (outside London) which I let out. However, in my defence, I aim to keep the rent affordable (eg I don't have a mortgage on it, and do not intend to use the rate of inflation as a reason to increase the rent as interest rates aren't going to affect me.) Any repairs are sorted promptly...in fact I've just had a running battle with the estate agents managing it as I felt they were being awkward about a repair that I'd agreed but they were dragging their heels on. I know it's hard to believe but becoming a landlord has not turned me into Peter Rachman! OTOH my main job is a community mental health nurse and I've visited people who live in absolutely appalling conditions where it is clear the landlord wanted to squeeze as many flats into one building as they can, the tenant i was visiting had a room smaller than my dog's crate, with only partial electricity and a big hole in the ceiling from a flood upstairs. I'm not saying council properties are perfect but at least you're not paying £££££ to live in a shit hold like this where the landlord couldn't give a flying fuck about the standard of housing as long as they get their rent.

OK i'm exaggerating about the dog's crate being bigger, but you get my gist. It was grim.

I've lived in my current HA house for nearly 20 years. By the time I retire in approx 15 yrs, I will have paid close to £300,000 in rent. (£700 p/m). I have always paid full rent from my wages. I would have liked to have bought somewhere but there were several reasons why I couldn't. But £300,000 would have bought me someting pretty decent in the right area. But that money is gone, I have no equity.

In addition to that I've spent a lot of money on making it into a nice home. I have a secure tenancy so why shouldn't I? I'm going nowhere. I did my time of living in shitty unsuitable accomodation and yes, I also used to resent older people "blocking" homes. But I had to wait my turn. As will other people. The shortage is not of my making and not my responsibility to try and solve. At some point, the HA will get my house back for another family, and there will be one that needs it just as much then as someone does now. It will just be helping family B instead of family A.

That is how it's always worked. Do you give all your spare cash to a charity? No, why not? I mean there are other people who need it more than you. Most people will help people if it comes at no cost to them. No one in their right mind is going to give up their home just because someone else tells them it's the "right" thing to do. I didn't create the system. It is what it is. I will enjoy my home as long as I am able.

Couldn't have put it better! Council houses were never intended to be temporary accommodation, they're our homes for life I won't be leaving mine because other people want it.

Limesaregreen · Yesterday 18:04
@Luckydip1 is that truly the case, that anyone in social housing gets rent paid through benefits??? My experience was that my Dad worked bloody hard shifts and my Mum worked part time to pay our rent. Apart from child benefit (which wasn’t means tested back then so every family got it regardless of wealth), no benefits were ever claimed.
This was the same for most families in my village.

@AclowncalledAlice @antelopevalley
Thanks for keeping me right on that one. As I thought but judging by some of the comments on here, folk think council/social housing = benefits.

I guess nowadays with a lot more home ownership, many won't be familiar with a council house, nor it's raison d'être, hence the reason for thinking along those lines. However I have not seen such a judgey, horrible thread than this in a long while and it saddens me. If this is a micro section of everything that is wrong in this country then there is a tsunami of unrest coming our way.

The greatest sleight of hand ever played was by the Thatcher government (and those that followed who perpetuated it), when they suggested that the 'right to buy' scheme helped folk afford to own their own house. It was fecked from the start because folk could always afford to buy their own house - if they could afford the repayments on a mortgage 2.5 times their salary, that was the safety check.

Check out this graph
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/how-uk-house-prices-have-soared-ahead-average-wages
The average wage has not increased in line with the average cost of a house. I guess eventually the bubble will burst, thousands will be in negative equity but house prices will be more affordable.

What 'right to buy' did was skew the market so that only people living in a council house at that point in time benefitted. They could buy their home at a vastly reduced rate and then sell it for an enormous, life changing profit after three years. This made the housing market accelerate beyond normal. But no council homes were built to replace them so look at the state of us now eh! The irony of getting more folk to own their homes just displaces the problem onto the poorer in society, who haven't a hope in hell of getting a council house, or a foot onto the property ladder.

I hate humanity just now. All of us fighting among ourselves while the real criminals are the ones we keep voting in. I actually do hope there is social unrest and this country wakes up to the shitty situation we're in. I'll be straight down there with my banner, trying not to get arrested (coz the feckers are trying to outlaw peaceful protest too). It makes me so angry.

yet she gets it for free

I think you’ll find she pays rent.

No they were never intended to be temporary. Things change though and the world moves on. When there is a desperate shortage of social housing, all options need to be on the table.

If you’ve been homeless and in the private rent trap for 9 years whilst waiting why on Earth would you then “give up” your secure tenancy? It
makes no sense from a wider point of view does it? You would be doing round and round the poverty cycle. No one in their right mind would do it just because someone said it’s the “right” thing to do.

My inlaws lived in a council house, and brought up their family in it. They weren’t well off in retirement, so they exchanged to a smaller flat, also council. The rent was a bit less, and it was cheaper to keep warm. Most local authorities operate an exchange register, and some offer incentives to downsize.

We’ve moved about a bit, so don’t have the ‘I’ve lived here all my life’ scenario to keep us in our home if it becomes too difficult to manage the stairs etc. Our problem is, we won’t get enough for our little house to make buying a retirement flat possible, and local authorities are reluctant to house owner occupiers.

@FreezyFreezy Well, not everyone is eligible. My Dad (85) is currently looking for a retirement flat and isn’t eligible for social housing, even though he doesn’t own a property. His civil service pension and his savings ( which aren’t that huge) make him ineligible.

I absolutely know this, because he’s been assessed in the past few weeks.

Op, I was one of those single people in a 3-bed family home. Why are you automatically blaming the tenants for this?

I asked about any schemes that would let me fast-track move to a 1 bed. The council woman had a right go at me for wanting to 'queue jump' , and said I just had to join the exchange waiting list like everyone else. OK, how long was the list for a 1 bed? 11 years, she said. So I didnt bother and moved out of council housing a few years later.

There isn't enough single person housing for them to move to (but she didn't have to be such a bitch about it).

Basically this whole idea is about punching down because it's easier than tackling real inequality in society, about a race to the bottom rather than giving people opportunity. Sort out the private sector with rent control and long term tenancies, build more social housing, buy up empty properties and get them into use, make owning second homes punitive.

@Doris86 yes things change, selling off council stock and not replacing it changed things, a bigger population changed things. That doesn't give anyone the right to say people should be turfed out of the homes they've lived in all their lives.
"All options should be on the table"
You mean the option to evict people from their homes, why not just say it??

When I find a (rich) man who will sweep me of my feet, impregnate me, so I can stay at home all day, then I'll think about it. Because, let's face it, we're all screwing for a better life..

That doesn't give anyone the right to say people should be turfed out of the homes they've lived in all their lives

I own my home. 4 beds whilst the kids are still here.

I’ve moved from parents to grandparents to mother home, upsized for a new sibling, downsized when 2 moved out, brought a starter home, moved to a 3 bed when the kids were little, swapped for a 3 bed better area for schools, moved to a 4 bed as they grew, now looking ahead I want to downsize when they leave.

No home is a home for life - it’s a ridiculous argument!

Im not cleaning and paying for rooms I don’t intend to use.

That's choice tho, @Threelittlelambs the OP is talking about rules to make people leave homes they want to stay in.

People only have the right to stay in their homes if the owner of the house says so, as stated in the appropriate tenancy agreement.

All I’m saying is the historic policy of lifetime tenancies (even if the financial situation of the tenant vastly improves or their situation otherwise changes) is no longer appropriate and should be reviewed.

I think true council housing should be for the most desperate people who would otherwise be homeless. I think it should be temporary, say for 5 years but without the option to extend. This gives the tenant time to get training and find a job so they are able to pay for housing themselves. The trouble with giving people the chance to extend means there is no incentive to do whatever it takes to get a job, retrain and even move to a different area. However, I do agree there should be concessions for people who are unwell, single parents, elderly etc. I only say this because there are so few council properties available and there are people really suffering who should be given this opportunity. We simply don't have the availability to continue to grant lifetime tenancies, things have to change.

But how much is the government willing to pay to resource LAs/HAs to do such checks (if it was agreed as policy) - the experience of those of us who have worked in housing is that government like to float ideas without any understanding of the administrative, financial implications of undertaking these additional requirements - the Localism Act with fixed term tenancy reviews, pay to stay, and the ridiculous idea of forcing LA's to sell off high value stock to fund an extension of the RTB are testament to governments being 'all mouth and no trousers'

The answer is to increase the number of properties so they serve their original purpose - providing secure family homes.