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).

The story I was told was they bought it last year and it’s costing around 30k, their kids have put the money in as my aunt and uncle have no savings and it’s jointly owned by all of them (no idea how). The house has since increased in value and is now apparently worth close to 200k according to Zoopla. I don’t know the ins and outs, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it has increased that much in value as our house has gone up in value by 95k in two years.

Ah sorry

@Elsiebear90 It sounds like you do not know the full story.
And any gift over a certain amount is taxable. If someone gives you a house or a substantial part of a house, you have to pay tax on that gift.

For the third time - only if the giver dies within seven years.

Not if they live 7 years

I don’t know all the ins and outs as I was told the story by my mum, but I just googled it and it says if the property is bought and immediately gifted there is no tax?

It’s just not possible.

Even if they paid 30k and got the maximum discount of ~85k (I think it’s a grand or two more now but for the sake of argument) that’s a purchase price of 115k.

Which is more than the maximum 70% discount allowed on the scheme in the first place, so didn’t happen.

But even if it could have happened, and even despite sharp increases in the past year, a 115k house last year can’t be worth 200k this year. Prices have gone up but not that steeply.

You are talking about inheritance tax.
There can still be capital gains tax to pay.
If the parents are continuing to live in the property they must pay rent.

www.dnsassociates.co.uk/blog/gifting-properties-to-your-children

It to mention the fact that only people living in the house for at least a year can be party to the purchase. So they can’t have all bought it jointly unless they all live there.

They’ve got no reason to lie though, they could have valued the house at 120k as an example, 70% discount is 36k, 36k plus 85k is 121k. House could have easily gone up by 70-80k in almost two years. My house went up by 95k in two years as it’s not worth that much more than their’s.

There can still be capital gains tax to pay

Which can easily be got round by living in it for a few months.

I think people don’t like to believe this stuff happens or doesn’t happen often, but I grew up in a very deprived area and I know plenty of people exploiting all kinds of loopholes like this or just straight up committing fraud in regards to social housing, benefits, tax etc. People openly talk about it there, so you hear all kinds of things, it’s very common.

What? The £85kish discount cap, caps the discount. It’s not an extra discount.

So in your example;

If the house was valued at 120k, 70% discount if that is actually 84k, which is less than the cap, so they get the full 70% discount. (But only because they’ve been tenants for 40+ years.)

So that’s a 120k valuation minus 84k discount, which means they get to buy it for 36k.

I don’t believe licks government are free styling the calculations, ignoring the law, giving double discounts or bartering like barrow boys.

No I don’t believe that.

Your figures are all over the place.

It’s probably easily possible to do the “all club in together” thing, and to get round that rule by handing the relative who is the tenant the cash, letting them buy the house and then transferring ownership into multiple joint names later.

That bit I can believe.

Licks government? 😂

Local government.

And I don’t believe any house that was worth 120k a year ago is now worth 200k. No.

Its too big a percentage increase.

Maybe an optimistic estate agent in an overheated market would try to persuade someone of that. Who knows?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t see that.

We must have different definitions of "wrong". I think it's wrong to hold onto something you don't need and don't own and didn't earn to prevent it going to someone who does need it. You'd think that people who have been through the hardship themselves would have more empathy for those going through it now but obviously not.

I'm more exercised by the top 10%, hoarding wealth & property, than people on the lower end of the scale hanging onto the homes they've brought up their children in amongst the communities they're part of.

The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax which benefits everyone, the unemployed, disabled, elderly etc.

You think it’s wrong for people to want to live in the homes they’ve inhabited for decades? And which they’ve probably paid for twice over in rent. Where are those people supposed to live?

That’s exactly what I said, if the house was worth 121k they could have bought it for 36k and with your calculations that’s 70% off and doesn’t go above the max 85k discount. I don’t know if it was worth 121k, it could have been worth less. They would have got the max discount because they’ve been council tenants for over 50 years.

They told me the house is now worth around 200k according to Zoopla, they could be exaggerating a bit or maybe when they bought it it was undervalued and now it’s overvalued. I don’t know, but a 70% discount on a house is a bargain anyway and house prices have shot up since the start of last year.

@Sweetlikechocolate6 that was 30 odd years ago , we have had plenty of time to build more

@TheWayTheLightFalls what other countries have social housing then ?

Plenty of people do downsize not all can as not always properties
Most people also pay rent and a lot of other costs
Also if paying rent for many years actually brought it 10x over
What you should be advocating is for more affordable housing for all

Oh right sorry. The phrasing threw me.

I think that’s zoopla being it’s usual optimistic self, and maybe it was undervalued to start with too, you might be right.

Considering you have to have been paying rent for 40 odd years to get the 70% off a modest house, I can’t really begrudge it, though. If you look at all the decoration and gardening and rent paid it’s just a small rebate.

My accountant is always urging me to do more proactively tax-planning things (or they were before lockdown, before my earnings fell away) and really well off people do throw themselves into those things and save £££££s. I’m much more uncomfortable with the tax tricks of the rich than small advantages the WC sometimes get.