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).

Yes I think Zoopla over estimates, apparently our house has gone up a huge amount in just over two years, but I really don’t think anyone would pay what they’re saying it’s worth tbh.

I grew up very working class, but I would say on paper I’m middle class now in terms of education, salary, occupation, social circle etc. I know a lot of people from my background who are exploiting loopholes and committing tax and benefit fraud and a lot of them are no where near “poor”, they’re just greedy and know how to work the system/avoid tax or both.

I don’t agree with it, but I tend not to get too worked up because I couldn’t live with knowing at any point I could be investigated and owe thousands and risk going to jail, as I’ve also seen a lot of people caught out and get into trouble (most recently my wife’s uncle who exploits any loophole he can find and when he can’t find a loophole he just commits fraud instead).

TheWayTheLightFalls what other countries have social housing then ?

I answered about 20 pages back with my experience of Vienna in Austria. I think others have written about other (esp European) countries.

It's not an either-or situation though, is it? You can think both are wrong - two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong to hoard something you don't need to the detriment of someone who needs it. I think it stinks of hypocrisy to take help when required but then refuse to pass that help on when others are in need.

It's not wrong to want to. It's wrong to do so. It's wrong to hoard something you don't need to the detriment of people who do need it. It's wrong that people who were in need were allocated something but feel absolutely no responsibility to pass it on to the next person in need when they're no longer in need themselves - it's greed, pure and simple.

You don't purchase something by renting it.

They're supposed to live in properties of an appropriate size for their need.

Is it really “hoarding” to occupy - securely - a small 2 or 3 bedroom home for most of your adult life? These aren’t large family homes. They’re mostly very modest. One reception room. One bathroom.

It’s good for individuals to have a stable home for as long as they want it. It’s good for communities to have continuity of occupancy. What we need is many more small 2/3 bedroom homes that are affordable to buy or rent in secure tenancies. We need more security of tenure for private tenants. We need some sanity is housing economics.

You don't purchase something by renting it.

They're supposed to live in properties of an appropriate size for their need.

Who are “they”? People? Or just the peasants?

Who are "those people"? The peasants? You're the one using othering language, not me.

‘Maybe I am bitter’ sounds like it 🙄

I didn’t say “those people”. 🤨

YOU said “they are supposed to live in…”

Who are “they”?

It's hoarding for one person or a couple to occupy a 3 bedroom property when it's needed for a family.

You're correct that it's good to have a stable home, but not when it comes at the expense of someone (especially children) having a home at all - and that's the situation. Allowing couples in their 50s/60s/70s/80s to live in family homes prevents families with children having a home. In an ideal world, everyone would get everything they want and no one would go without. Back in reality, it's not fair that people who want something trumps the people who need it.

I'm sorry, my mistake, the person I was replying to referred to them as "those people"...and you didn't call them out even though they were the one using othering language and I was using a neutral term.

"They" in my comment is referring to people who remain in properties that are too large for their need and prevent those properties being allocated to families who need them (as you're fully aware, so not sure why you're asking).

Home owners do it all the time.

My parents are knocking around in five bedrooms and three receptions on their own. It’s so very common.

There is something wrong if cheap housing is so very scarce that we have have to boot low-income little old ladies out of their family homes where they’ve lived for decades.

So when are the Royal Family going to stop hoarding their multiple palaces and mansions? They have 3, 4 or 5 houses per couple.

@HinchcliffeandMurgatroyd @antelopevalley

As I've already said:
"It's not an either-or situation though, is it? You can think both are wrong - two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong to hoard something you don't need to the detriment of someone who needs it. I think it stinks of hypocrisy to take help when required but then refuse to pass that help on when others are in need."

Well clearly “they” are NOT “supposed to live in properties of appropriate size” because there is no policy that says so. They are “supposed” to be allocated a tenancy of a home of an appropriate size at the time they qualify for it and then they have a secure lifetime tenancy. Which is why people feel able to lavish money and care on their homes and gardens.

Its just so weird to attack the blameless tenants for living peacefully in accordance with their legal tenancies. Blame policy makers.

Besides the baby boomers houses (owned and rented) are all starting to become available now and that will continue in coming years.

You really think that all the current policies are how things should be?

I'd happily move into a smaller property, less to maintain and heat, smaller garden and I don't expect live here forever, I have a tenancy as long as I behave myself, but that tenancy can be any of their houses/flats.
Unfortunately the flats are all located in very popular areas and don't come up that often, the rest are three bed homes, like the one I live I'm, as tbh the village I live in has a few houses empty - there's nothing here, it's out the way and no one wants to live here, I think the HA are just happy to be getting rent (from, hold on to your hats here, my wages that I earn, because it's not free, sorry to disappoint) for this place too because it's a maisonette and isn't the best situated and hasn't been updated since first converted from a shop, but I needed it and am grateful for it, I would not be able to afford private rental, I'd be happy to move to a smaller place for a family, but no one wants to live here and there's nothing available for me to move to anyway.

I don't think they are blameless. I think they're partially to blame. I hold them partially responsible. And I didn't attack anyone.

Not to mention, this thread is asking about changing the policy and apparently that's unacceptable to you...

Really the only people with lifetime tenancies not affected by bedroom tax and who still have a tenancy with right to buy tend to be very elderly people.
Make them downsize if you want. But most will simply buy their current homes before the policy is enacted.
My parents had a council house like this, they did not buy as they wanted it to be rented to a family in need when they died. If they were told they were going to be forced to move, I would have remortgaged our house and given them the money to buy it. Then there would be fewer council houses available.
Lots of elderly people do not buy their council house because they do not believe it is the right thing to do. But their beliefs will only carry them so far.

The only way to solve the housing crisis is to build much more social housing.

And for this to happen it needs to be a lot easier for developers to get planning permission to build and remove all the arbitrary laws in place such as solar panels/green roofing or whatever ridiculous thing they bring in next.

We need someone with some gumption in government to push this through but I can't see it happening any time soon frankly. Instead they'll just keep on penalising/taxing landlords and bringing in evermore ludicrous rules forcing them to continue to sell up in droves as is happening now and taking even more rental accommodation off the market.

I think you can’t say that people are “supposed” to do things when what you mean is that you wish they were compelled to do them.

Right? OP wants the policy changed and I disagree. So I said that I disagree and why.

The politicians need to set a fixed percentage of new schemes to be for social rent. The current system is a negotiable 30% affordable and the developers argue that it is not viable and often the percentage drops to just 10%. Of the 10% the developers try always argue against social rent housing which is why only 6,000 social rent homes were built last year. It's a disgrace. The home builders lobby government so that the affordable housing element is not fixed and have so far got away with it. We need a PM who is brave enough to stand up to them. They will say that they won't be able to make a profit any more but the reality is that the value of the development sites they buy will fall and once this happens they will still be able to make money.