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).

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

And where are they supposed to find those properties? Local authorities and housing associations haven’t built any.

It's been about 30 seconds since the last benefit bashing thread

I agree. And why is it ok for private renters to be easily churned out their homes at the landlords request but council house renters have homes for life that they can buy below market rent if they want to.

I don't understand this either. Why are people so up in arms about council house people needing to downsize when private renters can be homeless with 2 months notice and no one seems to give a shit?! Its so depressing

It’s not benefit bashing is it?

As a nation we have limited stock and huge waiting lists. Why wouldn’t we want as many people housed adequately?

Why should we have huge numbers of under occupied properties?

The real answer is the build more but this is expensive and takes land - the simple solution is to ask people to downsize so families enjoy the space on the understanding when the brood leaves the parents do too.

There are lots of empty buildings (and second homes etc) that are underutilised, how about taking those into public ownership and adding them to the housing stock instead?

Why is it the poorer end of society that needs to give up what they have, the homes they've lived in and communities they're part of, instead of the people with plenty who are sitting on real estate that others need?

@category12 exactly i mean why do some need big gardens , they should be forced to sell and have a house put on there
People only want other people to have to do something not themselves

@Threelittlelambs you are also aware that the vast majority of people who live in social housing do work or have worked if a pensioner
I live in social housing , on my street there is maybe 1-2 families that don't work the rest all do or did if retired now

@spuddy56 or rather than lets drag everyone down why not campaign for better rights for privAte renters and more social housing
I work alongside older people in sometimes large houses its not as simple as just moving them out and sticking them in a smaller property

@Twawmyarse thousands of homes built near me , all of them have built hardly any social housing and have appealed halfway through the build to provide less
So the building issues only seem to be a big issue when its social housing

@Hottt its so much more complex that you make it sound
The whole idea of social housing formerly council housing was the fact its secure and a house for life
There wasn't such a big difference in rent years ago between social and private as there often is now
Its also not as cheap as people think
I pay just over £500 a month, privately would prob be £850 in my area , 5 years ago would of been more £700
Will i downsize when older , maybe , maybe not
Am I lucky to have a secure tenancy , yes . Would I rather own my own home and have to not worry about still paying rent when iM 90 and have nothing to leave my kids - yes of course
If you don't understand the system and why it was designed in the first place then you have no right to say what others should or shouldn't do

As of 2020, there were 268 385 empty residential properties.

With the move to wfh, there's also a lot of commercial properties that could be converted, as the demand has collapsed. Instead of forcing people back into the office, house people, put in infrastructure.

In my nearest city, they keep building student housing that is surplus to requirements. There are also loads of disused buildings going to rack and ruin because the owners can't afford to refit them or in one notable case are waiting for it to be at the stage of no return so he can demolish rather than restore.

It doesn't have to be all about building on green areas, we have a lot of buildings being wasted. But oh no no, let's kick out council tenants.

@Hottt its not wrong to stay in the home you have paid for and maintained for many years , believe it or not the council: ha don't do everything for you
Sometimes there are no other suitable properties to give or move too or logistics don't work as not on a bus route
Sometimes older people need a carer to live with them later on or have a child or grandchild move back in
There are so many more solutions than lets move all older people to a smaller property which doesn't actually make loads more properties available to those on the list and in many ha would probably only be a few hundred propertys anyway

@category12 so agree with this
Where we live there are many abandoned older buildings crying out to be redeveloped and old ind estates barely used
Yet they buiild on fields as often cheaper
So many solutions to the housing issue which woukd have a bigger impact that kicking people out of social housing who now earn a litle more or who have one bedroom too many
Its always a good idea to help those who want to downsize move out and have more properties suitable for older people etc but this alone would go nowhere to sorting out the housing list

And neatly 10% is owned by councils

So the push needs to be about getting those properties into use, surely, not tweaking rules about tenancies to please fans of the race to the bottom.

I think most people understand what social housing was originally designed for. Unfortunately, the ratios between average income to house price and also average income to average rent have steepened considerably. So we're no longer in that place. This is obviously exacerbated by the selling off and failure to replace social housing. But again, we are where we are, and we need to make policy decisions with the current position in mind, and in my view, shouldn't obsess about principles from an immediate post war society.

The current position I see is a two tier system where the ladder has effectively been pulled up for new tenants but those already up are sitting pretty. Some people could never dream of owning or even renting some of the properties that long term tenants are have indefinite rights to on a heavily subsidised (well, argue about that term, maybe, but at least lest agree on 'well below the market rate') rents. And I don't see that as fair.

Unpopular, but the bedroom tax was a step in the right direction, but doesn't go far enough.

So proposing to punish people who didn't buy their council houses is the answer?

It's just ridiculous. We need a lot more rent-controlled, long term tenancies, and to give up the obsession with owning and that rent is "wasted money".

We need radical reform of the way we look at housing, not punching down.

That is what I said. And the fact is if this happened many of those would buy council houses before the policy was in place.

I think yabu, making life a race to the bottom will not help anyone. if you evict people into insecure rentals then it will take away incentive to better themselves.

There is more of an issue with housing in some areas than others. Here you can get social housing if you need it. Maybe get angry at the people in charge of the provision in your area rather than the tenants.

And why is it ok for private renters to be easily churned out their homes at the landlords request but council house renters have homes for life that they can buy below market rent if they want to.

It isn’t. It’s an absolute outrage imo. Kids being made to uproot at the landlords whim, having to change schools etc. But making it so that if mum gets a pay rise you are catapulted into the same will solve nothing.

Exactly. Even if we were to be turfed out there are no suitable properties to go to.
People bitching on now and bitter saying our homes shouldn't be for life. Well they were when we got them.
We didn't create the mess the country is in. We didn't sell off all the housing stock. We aren't the ones breeding in a housing crisis and I KNOW those of you moaning on wouldn't be giving your home up when those kids leave home "just because someone else feels more entitled or out of the goodness of your heart"

And does this responsibility to pass on what you are no longer deemed to need apply to everyone? Are we supposed to give up the idea of a home for life and instead be allocated at square metre allowance per person?

Hardly anyone who is not elderly has a lifetime tenancy these days.

YANBU.