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).

As I said upthread, someone I know has just been given a lifetime tenancy of their new build housing association house, as have all the housing association tenants in that street of the new build estate. Apparently there's been campaigning about it across the country, so lifetime tenancies are being given again.

I signed a lifetime tenancy last year. I’m over 40, but probably wouldn’t consider myself “elderly”. 😉

Hope you live an extremely long life and only leave feet-first, if only to annoy people on this thread. 😁

Ours is a lifetime tenancy. I signed it as a single young, childfree person 16 years ago when they offered me a two bed house on a street full of families. I was probably less in need of a house then than I am now tbh.

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

I have a lifetime tenancy...I'm 55 and still working, so hardly "elderly".

Signed my lifetime tenancy 2 years ago aged 32.

@AclowncalledAlice most HA still offer life time tenancies.

I know. I was responding to a poster who said that lifetime tenancies where a thing of the past and only the "elderly" had them.

Is there a set criteria for a life time tenancy?
I could understand the elderly, or disabled or life long medical condition but not a healthy individual capable of working.

Is there a set criteria for a life time tenancy?
I could understand the elderly, or disabled or life long medical condition but not a healthy individual capable of working.

So, you don't think healthy individuals capable of working should be given life time tenancies? Yes, let's create ghettos, shall we, where sink conditions prevail?

You do actually realise ,that healthy individuals who actually work live in social housing?
And before we start with the subsidised waffle again, in some areas of the country, rents on social housing are on a part with private rents .

So what is it about a mixed range of people in 1 area you don't understand?

You do actually realise ,that healthy individuals who actually work live in social housing? Yes of course.

Not at all, but generally those people have a chance to turn things round, better pay, children leave home, meet a new partner etc there’s no need for a life time tenancy.

We lived in some rough housing estates an elderly gentle man was murdered by teens the week we moved into one house, police were everywhere. The estate also had regular helicopters flying over to stop car chases through the estate.
Plenty of drunks arriving home early hours of the morning.
Plenty of people not working due to accidents injuries, alcohol abuse etc

Run down houses, no shops, no money in the local school, you name it - I’ve lived there…. I was raised looking over my shoulder, I’ve been followed, flashed at, shouted at, I’ve helped elderly neighbors with shopping, broke up fights, woken at night to drunker arguments as the next door neighbors knocked sever bells of shit out of each other whilst playing loud music.

Fun times - it wasn’t acceptable back then and shouldn’t be now but that’s the reality for some many people in this country.

A life time tenancy …. No thanks.

@Threelittlelambs So why not give families the chance to make a difference. Life time tenancies do this. People are more likely to take pride in their community. In contrast, those with perhaps a year tenancy just do not have the incentive to improve things. We do not want these ghettos.

@Threelittlelambs

People on lifetime tenancies can, and do, "better" themselves and move on. Just because a lifetime tenancy is given it doesn't mean that you have to stay there for life, it just means that the place is yours for as long as you want it, whether that's for life or not.

MIL was like this. She didn’t want to move to a 1 bed without space for her grandchildren to stay occasionally and could not afford moving costs either. But when she was offered a 2 bed in a small conveniently located block plus a small grant towards moving, it was the incentive she needed and fitted with her needs. I can see where she was coming from. I can’t imagine going from a 3 bed to a 1 bed especially if I didn’t have an income that allowed me to sort out moving and redecorating costs.

She shouldn’t have had the choice Tinsel.

Of course not because social housing tenants should just do as they’re told. 🙄

YABU. The whole point of social housing is level the playing field and provide a secure, longterm home for people in higher need of one. They don't get kicked out just because they go through the normal stages of life e.g. kids leaving home.

There is a shortage of social housing so most in the situation you describe could not simply downsize even if they wanted to.

Also stop begruding people their home.

We are in the middle of a housing and cost of living crisis. We need more affordable homes for social rent, not judgement for those who live in them!

One person shouldn’t get to block a 3 bedroom house when there are others in need should they?

They’re not, are they? They moved when a suitable alternative was offered.

No she held out for a 2 bed. Not needed IMO.

I suspect one of the political parties is testing the water with regards to certain policies for a forthcoming manifesto 😂
Make social housing temporary and means tested ✔ goes down well with the MN crowd..

Needed in her opinion. You’re not living in her house, she is. Your opinion is entirely irrelevant.

I'm just about to make enquiries of my Mum's local council about precisely this. She is 86 in a 3 bed house which she can't manage and realistically doesn't need, and I am desperate to get her into something more suitable so as to free up her house. She's only got her pension and a very small amount of savings but can't possibly afford private rental. From the time of some posts on this thread the assumption is that she shouldn't have the option to be in her house, but I would ask those posters what they would expect an elderly lady to do?