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).

@category12 missed my point entirely I give up.

@gamerchick I'm on a low income so won't be able to rent anywhere or get a mortgage whereas the person in the social housing property doing very nicely could easily get a rental or a mortgage. Is that really so hard to understand ?

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.

That's my neighbor. He's 82. Lived there the most of his life. His whole family live in the area.
Maybe he doesn't exactly need the whole house+garage all to himself, but where should he go exactly?

Again, WHY would they? Who is going to volunteer to potentially be made homeless and have to shell out coin to move?

See if you manage to secure SH, there won't be a cat in hell's chance would you give it up. For any reason and you know it.

How?

It's just common sense. If you lose your house the moment you earn more money, you're going to turn down more money.

I grew up in a council house and I can tell you that security of tenancy is really important. As a child I had a permanent home with no worries and no risk of being thrown out. We had the same neighbours for decades. The kids grew up together. We knew everyone and looked after each other. Disbanding communities and shuffling people around every few years has very negative social effects. It’s not just about “x number of bedrooms in a house” - it’s about peoples lives and relationships.

And it was important to still have the house even after my brother and I turned 18. Like most young people we had to go home during university holidays because we didn’t have the money to live independently. And we came back permanently after university because we couldn’t afford our own homes. In fact we stayed living with our parents until I was 28 and my brother was 32 - simply because we didn’t have well paid jobs and housing is incredibly expensive. And my brother was diagnosed with cancer last year so he is back living with our parents again because he isn’t able to work right now. And my DC regularly stay with my parents, which gives me the opportunity to work and earn so I don’t need social housing myself.

Having a parental home you can go back to when necessary is a vital safety net when shit happens. Why should it be restricted only to those whose parents can afford to buy a house? That safety net is a huge factor in breaking the cycle of poverty and struggle between generations.

Not to mention how devastating it is for older people to be wrenched from the homes and communities where they’ve lived for decades. Yes I know “it’s not your house, “if you want security you should buy your own house”, blah blah. But the whole point of social housing is to provide security for people who can’t afford to buy their own house.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Snap @Blossomtoes 😂

This already happens to a certain extent. My neighbour had to restrict her working hours because she was only allowed to earn x amount before they started removing her benefits. If she earned £50 extra they took £50 benefits off her. Then not only was she no better off - she was actually worse off because it had cost her £20 to go to work and earn that £50.

So if people are restricting their work in order to avoid losing benefits, they will definitely restrict their work in order to avoid losing their home.

Having a parental home you can go back to when necessary is a vital safety net when shit happens. Why should it be restricted only to those whose parents can afford to buy a house?
Nice how you assume those who own a house benefits from all the advantages you've had.

My best friend had to move to a one bed flat after her divorce because that's all she could afford. No more lovely garden, no more room for her uni kids and no nice made up room for the grand kids. Her kids will have to get their own place, private rent and still try to save for a deposit.

My other friend will have to sale when she retires because she won't be able to pay off the full mortgage and doesn't have much if a private pension. No room for her kids to come back.

As for me, I move 7 times whilst growing up. Mix if private renting and house owning. Yes, it would have been lovely to stay in the same neighbourhood, keeping the same friends, not changing schools so often.

This is life for many. The growing sense of entitlement to have it all whilst paying little is sickening.

So your solution is to turf people out their homes, could end up anywhere and miles away from family and vital support networks.

Why not make a thread bashing the government for stealing tax money for years, for creating the housing problem and harrassing your local mp and encouraging everyone on your thread to do the same so power behind many might make a change.

Instead, you drum up support for the shittiest solution possible potentially leading to it being snapped up by the torries if its fed back to them that statistics now show that's what is becomming public perception of how their failings could be solved. I doubt they'd hesitate to go that far, as has been mentioned in pp's of local authorities already going down that route, instead of addressing the housing problem.

Reminds me of all those benefit street and benefit fraud programmes which popped up on TV presenting those on benefits as theiving lazy people when in reality they only make up a tiny % compared to, say, elderly people, single mothers/ fathers who have zero support to be able to work, or those in their 60's who struggle to get employment and people with genuine disabilities who cannot work or who are employed but can only cope with so many hours etc. And once public perception was changed government swooped in and decimated the benefits to get out of addressing the living wage problem knowing no one would complain because, after all, people on benefits were now seen by the general public as scum. All deliberate social conditioning and you come across as that person who falls for it.

I live in SH. I also work as a contractor and choose my own hours. When it was touted a few years ago to increase rent in line with income I was prepared to cut my hours to keep within the “threshold” for my current rent, if it was necessary. Which btw is not super cheap, just under £750 p/m. I’m also single so don’t have a partner to share costs. Why would I work more hours for it just to be taken in increased rent? This is where that plan falls down. People would use whatever tactics they could to not pay more. I don’t claim any UC or anything whereby they could “force” me to work more hours so that was (and would be) my plan.

I also won’t be downsizing later out of any “moral duty”. If it suits my needs and there’s a suitable property available, I would consider it. But otherwise I’m staying put. I’m not putting myself in a worse position for the sake of a stranger, most people wouldn’t if they’re being truly honest. Would homeowners sell their home for what it cost them, to help a struggling first time buyer? Of course not. Do private landlords avoid putting up rent as it will leave their tenants struggling? No. Why is it only SH tenants that should be considerate of other people needing a home? No one else cares!

As for me, I move 7 times whilst growing up. Mix if private renting and house owning.

That was my childhood - five moves and three schools by the time I was eight. Forces brat.

So your solution is to turf people out their homes, could end up anywhere and miles away from family and vital support networks
Home owners are at times forced to do so for various reasons. It is too bad for them but should never happen to social housing tenants?

It was a labour initiative but carry on

That was then taken forward by the Conservatives

The difference is homeowners choose it.

The difference is homeowners choose it
Yes, all those who got repossessed and those who will if I test rates keep going up will chose to give up their home. Those who partner tell them they are out if the relationship/marriage and the house will need to be sold, their choice, those who lose their job, become ill and can't pay the mortgage any longer, their choice.

Proving my point, some have become so entitled, they can't see further than their own lives assuming everyone else have it so good and they too deserve the best.

This is why we need a safety net of social housing for those who become eligible and basically a re-imagining of the housing and rental market. It's not people in social housing that are the problem, it's the bigger picture.

It's quite a responsibility to be a home owner

It's a commitment and the interest rates can change

You have to pay for any repairs and insure your house and mortgage payments if you die

Homeowners have already had the advantages which enabled them to become homeowners. Social housing tenants have not. The whole point of social housing is to break the cycle of generational poverty which is driven by instability.

@vivainsomnia your friend CHOSE to get divorced which resulted in having to move to a one bed flat (which she presumably owns). And your other friend is selling to downsize and BUY a smaller property. It’s not the same as someone who gets shunted between crappy private rentals for decades on end. For them, a stable long term rental makes all the difference. And tenancy laws in the UK are shit so the only way to have stability is to live in social housing.

When you become a homeowner it’s your responsibility to keep that status. Choose a reliable partner, don’t over extend yourself financially, pay your insurance, etc. Yes it IS your fault if you failed to make a success of your marriage or failed to pay your insurance and that resulted in losing your home. Someone who owns a home but fails to make a success of it is NOT the same as someone who has never had that opportunity in the first place!

And if you fail to keep your home and fall far enough back into poverty then you’ll be eligible for social housing to give you a leg back up again. Which is what it’s for.

I totally get where the OP is coming from but it’s not the councils fault people keep popping out xyz children then expecting to be moved when the properties they live in are not longer adequate. The councils job is to give you a roof over your head, which is what they’ve done (not saying the OP lives in council, but in general). The people living in the bigger houses were in the same situation as you at one point. There is no where to move them on anymore. That’s not their fault. There’s also no guarantee that that property would be yours ever either as there’s thousands, millions even, of people trying to join council lists every day. I don’t think it will ever be better than it is now, and it’s shocking now.

It should be based on circumstances. If they have had a dramatic increase in they're income maybe encouraged to save for a deposit on a mortgage. I don't think it's right that you are allowed to buy your council house though. Our LA hasn't built any new homes for over 40 years. There is a housing association but they're lists are overloaded. They built a few but they now buy empty home's in desperate need of renovation to rent out which is better. They have done full streets and saved them from demolition and completely transformed them.