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).

She’s not working, so no.

@Velda

That's quite harsh, relationships and marriages break down and there is usually fault on both sides regardless of what housing you have

I agree. I do think people who can afford to buy a house should be encouraged to do so. Moving from one stable home to another and vacating their social housing property for someone else. But I do NOT think that people should be encouraged to move from a stable rented home to an unstable rented home as soon as they make a little bit of money. That will just lead to them falling backwards into poverty again.

There is quite a disturbing attitude evident in some commenting here.

Those who live in social housing must stay poor, must stay in high need of all of their bedrooms, must not dare to think about living a full or pleasant life! Not whilst accessing an affordable rent!

There is some obvious jealousy and class prejudice showing up here.

(Already far too few) people are offered social housing because they have a higher need for it than others. Social housing is given to those in greatest need first. This is a good thing.

Sometimes people who live in social housing, and therefore have some stability, do go on to earn more, change their family composition, dare to get old!! That is perfectly natural.

The answer isn't to shun people back into unstable housing and poverty the moment they seem to be doing alright. The answer is for the government to make more effort to ensure EVERYONE has access to decent, affordable housing.

Let's not just claw each other down.

My point is that it’s the government’s job to give people a leg up from the bottom by providing social housing to help them climb out of poverty. But once you’ve climbed out it’s not the government’s job to keep you there - you have to do that for yourself. If you own a house and make bad financial choices or bad life choices that result in you falling into poverty, that’s on you.

The answer isn't to shun people back into unstable housing and poverty the moment they seem to be doing alright.
And basically it comes back to the problem that all housing in the UK is unstable unless you own it or it’s social housing. If private tenancies were more reliable and long term (like they are in other countries) then people wouldn’t be so much in need of social housing.

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
For every single person in this country? No more home ownership, no more taxed paid as a result of selling, giving it to families, rental tax....but somehow enough money from the gov to subsidise everyone .....ok.

When you become a homeowner it’s your responsibility to keep that status
But council owners should face no responsibility at all. Why can't they be responsible for repairs and maintenance for a start?

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
Maybe I'll accuse all those who end up in social housing to have failed to get higher education, failed to save enough, failed to wait to earn a high salary before having kids or even fail to marry rich? What an utterly idiotic post to say that homeowner are at fault for losing their home if they failed to make a success of their marriage, especially when indeed, a large number of social housing residents are themselves people who gave gone through separation in the first place.

I have no issue with social housing. Any society requires it but this thread shows exactly what it has become, a mean of entitlement to those who gave less than others, bitter and therefore believing they are hard done by and therefore deserve everything that is otherwise luxuries for most.

So no responsibility for social housing tenants not to make bad financial choices

Maybe I'll accuse all those who end up in social housing to have failed to get higher education, failed to save enough, failed to wait to earn a high salary before having kids or even fail to marry rich?
In general social housing tenants are not people who have had opportunities and failed. They are people who have never had the opportunities in the first place. Social housing provides a foothold for them to create these opportunities for themselves and future generations.

But council owners should face no responsibility at all. Why can't they be responsible for repairs and maintenance for a start?
Because it’s not their house! Nobody is responsible for repairs and maintenance on a rented house. The landlord is responsible. That’s how the law works.

Those who live in social housing must stay poor, must stay in high need of all of their bedrooms, must not dare to think about living a full or pleasant life! Not whilst accessing an affordable rent!
NO ONE is entitled to this just because they exist. What a self-centred spoilt attitude this is.

Whether you own your home, are privately renting or social housing resident, all this is what you work hard to aspire too and consider yourself grateful when you do have it.

Noone over a certain salary should be entitled to have even more safety of housing than home owners, paying less than they do in mortgage, with no costs for repairs and maintenance.

If people prefer to earn less to keep this privilege, than that's a sad choice but their choice. Worse are the single mothers who get lovely social houses and then get their well earning partners and then husbands to move in with them. It's disgraceful and so selfish when they are struggling families who are in such desperate need of a home.

in times when it is so hard to get a social home, such opportunities should not be accessible.

A lot of noise being made at the moment about masks being brought back in so soon the social housing tenant haters will be trying to tell us we are all in this together again. oh what larks

Exactly that.

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

While at the same time moaning that there are no relatives to help care for elderly patients to help ease patient flow in hospitals You cant have it both ways.

Around here, all the HA properties are lifetime tenancies. Providing the rent is paid, and there's no ASB, you can stay for life.

Income or age is not factored in to it.

Perhaps it depends on the HA involved.

I certainly wouldn't give up ours to go into a private rental.

I live in The Netherlands and in theory, your entitlement to social housing is dependent on your income. However, no one is prepared to force people out of their home so nothing changes. Students still living in student accommodation years after graduating because there aren’t enough affordable homes to move into and pensioners not downsizing because they don’t want to leave the areas they’ve lived in for decades.

The people you speak of are in the minority, the biggest problem is the lack of social housing and you know which party is responsible for the sell off.

Worse are the single mothers who get lovely social houses and then get their well earning partners and then husbands to move in with them.
LOL I can assure you that social housing is NOT better than privately owned housing, and people who can afford to move out generally do!

When you live in social housing there are lots of restrictions. You can’t choose your own kitchen or bathroom or windows etc, you’re stuck with the low quality that the landlord installs. You can’t modify the house and they don’t update the property regularly so you might have a 20 year old kitchen for example. If you have a fault you can’t get it fixed immediately, you have to call the landlord and wait weeks/months possibly even years, repeatedly pestering them to fix stuff. And the repairs will be done as cheaply as possible and will look shit and not be done to a good standard.

That’s before you even consider restrictions like you’re only allowed to have guests for a limited period of time and you’re only allowed to be away from your house for a limited period (I think it used to be max 3 weeks per year otherwise they took the house off you). And you never know who’s going to move in next door - in a private house your neighbour will probably be an employed person who can afford to buy the house, but in social housing you could get addicts or asbos or anything next door.

You seem to have romanticised the idea of social housing as something amazing which wealthy people who can afford to live elsewhere are unfairly living in. That’s not the case at all! It provides stability and a leg up for those at the bottom of the heap, and those who are able to get on their feet and buy their own house generally do.

But council owners should face no responsibility at all. Why can't they be responsible for repairs and maintenance for a start?

What maintenance and repairs are you talking about? There are many things a HA tenant is responsible for that private tenants are not.

and you’re only allowed to be away from your house for a limited period (I think it used to be max 3 weeks per year otherwise they took the house off you)

This always has to be explained to the thickies at the back who are always asking why Brits arent taking the live in fruit picking jobs.

Yes I think you’re being unreasonable. Life circumstances can change and this is people’s HOMES, that they’ve built a life and memories in. Moving is very traumatic especially when you don’t want to/are forced to. How about building more homes/renovating homes instead of forcing people out? I have family members who are under occupying and they are able to support the family by giving them a place to stay if needed/hosting family gatherings. That shouldn’t be something only middle class/rich people can have. Don’t punish people for the government’s failure to provide enough housing/sort the housing crisis and that’s what you do when you force people out.

Totally agree with this

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

So not needed for a relative or carer to stay in to provide care. You remember those relatives dont you @Cuppasoupmonster the ones you are always moaning about on the NHS threads. While you also moan about elderly people being stuck in hospital. Well part of the reason for that is no suitable home to go back to as well as lack of social care. Id bet a penny to a pinch of shit you would come out with the "we are all in this together" bollocks when it comes to masks though.

I’m not giving up my council house for anybody and that includes when all my kids move out. We were homeless for a while then private rented in a 2 bed flat on top of each other. I was on the list for 10 years before I was offered my house and ever since life was on the up! I completed an OU degree got myself a much better paid job and now can very comfortably afford the rent. Stop being so bitter and redirect your frustrations where it’s required and not at those people who had to hit rock bottom to get help (that often took many, many years).

Well, when we moved here, 15 years ago, from previous SH, we knew we'd stay here. So, we had the kitchen and bathroom torn out, and got designers/installers in to do it to our spec. We also had the bedrooms fitted out by professionals.

The HA were fine with all this, but made it clear that we were now responsible for any repairs/maintenance to it all. Fair enough.

All we get now are the basics, but it was our choice to improve it all, so we just pay privately.

I can't remember the last time the HA did anything here, other than yearly gas boiler/electric checks and servicing.

You're lucky....mine won't let me change anything in mine.

So you are now blocking someone else from better their life? And forcing them to be housed in a hotel/one room…. Why?