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).

I don't think you've thought your argument through , OP.

Imagine a young couple who both worked in menial jobs. They're in their twenties and got married. They couldn't afford to buy and private renting hardly existed.
They approached the council and after a few years, whereby they lived with parents in a back bedroom and had a baby, they were offered a council house.
They move in, their family grows, they decorate and do DIY, they tend their garden then their children grow up and leave their home.
This couple are now in their sixties or seventies.
They love their garden and it's a source of great joy.
Would you be happy for them to be turfed out into a flat with no garden? Their lives will probably have diminished to just their home and their garden. Why should they have to move?

Given that many people, now, in social housing, can't even be bothered to apply a lick of paint or mow their grass as they don't think it's their job, why should these people get priority on a house above someone who's lived in a house for forty years and looked after it?

no, unless you are suggesting that other people who buy their houses with too many bedrooms also are forced to downsize.

people in social housing are still paying for their house, it just happens to be to a council or association. They are under no obligation to downsize just because the gov allowed such housing to be sold off, and/or refuse to build more.

Yep. When we got our 3 bed it happened so fast I had recently laid brand new carpets in our old flat. They ripped them all out. People are surprised at the condition social housing homes are let out in 🤢

I had only needed new carpets due to a massive leak the HA ignored for 2.5 years until my downstairs neighbours ceiling caved in. It had managed to destroy my 4 year old carpet in 3 rooms.

I have posted about this before, but.....
I was offered a 3 bed new build in 2019. At the time I had 2 dc still at home.
By 2021 one had bought her own home and the other had gone to uni.
I contacted my HA to ask them if they had any one bedroom places available for just me.
I love my home and didn't want to leave, however I know there are plenty of families in need of it.
The HA reply was that I wasn't in need of a home, ie I wasn't homeless, I wasn't struggling to pay my rent, and I had no health issues that required me to move. Therefore they couldn't help me

I'm on all the home swap sites in the hope of finding somewhere myself. My home is in great demand, however my rent is very high for a HA house, so I haven't yet found anyone who can afford it.

I also agree with OP

Their lives will probably have diminished to just their home and their garden. Why should they have to move?

Because people who rent privately have to make these sort of decisions all the time? Why are SH tenants exempt from the rules that the rest of us have to live by? If I couldn’t afford my mortgage the bank would repossess my house. They wouldn’t listen to me saying how much I love my garden and the fact my bedroom has a lovely view.

Tenancies are not handed on. Where my parents lived the tenancy could be handed on once to someone living there. My parents, like many older people had the tenancy only in my fathers name. So when he died it was handed on to my mum. Myself, my brother and sister had no right to a tenancy.

Those who are against my view, can I ask how you would feel if you were in an unfortunate position that made you lose your home? You had no other option but to apply for social housing. They placed you into a tiny dirty hostel with people you have no knowledge of and who could be dangerous. You then have to wait years to house yourself and your family because my neighbour is lounging in her 3 bedroom house that she brags about which could have been yours? You’re then housed on the top floor of a tower block full of drug addicts. Would this make you see that those (not elderly or disabled) who are living comfortable in a property too big for them are affecting others around them? Then would you agree that the government should introduce a system to make social housing temporary so you knew you’d be housed in a safe secure home while your children are small? Some of you are completely missing the point and I presume fall into the category of feeling more entitled to your home than a homeless family for example, because regardless of the policies or lack of properties there are still many families who are in a position to give up their social housing home and chose not to.

I'm always baffled by the assumption that if you keep your council house nice, tend the garden, paint the walls etc, then you've got some God-given right to stay there for ever. Why? You don't own it, you rent it, and as such you can't expect to stay as long as you like. Like many people, I privately rented in the past and the owner wanted to sell so he gave me notice. I'd decorated, I'd done the garden, I'd made improvements in the 9 years I'd lived there. But it wasn't my house, so when I was told I had to move out, I had to move out. That's how it should be if you rent.

They need to be building more suitable homes for elderly people to move to.

In my town they only have about ten bungalows available, plus some two storey flats, but they don't have a lift in them which renders half of them useless for anyone with a mobility issue.

People are living longer, and I'm sure many older people would be happy to move somewhere smaller if there was somewhere suitable on offer.

It’s mad that we expect everyone else to have a moral duty to SH tenants (the government, the taxpayer) but that moral duty doesn’t ‘flow back’ when SH tenants are blocking properties much bigger than they need.

So it's jealousy then. CH envy is not a good look, Considering most on MN need smelling salts just to walk through a council estate.

And when the elderly or older adults end up in these same horrific flats?

so what if it was? Does that nullify my argument?

I see your point but wouldn't it be better if there was more social housing so that everyone who wants to rent a secure long term home can do so?

Yes totally my housing association did actually replace my completely inadequate garden fencing as it was about two foot and I could nt let my severely autistic learning disabled child out safely nor could he play out safely but I had to go through occupational therapy who made a referral and told then it was a safe guarding issue and it still took a year my garden now has seven foot fencing and it's transformed our live ,s

They took all the kitchen cupboard doors off ours before we moved in and replaced them with cheap crap that 7 years on are falling to bits which seemed a bit daft to me.

There was no flooring as due to fleas etc and the peeling wood chip on top of woodchip was a joy to take off I can tell you.

Didn't matter though, the feeling of relief to have secure housing I can't even describe

Quite frankly, yes. Perhaps look up and not down if you want to talk about morals and inequality.

I don't see why there isn't the option to leave carpet and curtains if both tenants want to, to either give or sell them to the next tenant. Surely you could just sign something that they are not considered part of the property?

Totally agree

Housing should suit needs, as soon as kids move out etc you should be rehoused into a 1 bedroom and the multiple bedroom property given to a new family.

It sounds rather patronising to suggest that council housing is about poverty. It's about need & this can also be to do with crisis, mental health, separations, or care needs amongst other things.

I don't agree with the idea of moving people out of their homes because some people on social housing don't have families therefore it's not a case of children growing up & then outgrowing it.

There are also scheme's to downsize if needed & incentives to do so if their social housing accommodation is too big.

Also, your example doesn't convince me that it's a good idea. Your friend has grandchildren who she plans to have stay overnight. This will give her daughter a much needed break - you don't know their circumstances it might be that this is really important & needed to the family.
So I wouldn't begrudge anyone social housing. Chances are they've struggled to get into a house & everyone deserves a home.

A better solution is to make it easier for people to get on the housing ladder & access schemes that allow people to purchase houses & produce reasonably costed housing stock. There's been some really good schemes over the years.
Our first house was bought through a scheme that allowed us to purchase 75% of a house on the open market & we didn't have to give anything back until we sold it. We freed up a council house when we bought the house.
Sadly these schemes aren't as common now. (This was 22 years ago).

You are focusing on the wrong issue. People should be able to remain in their home and have space for grandchildren etc. There should be an alternative to buying a property that offers the same security (that private rented doesn’t offer). Your AIBU should be why is there not more suitable social housing available.

A family friend lives in a 3 bed Housing Association house. Kids all long since grown up and moved away. Few years ago friend inherited £400k. Still in 3-bed HA house paying reduced rate rent. It just feels wrong to me.

why does it? Why should the vast majority of people not be able to claim an emotional stake in their housing, but SH tenants should?

I get it as a fellow forever renter. However I think the anger is misplaced, housing should be much much more secure in the UK and it just isn’t. Rather than booting out people into flats or whatever to downsize them there should be more housing stock but there isn’t.

my dad lives in a council house, 3 bed, massive garden, less than 400pcm rent and earns triple what I do in private rented, it is unfair to those of us in private but that’s not the people in social housings fault.

Forcing people out of council homes because they’re not ‘entitled’ isn’t fair.

given many moved into them before the rules changed would be unfair.

it also isn’t fair that back when council homes were plentiful, it was much easier to get a mortgage on one salary.

add in temporary renting destroys communities. You see it already with family homes turned to student housing (inflates house prices due to rental value, why isn’t this your target too?) where the area just loses its soul because of new short term tenants and a high turnover. Having stable, long term tenants builds communities, social connections that are so so important from childhood to retirement.

we should all have access to this so rather than punching down and being bitter at the wrong people get furious wages have be stagnant compared to house prices