People in Council houses should be reassessed…

[AlwaysAnnoyed]

I want to tread carefully. But then again I’m pissed off.

I live in a 3 bed house with a mortgage. On our estate there is a selection of Council houses. I have no issue with people having Council homes, people fall on hard times and DESERVE support.

however what really grinds my gears, is on our estate we have one Council house which have 2 brand new Audi’s. Top of the range. Just got back off holiday to Florida. Weekends away. they pay £350 a month to the council for this 4 bed property. (They are very loud about telling everyone this)

it really really winds me up. We have a COST of living crisis, people are going to be struggling to pay bills but yet there are people who are in these Council houses on holidays and brand new cars.

it doesn’t seem fair. Surely Council houses need to be regularly means tested… How can this happen? Able to afford 2 brand new cars but cannot afford to pay their own rent/mortgage!

or am I just being a moany witch!

“The government aren’t going to build any more Council homes than planned.”

They should buy back the ones they sold at the same price they sold them at.

Makes more sense than means testing tenants who weren’t means tested to get the tenancy.

I mean it’s still an unworkable idea, but it’d solve the issue more directly.

There is no need to reassess social housing tenants, in fact there should be no need to assess them in the first place. All housing, regardless of who the landlord is, should be let at market rates to the best potential tenants, usually the ones willing to pay the most. Social (and commercial) landlords can still offer secure tenure, which will be worth a premium to renters.

People who need help affording that housing, or any housing, should get that help as a component of their Universal Credit claim, and in no other way.

This approach ensures that government subsidies are provided it the most rigorous and fair way possible, one where the extent of the subsidy varies from one month to the next as circumstances change.

A decade or so ago the government allegedly implemented a rule that social housing should be let at very close to market rates, which I thought was the start of them doing exactly what I advocate. But well after that, the "how to get a council house" program apparently showed someone in Tower Hamlets getting a flat at less than half a market rent, so this change doesn't seem to have been fully implemented. (I didn't see the program, but I read about it.)

Also. Before I bought a house and moved out - I wasn't claiming any benefits. I paid the full rent by myself.

And a lot of the decorative improvements I had done to the house were ripped out and put in a skip. I had to pay the council to restore the council issue fake electric fire rather than the wall mounted one I had (which had been installed by an electrician and I had the certificate), rip out the double oven and hob I had added and leave a space for a slot in cooker, take up my wooden flooring and leave the floors bare.

(I gave the oven and hob and flooring to my next door neighbour. The council put my electric fire in the back of a van and drove off with it. No one knows where it went but I'm pretty sure it didn't go to the tip.)

@x2boys
Thats not true in my experience. I am often really surprised at the amount of people who openly talk about their finances in a sort of look how much money I have got way.
The funny thing is it’s often the people fiddling the system, so for example a tradesman accepting cash in hand for jobs to avoid tax. Just the sort of people who you would think would keep very quiet about money.

Council housing was built for EVERYONE.
Not just for those who were poor/ struggling.

The rent they pay isn't 'subsidised' - it's just closer to the actual cost of providing housing than the private rental market provides.

If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the private landlords, who are taking the piss by charging super-high rents. Be angry at the Governments who have allowed council housing stock to be privatised, pretty much ended the council house building programme, and continually seek to erode the rights and security of tenants. (It's no coincidence that many MPs are also landlords).

Instead of being annoyed by your neighbours enjoying a decent life, fight for everyone to have a decent life.

I can kind of see your point. However, I grew up in council housing and I remember this coming up in conversation once and my mum made the point that if that were the case, she would have to throw me out once I became an adult and had a job. I would probably then in turn have to qpply for council housing potentially. As it qas, I was able to live at home for a year after getting my first job and save up to be more self sufficient and get a good flat. 10 years on, I am now a homeowner. I think if council houses were regularly means tested, you would also be trapping people in a cycle

And there we have it. You want to line the pockets of landlords because someone paying £350 a month on SH isn't going to magic up £1200 a month for a private landlord so they will need HB. Their cars and holidays are probably through loans or PCP so they're not assets. Or they could give up their cars, not be able to get to work and need even more benefits.

Or you know shit about fuck and just want someone to feel superior to. Nasty undertone whichever way.

The only way social housing should be distinguishable from other housing is that instead of distributing profits on the market rents they charge, they reinvest them to expand (or possibly upgrade) the housing they provide.

From a tenants point of view, it should make no difference to them if their landlord is a housing association or a commercial company. (I exclude councils because I don't believe local government should be in the housing business, and I exclude individual landlords because they can't offer long-term security of tenure in the way a corporation can.)

You could use your energy to campaign for more council houses to be built - not on trying to penalise a single family.

Then you could be in the same position of you wanted to.

Why do people think council/housing association houses are for poor people who need to be continuallyproving how poor and deserving they are?

If you meet the criteria and are allocated a house then as long as you pay your rent its no one else's fucking business what you spend your money on. Just the same as if you were renting privately or paying a mortgage

Fed up with sour face fuckwits like the OP bitching about other people's lives.

So I pay £400 a month for a council house.

I'm reassessed and have to pay £875 a month for the same house (based on private rents in the estate where I used to live).

I have to pay moving costs etc.

I move. I pay £875 a month. Which means I have £475 a month less to support my family so either the benefits system kicks in and I get assistance or I can't pay my rent and I get kicked out of my private rental and present as homeless to the council. And rinse and repeat.

Even if I scrimp and save to make up the difference, that means I couldn't have afforded to pay for the courses I took (or the fuel to get to college) that qualified me to go to university and ultimately move out of council housing to a bought house.

And ultimately. Insecure housing tenure damages the future of the next generation.

What have the kids done to deserve that?

I don’t believe the rent you have quoted and yes I’m in the north
I am also fully aware of local housing rates

I disagree with @BordoisAgain.
Been given a council house is someone been given a helping hand which is what they need at that time. It is funded by all the other taxpayers. this is fine when someone needs help. And some might need that help long term, but not all. They can't be given it for life and then not take any responsibility or change. There may be extenuating circumstances Such as disability, health, MH or they may have disabled children in which case that would be noted and therefore would only be sporadically reviewed. but for many other people they can do better, they can go on a training course, they can get a better job and then they should be able to move out of the house onto a rental. and leave the next person who really needs it to be able to move in.

there should be a sporadic review every say 5 or 10 years to review the situation. no one minds helping someone but not paying for it for their whole lives.

£350 for a 4 bed??? Nonsense, social housing tenant here. That's absolutely crap

How is it funded by tax payers?

Been given a council house is someone been given a helping hand which is what they need at that time.

No. It's someone meeting the eligibility criteria and then being allocated a property to rent. What the tenant then chooses to do with their own income is their business.

I think part of the issue is that a lot of council houses that were sold have not been replaced, and There are fewer smaller eg 1 bed council properties. So some (not all) areas have large waiting lists of people (potentially in unsuitable temporary accomodation) who need a council house, and some older people in houses that are bigger than they need but with no suitable housing to downsize to.

BTW there was a poster recently who said they paid £97/wk for a 5 bed council house so the OP could be right about their rent.

Yeah, but obviously if you won the lottery you need to be reassessed.

Perhaps those with low mortgages should be forced to buy bigger houses so that those that get kicked out of social housing for having ‘too much’ can buy their properties.

This thread is as awful as it is misinformed. And fwiw, a nice car, a holiday and a telly isn’t a lavish lifestyle.

@Oblomov22 - you need to read the thread more carefully. You have misunderstood how council housing works.

If private landlords had to give reasonable notice for no fault evictions (3-5 years). It would make private landlords think again if they are only interested in turning a quick profit rather than providing an essential service. Larger landlords that work in corporations or associations are more concerned about providing a service and making long term profits. Housing is an essential service. It needs proper regulation.

with the way the mortgage rates are going we won’t be able to afford our property. So will end up having to sell it or have it repossessed and will move into rented accommodation.
Don't worry, you can move into a 4 bed council gaff for £350 a month once you're repo'd OP.

there is a massive LACK of Council properties with many families living in b&b’s waiting for properties. Surely if someone is able to afford 2 brand new cars and multiple holidays they can be worked with to spend that money on private rent… then their lovely Council house can be given to another family who is stuck in some Air BnB waiting for something to come up.
Imagine the amount of holidays & flash cars you can splurge on when you have got rid of your appreciating asset, & your potential to eventually have owned it outright, with no mortgage or rent to worry about ever again ...

Will you be pissed off then when PP resent & envy you so much they post on MN just to slag you off, & call for draconian measures to stop Your Sort from having any pleasure in life?

I think you are confusing council housing with housing benefit.

the two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

People in private rentals can also get housing benefit to reduce their housing costs if they are eligible. People in council houses may pay full rent out of their income much as they would in private rentals.

people on council housing lists are supported to access all types of housing including private social landlords and private rentals.

it's generally considered to be a good societal benefit to have a mix of different types of people in council housing to prevent them becoming sinks for people with social problems.

That's actually an interesting point. Consumer items/services have gone up a lot less than houses/rents.

So you do get somewhat of a disconnect.

I agree with the OP to some extent. I thought council houses were for people who couldn’t afford to rent privately.
i live on an estate where there are council properties. One single mum with 2 children moved in, a couple of weeks after afterwards moved in a partner and got married. Now have 2 cars which they change regularly and go on holidays etc. another single mum with 2 children has just paid to have new kitchen and bathroom installed with permission from the council and has her garden redesigned. Seems like they have plenty of money