To think you should downsize your council house if it’s just you?

[OuchOuchOuchh]

Oh my goodness I have created war at work and everyone is gunning for me.

My auntie has a huge 4 bedroom council house she has lived there since the 90s with her one son. That has now moved out.

All i said was I think it’s unfair that she’s living in such a big family home perfect for a family to bring their kids up in. Large garden backs on to the woods plenty of visits from deers and fox’s it’s beautiful! Anyway all I said is that if you haven’t purchased the property in a certain amount of time you should have to downsize if it’s just you living there.

Theres families overcrowded and can’t get anywhere then you have my auntie paying £100 a week in rent for a massive house for just herself.

please tell me if I am being an asshole! I appreciate it’s her family home but it just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Eyerollcentral there was 1800 built the same year as the one I inspected and I part part of a team that inspected 200 that year. I can't remember the split of decant to new but at least a third were poorly looked after. I'm not saying kick people out! I'm saying there needs to be rules and standards! Do you want to be a family in a rented house/flat that keeps their place tidy next to another that throws dirty nappies out of the window towards the bins (seen this many times) or next to somewhere where there's broken doors, dumped rubbish due to the residents mismanagement?
The coffers aren't infinite for any council in the UK and at the moment there's too many people that need a council house that are waiting years to get one when some of the waiting times could be reduced by swapping tenants, imposing a salary cap and imposing rules (so that money isn't unnecessarily wasted on tidying up the mess) so that properties can be turned around quickly

Actually imposing rules would be the one thing I'd agree with!
Take tenant 1 who has never been anti social, worked hard, always paid their own rent on time. Why should they have to move over say tenant 2 who has never worked, has teenage lads terrorising the estate they live on, takes no care of their home? Just because tenant 2 has more bodies in the house.
Most SH tenants are hard working, honest people, but we all know there are problem families that ruin it for everyone.

If anyone should lose their right to their home its them. Not people who have worked hard and done a bit better for themselves and their families.

The argument that local-authority housing is not subsidised seems a bit disingenuous to me. If you look only at the revenue accounts and tell yourself that the housing has been paid for by the council long ago so it doesn't cost them anything then you can convince yourself. But you are ignoring the balance sheet and the costs of capital.

The "opportunity cost" of the money which is tied up in social housing is considerable. The chances are that the local authority could get a much better return on the public money invested in @OuchOuchOuchh 's auntie's house than by renting it to her for £100 a week (which probably barely covers maintenance).

@BanjoKnockers So weatherspoons subsidises my meals because they are cheaper than nearby pubs?

Housing trusts are not for profits. Their land assets will accrue value just as land assets generally have accrued value.

So how about we demand a return on teh land value growth for all those nursing home chains, where the clients are funded through taxation and which are owned by hedge funds. How about all those private landlords subsidised via taxation through housing benefit? How about all those employers whose wages are topped up by taxation because they don't pay enough to live on?

Then we can talk about the hypothetical opportunity cost to local authorities of housing trusts bulldozing social housing in order to build what? more private rentals for the tax payer to subsidise?

If this aunty exists (which frankly I doubt) on a long term tenancy she entered into a legal contract and has rights to it just as any mortgage owner has rights.

If you want to reduce the subsidies in the housing market then your target should be the deregulated private rental market in this country. Long term and secure tenancies are available across pretty much every developed country, but here you can be a good tenant for years and be kicked out with little or no warning. That is the problem - not housing trusts who don't exploit their tenants.

How many were sold off in the disastrous rent to buy experiment?
There are rules and standards though. It’s in your tenancy you have to maintain the property to reasonable standard and keep it clean and tidy. Did you report any of these breaches to the council (am assuming you weren’t there in a council/HA capacity).
Getting back to your aunt though, could you answer my previous questions? Might help us understand the issues.
You’ve said there’s not an infinite supply of council money but social housing doesn’t need an infinite supply? I have no doubt there could be better use of the social housing there is but thing is you need somewhere for people to downsize too, that seems to be the biggest issue people are reporting.
Don’t you think salary caps run the real risk of creating areas where only low earners live? Do you think that is a desirable thing for society?

You understand it’s run as a not for profit, don’t you? How much maintenance do you think is done in a year on the average social housing property lol

It is mine FOREVER because that’s what my contract states as long as my rent is paid which it is in full each week we have our forever home :)

I’m with you on this. There isn’t enough social housing, what we have needs to be rationalised (and we should build more).

I’ve paid my contributions through my wages to the government, I am also the taxpayer alongside my family so taxpayers money is also money we’ve contributed to as taxpayers. So no I will not be prepared to move anywhere it’s my home and will be forever more. It’s bitterness completely from you that you think you’re better than anyone in social housing and think we should be moved about. Our rent is calculated on our income it’s not as if my house is bill and rent free I pay my bills and rent. Maybe use your voice to help stop voting in a tory government OR if you feel so strongly about it get out there and protest for more social housing to fit the demand for it instead of expecting tenants to give up their home.

Here we go again 🙄 are you ‘bitter’ that big corporations don’t pay their share of tax? Or do you just think it unfair?

if you feel so strongly about it get out there and protest for more social housing to fit the demand for it instead of expecting tenants to give up their home.

Ain’t gona happen, even if Labour win the next election. Properties are now too expensive for them to suddenly build millions of new social houses. This ‘wE CoUlD ALL HaVe WhaT I Do If wE PrOtEsTeD’ is just tiresome.

Lol what are you trying to deflect from in that poster’s totally reasonable post?

What’s reasonable about blaming other reasonable posts on ‘bitterness’?

I'm a bit baffled by this.

So how about we demand a return on teh land value growth for all those nursing home chains, where the clients are funded through taxation and which are owned by hedge funds.
It's the owners of the asset who decide whether to offer it at a discount or subsidy to its opportunity cost. When you say "how about we demand" I'm not sure who you mean by we. The owners of the hedge fund probably do keep a close eye on whether they're getting a good return on their capital. That's why hedge funds are not famous for offering philanthropic housing!

How about all those private landlords subsidised via taxation through housing benefit?
This is a different point from allowing assets to be used at a discount from opportunity cost (but I agree with you that the public purse should make sure that it's not subsidising landlords by paying them more than it absolutely has to).

How about all those employers whose wages are topped up by taxation because they don't pay enough to live on?
Employees you mean? Again this is not about offering assets at an undervalue. And in-work benefits are quite a more tricky one from a progressive viewpoint - is the subsidy allowing the employer to get away with offering poverty wages, or is it mitigating the harshness of market forces for the employee and giving them some dignity?)

Anyway your hedge fund example is a good one. Philanthropists offer good housing at below market rents. Hedge funds (if they own housing) want whatever rent the market will bear. The difference is what I would describe as a subsidy.

And incidentally, your post seems to assume that I think subsidy is a bad thing. What I said was that your original post was disingenuous in describing local authority housing as not being subsidised. I think it very clearly is subsidised. And once we acknowledge that fact it becomes important that the subsidy is directed towards the right people.

But how is it unfair? If there are 2 private lets on a street and one LL has no mortgage so rents at say £800pcm but the BTL land landlord next door has a sudden mortgage rise so ups to £1000pcm does that mean the person in the £800 should pay the same because it's unfair?

I will keep repeating that the current rental market has zero, nada, zilch to do with council tenants or housing. BTL is the problem. Pushing up private rents. They should be abolished.

I get it's frustrating to see someone paying so much less for a house and with the security of a lifetime tenancy. But why attack those people? They have done nothing wrong.

The council like any LL prefer quiet working tenants who take care of their home (who, by the way, have a much higher responsibility for repairs than private tenants and have to fully decorate from carpets to well, everything), pay their rent on time and do not exhibit asbo behaviour.

What is surprising to me though is the amount of people on this thread that are shouty about vulnerable people with big families needing homes. But also posting on other threads about not wanting to buy or live near the CH chavs and reporting them to the council for every sound they make. 🤔

Nobody is saying they’ve done anything wrong, not on a personal level anyway. But when discussing policy and saying it should be changed, they make it personal by wading in with stories about how much granny loved her garden and how they’ve such fond memories of their house so they won’t be leaving, utterly unaware of how that all means absolutely zero.

What do you mean by ‘vulnerable people’ by the way?

Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 states that “a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside” has a priority need for accommodation.

Which elderly or severely mentally ill people have big families with lots of school age children?

Many. More and more of the relderly are moving in with their children. Mental health is a genuine issue many parents struggle with. Mental health condition can appear or develop at any age. Having children doesn't make you immune.

But how is it unfair? If there are 2 private lets on a street and one LL has no mortgage so rents at say £800pcm but the BTL land landlord next door has a sudden mortgage rise so ups to £1000pcm does that mean the person in the £800 should pay the same because it's unfair?

I will keep repeating that the current rental market has zero, nada, zilch to do with council tenants or housing. BTL is the problem. Pushing up private rents. They should be abolished.

I get it's frustrating to see someone paying so much less for a house and with the security of a lifetime tenancy. But why attack those people? They have done nothing wrong.

I don't think it's about anyone being attacked. But it's about a fair use of scarce public resources.

In the example you give the market rent is £1,000. If it was only £800 then the landlord trying to put the rent up would find the tenants would move on. His mortgage does not dictate what rent he can charge. The market does.

And in that case the equivalent publicly-owned house could be let for the benefit of the public purse for £1,000 and that money applied to the general good of the public rather than being let cheaply for the good of one family. The fact that we decide to provide below-market-rent housing is in my opinion a very good thing. But in doing so we are depleting public resources and we need to make sure that that lost money is allocated to those who need it.

(I'm really not sure how you can assert that market rates are irrelevant when it comes to deciding how much rent any landlord, public or private, should charge [except for the fact that they're highly inconvenient to your argument ].)

Indeed, the problems that were noted would become the rule rather than the exception if the suggested changes were made. No incentive to look after the property, have cordial neighbour relations, get a better paying job or move away from reliance on benefits.

''have cordial neighbour relations, get a better paying job or move away from reliance on benefits.

Secure housing helps people do those things; insecure housing hinders them. Talking about insecure housing being an incentive is like using the threat of starvation as a helpful benefit to jobhunting.

I see where you are coming from but it is true market rates mean nothing as there is no market rate. Greed means private rents are so high because of BTL mortgages. People wanting to have a house paid for and make a profit at the same time. Until the area of private rents is regulated there is no market rate. So of course it expensive as Mary's mortgage rate has just gone up but she still wants profit on top so she's upped the rent by 200pcm. Then neighbour Bob see this and although he owns outright he raises his just because he can. BTL is a plague on the private rental market.

Council houses are created to run self sufficiently and if they aren't rents are raised until there is a surplus to reinvest in housing stock. So I'm not sure what you mean by public funds being depleted.

Also raising CH rents to inflated prices is against policy and law. As is spending any surplus on anything other the council housing.

Again I get it's frustrating to see houses that could make more money going cheaply but it's not that council rates are discounted. It's that private rents are extremely inflated because they are not regulated. Of course council houses are always going to be cheaper as you are getting a completely empty property and are responsible for full redecoration and much more maintenance than in private. But nothing like the difference created in the last decade.

Why does the idea of making it harder for everyone appeal so much more to people than making it easier for everyone when it comes to council housing?