Social housing exchange - AIBU

[Brighton5555]

Hey

just need some assurance / reality check I guess. I have managed to find a housing swap after quite some time ( the feedback I get is lovely house but too small) so not beating off offers by any means despite my home being to a high standard and spent thousands on it…

im due to sign a exchange soon. The man has the same bedrooms as me and he has a house in a area I desire but if this house wasn’t in the area I want I don’t know if I would actually go for it..

bonus points are - neighbours on one side only, good garden size, extra toilet downstairs, larger kitchen than mine, larger bathroom and about same size of the 4 bedrooms BUT

its pretty gross. He has 7 animals including 4 dogs, it needs gutted from top to bottom as in complete new flooring and complete decoration and the bathroom will need ripped out. It’s in a very poor conditon but has passed all the checks they do for exchanging .. I viewed it for the 3rd time last week and the house had a lot of flies, I mean a lot I suspect from the animals . It was super clear to me on that viewing just how much money and work will need to be put in whereas here mine needs only a freshen up on the painting upstairs there are no other costs to him..

of course he’s lucky and it’s not his fault that our homes are very different but I just feel am I being crazy to take it on? I’m legit starting from the bottom again and will need to spend a few weeks living outside and at least £15,000 to have it okay to move into.

I have the means to do both but I know it’s going to a long slog. Again the benefits are extra toilet, larger kitchen and bathroom more manageable sized garden and a better area ..

I guess I feel daunted by it all

I've seen things in other countries that work. More stable, long term, cheaper private rentals. Single accommodation of a good standard, that isn't filled with drug users and alcoholics like it generally is in this country. We have a huge gap between SH and owning your own home, that is filled with poor options. It's true we can't build enough SH for everyone, so we need to find better options for those in the middle who have very little choice right now. Chucking a few people out because they're under occupying or earning too much would be a drop in the ocean and would come with it's own issues.

Perhaps you could petition government to get the policy changed and therefore flood the already oversubscribed private rental market. Just an idea

I know SH residents who work full time and don’t drink or do drugs. It’s a stereotypical, misinformed observation you make

We don't need the kind of reform you suggest.

What we need is for govt regulated non profit rentals to be the only rental option and for there to be sufficient supply. So the options are (1) rent social housing at a non profit rate, with there being a reasonable supply of homes to meet need. No private landlords at all. Or (2) purchase and live in a home you have a mortgage/own outright.

Why would the private market be flooded? Where do you think the vast majority of those who are in most in need of SH currently live? They don't appear out of nowhere and are currently being house somewhere. The overall number of people needing to be housed somewhere wouldn't change, it would just be who is housed where.

I said single accommodation, as in hostels and the like. Not SH residents.

Is that you trying to link it to benefits again?

What you're wanting is to chuck people out to give someone else a turn. Then chuck them out later on to give someone else a turn.

How that makes any sense is beyond me

It makes no sense does it. Social housing isn’t something “we own” as a country. It is run by private not for profit companies

The companies act as the landlord. Nothing is subsidised. They make no profit. It all pays for itself.

Perhaps if you have a life long tenancy but you earn over a certain amount councils should raise the rent in line with current private landlords. Most people would probably want to move out and find a private landlord in a better area, nicer house etc rather than stay in the council house but pay private rates.

Obviously there would be some who would cut hours and do little work to not lose their council house.

I already explain how it isn't as clear cut as you suggest that SH isn't a form of benefit. Use semantics all you want but ultimately people are benefiting from the fact that the government isn't charging SH tenants for the use of a high capital asset in the way that a private landlord would have to even if they weren't making any profit. It's as simple as that. The fact you pay for maintenance and upkeep is great but it isn't representative of the true cost of renting assets in a capitalist economy.

Turn taking makes as much sense as first come first served with lifetime tenancies. Why does that make more sense? Being destitute at one point in the 1990s means that you have a lifetime entitlement to cheap housing irrespective of the fact that you are now no longer destitute and in no worse of a financial position than most people stuck on the private rental sector. Yes, that seems a totally fair and sensible policy.

Why though? Why should the rent go up? Why is private rental costs seen as the goal?

I agree. Why make everyone suffer just to make private renters feel better? All that will do is increase the housing benefits bill. 🙄

Life isn't always fair. That's how it is.

And what would the raised rents cover? The regulated rent already covers all costs which includes (drumroll) building more social houses!

As explained previously, the idea of subsidy isn't as clear cut as you suggest. There is a reason why SH rents are so low and much lower than a non for profit landlord could achieve. The price of capital is an important factor that mustn't and shouldn't be overlooked in this equation.

Lots of councils now own private housing companies. They aren't really what most people would think of when thinking of a private company.

Explain to me why this would be the case? The SH wouldn't stop existing, it would simply be allocated differently. If anything it would reduce housing benefit as a lot of the current encumbents that have relatively high incomes will not be entitled to housing benefit whilst the people most in need who would get the SH would be recipients of HB in most cases.

Obviously there would be some who would cut hours and do little work to not lose their council house

This was touted as an idea a few years ago. I remember reading about it in the news. I'm a contractor on an hourly rate. Yes, I would have cut my hours to stay within the threshold not to pay more. Why wouldn't I?

If I was left with the same money in my hand, after paying rent, for 30 hours work or 40 hours, then yes, I'll just do the 30 hours!

It currently raises nowhere near enough to build the SH we need. Charging more rent would obviously help close this deficit a bit and help contribute to the 'true' cost of renting an asset and it just the running costs.

Throwing new statistics in and ignoring the last one you chucked because it was shown to be a minute number of people doesn’t help your argument…

And a random statistic like that is utterly useless unless there is a locational breakdown and link to the rental cost of said social housing.

Trying to portray the myth that there are millions of people earning a fortune paying £90 a week in rent is just disingenuous bollocks.

If you were buying you’d spend a lot more than £15k on moving to a new area and decorating. No brainer to me, you say you want this area and “detest” where you are now. That’s the most important thing.

Is he living alone in a four bed HA house with 7 animals (ew) while there are families living in overcrowded accommodation, no gardens etc?! Madness!

I'd go for it. Sounds ideal.

So ban private rentals then. Why should people profiteer from rent? From housing - a basic need.

Private landlords can sell their homes to social housing providers, or the larger private lettings companies can be purchased as a going concern and the homes and jobs merged into existing social housing companies.same amount of houses, but all of them will he regulated and rented out at a price which overs running a SH company.

Well. Yes. That's why the idea was scrapped. 🙄