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

There has always been private rentals. I rented a flat at the beginning of the 70's. Rents might need regulating but what we need is more SH. It's that simple.

I don’t agree with that poster’s views but I don’t see the link to benefits in that post.

The “most in need” might be a woman and children fleeing domestic abuse and needing safe, stable accommodation. It might be someone who was fit and healthy but had a huge stroke, but they’re now physically disabled and unable to work and needs accessible stable, accommodation.

I do think we need to utilise our limited resources to those who need it most. I don’t think it’s appropriate to bring up on a thread like this because we have no idea what OP’s need may be and it’s certainly not her fault. She does not need to justify herself to anyone.

Banning private rentals isn’t going to happen you know because of Capitalism and all that…which is what most people voted for at last general election. Nobody wanted Corbyns socialist agenda. (I did, voted for him but in general that’s not what people want)

So you want councils to have less money coming in, because they're paying themselves for the rents of their stock in the form of housing benefit?

Makes sense...

The first statistic was to show just how much some people in SH earn. Of course it was only ever going to be a small percentage of SH tenants as only a small percentage of the UK population as whole earns this amount. My point was there are people earning (I would argue objectively) large salaries and still taking advantage SH.

The statistic on average wage isn't meaningless. It might not be as granulated as you like but it shows that 'often' SH tenants earn more than their private renting counterparts. Are you suggesting that if you had the data you want that it would disprove this? I think we both know it wouldn't.

I never said there are millions of people paying £90 a week. I am merely pointing out that a lot of the tenants aren't the most 'needy' in society. I am also pointing out that SH has many benefits which are particularly useful when you are in financial hardship hence why so many people are desperate to cling on to their entitlement for it. It is understandable that other needy people want a piece of the pie and point out the injustice. It is ok and morally justified to suggest reform. You can disagree about whether it is needed or not but trying to shout down anyone that suggests it and to imply we are mean spirited nasty people that just want to take things away from people for no reason is wrong.

The “most in need” might be a woman and children fleeing domestic abuse and needing safe, stable accommodation. It might be someone who was fit and healthy but had a huge stroke, but they’re now physically disabled and unable to work and needs accessible stable, accommodation

These people are already prioritised. I was in a refuge after fleeing DV. We got housed much quicker than the general population. So while this argument is used time and again on these threads, the mechanisms are already in place to prioritise those people.

Do you think they are not already paying people on the housing list HB? I think you really need to think through what you're posting.

I live in a higher end HA spec.block of 10 flats. We all had to be assessed to see if we could afgord the rent.

In this block, most are either boomers who aren't particularly poor, and the rest (over 40, but no resident children), work.

Few claim any sort of UC/Housing element.

If they could throw everyone out for the neediest/poorest, then in this block alone, the housing benefit bill would shoot up.

Its pointless private renters getting stroppy with SH renters. We just need more SH.🙄

The point is that the constraint on SH in some areas is so great that even those who are seen as 'high priority' aren't getting housing quickly. Meanwhile someone that was allocated housing in their teens as a single parent could easily occupy a home for 60 plus years irrespective of their financial position, effectively blocking it for those most in need.

The point is that the constraint on SH in some areas is so great that even those who are seen as 'high priority' aren't getting housing quickly

But again on these threads people will say that they just have to move to a less popular area then. And that this is what home buyers have to do all the time, as in buying in an area they can afford.

I did move areas just to get into the refuge in the first place (no spaces at my local one). Tbh I was glad for the chance to get away and be housed elsewhere. I wouldn't have felt safe staying where I was.

The issue is moreso people insisting they have to stay in their particular London borough for example. If they're not willing to look outside that area, why should someone else be forced out to accommodate them?

The irony of you accusing other people of shouting down when you are the one shouting loudest about a tiny number of SH tenants, with zero context, as if they are the majority. You are also shouting down everyone who points out any flaw in what you say.

You are absolutely trying to portray that there are millions of people earning loads and paying tiny amounts and it’s disingenuous because you know it’s a tiny amount.

There are some HA properties at £225 a week and more , not sure where the magical £90 comes from.

Well I guess it comes down to priorities.

Do I think someone should have the advantage of a lifetime of discounted rent and security or do I think this advantage should be passed on to people as and when they need it.

I think it's a really big thing to ask of someone in a refuse in such difficult circumstances to leave their local area when they could be very vulnerable. Obviously this will have to happen in some cases as the area they want to live in is simply too expensive in the medium/long term but I do think for some they could have a real shot of building a life in their chosen location if they could lean on SH for a time.

Wouldn’t it be a great idea to raise the SH rents in line with private rentals so the government then have to top up the rents for the people living in them who aren’t on £100k a year. Genius. Can you not see that this would increase the benefit bill? Why are SH tenants always scapegoated as the root of all financial evil. If you think these people are all laying about drinking and taking drugs you’re very much mistaken. Why be jealous of someone having a secure home? Bloody madness

Nope, I'm not. I'm saying that there are millions of tenants (yes definitely over a million) in SH that are financially better off than some of their private renting counterparts. I am questioning why they are entitled to a lifelong privilege that can't be afforded to those that are more needy. It is the ultimate in generational inequality and I hope there will be more awareness of this.

I am not shouting down anyone. I disagree with them but I don't call them names or suggest sinister motives behind what they are posting.

From what you've described, it may be old and grubby, but is not necessarily failing decent homes, in which 2 or more components need to be too old and or poor condition. For instance, the DH standard is to replace a bathroom every 40 years, kitchen and windows are both 30. Obviously there are exceptions when something is in disrepair, but when you exchange you are accepting the current condition and can be excluded from upgrades for a year

It doesn't sound like any council round my way, or in the London borough where my MIL lives.

She's been in her house since 1959, and has only had a new bathroom twice, new windows twice and 3 new kitchens in all that time, and it's been rewired.

My parents had lived in their council house for 27 years when DM died in 2010. The only major work they'd had done was a new boiler; the bathroom, windows and kitchen were the same when I cleared the house out as they were when they moved in.

Location, location location. I would move and view it as a chance to make a home i love.

Do it. He's swapping for a nicer house (probably to trash but who knows?) and you'd like a nicer area. That's a fair exchange. 15 GRAND does seem like a lot to be planning on spending though!

Msny of these SH tenants got their properties when income didn't matter. They were given life long tenancies.

Whether they are better off then private renters now is irrelevant.

That was the system, and lifelong tenancies are legally binding.

It’s about creating a home in a stable environment. How would ‘musical houses’ work? No SH tenants would improve their property and the places with a high volume of SH would become ghettos because people would know they’re being moved on. No one would aspire to promotions to better paid positions etc. Honestly, it all smacks of jealousy to me and no, life isn’t fair sometimes; we know that. The OP was only asking should she take on a project and make a lovely home for herself. This thread has now degenerated into bashing social renters for daring to have a few quid in savings. Lunacy

I did a mutual exchange from a lovely 3 bed in a nice area to a hideous 5 bed in a dive area. The 5 bed house was filthy, nicotine stained walls so bad they looked like they were crying brown tears. Actual faeces smeared in one room, we found syringes under the brown flooring too. Overflowing ash trays. It was disgusting. No internal doors as the crack pot took them with her. She also took her filthy carpets and Lino and left me with sticky glue covered floors. It took me £7-8k over 6 months to get the place livable in. The council wouldn't do ANYTHING as with a mutual exchange you take it as seen. I was on benefits and it killed me to get together money, take out loans, put it on credit cards etc. We did as much on our own as we possibly could but it was still expensive. I've got a gorgeous home now though.

I did this ten years ago. Moved from a house in a dire area to one in a much nicer area. But the house was awful, smashed doors, fencing, bathroom and kitchen needing replacing (but had been done previously by a tenant so council wouldn’t touch it, I had to take it sight as seen) - the previous tenants had to move urgently for various reasons. My house had only been decorated 3 years prior from top to bottom. New bathroom. Sound kitchen.

but I’ve never regretted moving. The mental load taken off by moving areas was huge. And I’ve spent a long time tweaking stuff where I can. I now own the house, having bought it from the council, and will happily live here for the next 20-30 years. The kitchen and bathroom still need replacing 🤦🏽‍♀️ but it’s my home and I’m glad I took the gamble on the trashed house in the nicer area.

No dear, I think you have that backwards.

The poor and struggling that are in desperate need of SH often can't get the housing because it is often occupied by relatively financially comfortable people with lifetime tenancies. The people with the lifetime tenancies seem to believe their entitlement to this scarce housing should be welcomed and celebrated by all? Any talk of adjusting entitlement to take account of changing circumstances is shut down immediately.

The gulf between SH and the private rental sector has meant that lower and middle earners who don't satisfy the criteria for SH are condemned to a life of inferior private renting whilst those who get themselves into real financial difficulty are rewarded with SH tenancies that last a lifetime.

It really shouldn't be a race to the bottom, @Bumpitybumper. Having a secure, affordable home is something that should be available to everyone, regardless of means.

If successive governments hadn't failed utterly to invest in social housing, and stopped (or better still, never started) right to buy, there'd be a lot more social housing, and the goverment wouldn't have to subsidise expensive private rentals through the benefit system, whereby the mortgages of many BTL landlords are paid, at least in part, by topping up tenants' incomes to cover rents.

I grew up in social housing. My DM was a SAHM, as was the norm in the 50s and 60s, and my DF was relatively low paid until his career took off when he was in his 40s. Even then, working in an industry where short term contracts were the norm and redundancies common, they never felt that they had the financial security to take out a mortgage and buy a home.

But they never exercised their right to buy, either, even when they could have bought their council house with a very small mortgage that would have cost less than the rent they paid. They believed that homes built with public money should remain a public asset, and when my mother died, the new tenant viewed the house within a fortnight.

Council housing is cost-neutral in the long term. The money to build homes is borrowed, and the borrowing repaid from rents. Once it's paid off, the income can be used to build more council homes. The same may apply to HA homes, but I don't know enough about the funding model to comment.