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

@Bumpitybumper
"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 the amount of social housing available has reduced due to decades of government underinvestment."

Fixed it for you

I hope you realise I wasn't having a go at you or anybody else really. I can see why you (and to be honest I'm sure most other people with lifetime tenancies) want to keep them and feel that they improve your life. As I said previously, turkeys don't vote for Christmas and I would probably do the same as you in your situation and feel similar levels of gratitude that I was one of the lucky ones.

My point is just that there will be people just like you in similar or worse situations that won't be able to access this housing because it is occupied by people with lifetime tenancies. They will have no choice but to live in unsecure housing in a location not of their choice away from their social network and family. It is not strange or wrong for them to feel jealous or envious of you or to want the system to be reformed so that they can have a chance of getting some of what you have. I don't think these people should be shouted down or made to feel bad for questioning the rules and wanting them to be revised.

I intend to stay

The only reason I might move from here would be to one of the properties my council has in various coastal or small town areas.
Its for the over 55s and basically its mainly 1 bedroom bungalows or small blocks of flats.

21000 council or housing association tenants earn more than £60k a year. Up to 5000 earn more than £100k.

I stand by my original statement thanks.

But in the 1970s many council tenants were (relatively) well off and I don't think it was the same struggle to get council housing.

Yes those 5000 people could move out. But I think the waiting list in England is something like 1.6m households. It's not the main issue here.

100 per cent

I'm not saying it's the main issue. I'm saying that it's going to stir up animosity and jealousy because it's patently unfair that people are allocated SH and then allowed to stay irrespective of their circumstances. People on this thread are desperate to belittle those questioning the system, calling them 'snidey' etc when in reality there is intrinsic inequality that needs tackling.

Do we need more SH? Yes
Is it going to be easy to build enough SH to meet demand? Absolutely not
Do we need to reform the system so that the housing stock we do have is allocated according to need as opposed to who got in first and secured themselves a lifetime tenancy? Yes

In my experience most of the negative comments regarding social housing have come from those with big mortgages.

Which is weird considering they're always having the lingering threat going on about losing everything. Maybe that's why...

Now we've got everyone should get a turn of SH. Chuck those out into a shit landlords hands and give a shot of fair rents to someone else in 'need' and after a bit, they need to be chucked back to give someone else a shot.

The relentless mission to link SH to benefits is the most strange. Looked thick saying it is and then changing to maybe it should be.

Always entertaining these threads.

If people earning well were then evicted out of their SH (which some seem to be suggesting happens!) where is the incentive to work hard and progress in your career?

You could make that argument about any means tested benefit or entitlement .Does that mean that we should all get lifelong access to all these things because otherwise we are being penalised for hard work when we go over whatever threshold is in place and the benefit/entitlement is removed?

I didn’t take it personally @Bumpitybumper 😊. I know that I’m privileged to have secure housing, but if I didn’t have my council flat I would quite possibly very quickly be in a council-funded B&B with my children. Private rental is so precarious and my income is such that I doubt I could afford even a 2-bedroom flat at current rates. I would love to buy but it’s not going to happen any time soon.

I believe that the real problem is the housing crisis, which has been brewing for years. And, as always, the government has done a great job at getting people to blame each other for it rather than trying to do anything about it. Just like they do with benefits (which I’m not eligible for by the way).

I do agree that people should be incentivised to move on to other housing once their situation changes. Often the council makes this very difficult. My neighbour wanted to move somewhere smaller to free up her family-sized house for, well, a family once her children had left home. She tried all sorts of things for a decade but it turned out to be way too expensive (her rent would have increased massively!) and the offerings were pitiful. It was only when some rules changed last year that she could finally afford a nice little one-bedroom flat which was all she’d wanted all along.

But forcing low- to middle-income earners to move because they have “too much” money to live somewhere while they still don’t have enough money to live somewhere else would be a disaster. I just don’t see how it would work. Ultimately we all have to live somewhere.

I'd stay put until something better comes up for swaps. The place you describe sounds vile.

Yeah this post seems off. When I was allocated social housing I was given a roller, tray and one can of white paint. I had less than £50 to my name, all the flooring was ripped out by the council and I was left with floorboards and original tiles even having 2 young children, this was in 2004. If you have thousands to spare on decorating and can live outside for a few weeks whilst it’s done then IMHO you should be looking for a private rental and giving the social housing to someone in genuine need.

Social housing is not a benefit it just not rented at a profit like private let's.

Also, actual benefits to prop up low/no earnings are swapped for wages on the case of successful employment progression. So you aren't without. Nor are you penalised by being evicted from your home

People seriously need to understand that social housing is not a benefit

26000 out of 4.4 million social housing homes in England…

That’s hardly “often”

They won't stop until it is though. People can't stand the thought that people in council houses might be better off than them. They couldn't give a shit about the people they're banging on about. They just want to feel superior again.

It really depends on how you define 'benefit'.

In a capitalist society it is definitely unusual to be able to rent such an expensive asset without the asset owner making a profit or the value of the capital used to purchase the asset being accounted for in the rental value (e.g. due to mortgage interest). There is a reason why private landlords can't charge the same as SH even if they wanted to (you may have noticed the mass exodus of landlords from the private market despite them charging higher rents). SH is very unusual in that technically it isn't 'subsidised' because the rent charged meets the costs of maintenance etc of the house, however if I said that I was living in my friend's house rent free but was paying enough to cover running costs and maintenance then many people would suggest I was in fact being subsidised by my friend because I was enjoying an expensive asset without paying anything towards the fact their money was tied up in the asset and could be used elsewhere where they could get a better return.

Your arguments about people losing out and losing their homes if they earn more money are strange. Social housing is a finite source and there isn't enough of it to go round. You are more than happy for the people that don't have a chance in hell of getting social housing to never get the chance to enjoy lower rents or more security in their tenancies because you are worried some people might get evicted from their home. This literally happens frequently to private renters who often don't have any way of getting a respite from this so why should SH tenants be spared from this for their entire life? Why is such a two tier system acceptable? If you can answer this without simply saying 'build more SH houses' then I will be shocked.

A fifth earn more than the average UK wage. There will obviously be a hell of a lot of people in the private sector on much less than the average wage or on benefits so yes I do think this warrants the word 'often'. Don't you?

This is because not enough SH is being built. Those on here, that are older, got SH years ago.

Why on earth would they give it up to go into expensive, insecure private lets?

No sense in doing that.

SH tenants are ‘spared’ from it because they are in social housing and that is the policy

It's not about feeling superior, it's about fairness and equality. I don't think there is anything morally unjust in suggesting SH is an asset we own as a country that should be used to best advantage to help those most in need.

I understand that hence why I suggested reform is needed. My question was more trying to understand how anyone can justify how this kind of policy is fair or just.

I'm in a property, built as some sort of Millennium project (in London), that's for over 40's - no resident kids or pets.

It's higher spec, more expensive than most SH, but it suits me, especially since DH died.

Large 2 bed garden flat, no next door neighbours (the design of it), a lovely maintained landscape garden, and all maintenance carried out promptly.

Im going nowhere, despite the higher than normal SH rent.

The government don't care, nor will Labour, and as people like me have a legally binding "life tenancy" I'm not sure how far ethics will get with this....🙄