Social housing and inheriting a share of a house

[howdoesitworkthen]

I'm living in a housing association home and have an elderly mother.
She will leave the house about 500k to me and my sister.
My sister already owns a house and suggested we rent out our parents house as a retirement income.
I'm not sure if we could buy a home each if we sold and split.
How does this work if you have a housing association assured tenancy and inherit part of a property.

If people can sit on assets or cash worth a quarter of a million and still live in subsidised housing paid for by other people's taxes then the system is truly broken - especially if there are others with a greater need spending years on waiting lists to even get a chance to living somewhere affordable.

Exactly @Farmageddon I find it pretty shocking that PPs can ethically live with themselves doing this. Social housing is for people who will never be in a position to own their own home, to give them security that renting privately doesn't.

I'm pretty shocked at some posters, tbh.

OP, sounds like your sister has always been viewed as the older and more responsible one. Do not let her railroad you over this. The house should either be sold, in which case you will have enough money to buy your own place, especially if you buy your HA property. Or your sister sells her own house, buys you out and moves in your mother's house. Renting the house out is recipe for disaster on so many levels and will be of most benefit to your sister, not you.

@FarEast @Farmageddon many people who live in social housing pay tax.

I agree. Social housing should be for those in need, not those with sold house funds (250k!) in the bank or landlord profiteering. The system is fundamentally broken quite clearly.

I’m pretty shocked by the callousness of some posters here not realising that they’ve received a windfall but continue to take up a property someone desperately in need (such as a woman with kids escaping DV) could have.

Quite incredible.

Of course, @VeterinaryCareAssistant but the capital investment is paid by all tax payers, on the understanding the social housing is for people who need it, not those who have a spare house they're renting out ...

Especially not when there are people who really need social housing.

One other thing with social housing is, as the tenancies are for life there are many people living in properties that are bigger than they need. If some of the single people exchanged their 3 bed houses for 1 bed properties then some of the families on the list would be adequately housed. But, as it stands many single people or couples whose children have flown the nest have bigger houses. Which, to be fair, is their home and memories and where they feel comfortable and safe

My 87 year old parents own their own home. I live in a one bedroom social housing flat with my disabled DH who is in his early seventies ooh and i also have a sibling.

What am i supposed to do if im left half the house.

A. throw myself on the mercy of the housing manager former HO who threatened to destroy DHs mobility scooter he would love that.
or just go live on the streets while paperwork is completed which can take months and months.

I agree. Social housing should be for those in need, not those with sold house funds (250k!) in the bank or landlord profiteering. The system is fundamentally broken quite clearly.

I’m pretty shocked by the callousness of some posters here not realising that they’ve received a windfall but continue to take up a property someone desperately in need (such as a woman with kids escaping DV) could have.

Quite incredible.

If every SH tenant knows that as soon as they do a bit better they have to move into market housing (shit and wildly insecure) we incentivise people having no social mobility. Basically encouraging people not to improve their lives.

If all SH tenants are in active crisis, the housing becomes unmanageable. Rather than lovely, diverse, mixed communities of people at different stages. This is one of the reasons 'estates' get a reputation. If everyone is fleeing violence or suffering from trauma, mentally unwell or otherwise struggling, it's not conducive to a settled, happy home.

I know people believe their uninformed, ignorant reckons are more important that experts' but the people who manage SH have done some thinking. As opposed to politicians and 'taxpayers' (we're all taxpayers).

In many portfolios one-beds are in very short supply. People sometimes wait a long time for one. Which means worrying about three-beds when there's nowhere to move people is useless. We have loads more two-beds come up than one-.

Think in terms of units of housing, not bedrooms.

To be fair, she doesn't have £250,000. Her mum's still alive.

When you sign the tenancy agreement it will usually say that you must declare any future earnings or assets over a certain amount or it will say it when signing up to be on the waiting list.
How many ppl do you think declare?
MN have a very skewed ill informed view of SH, the reason there is a shortage of SH in England is that is has been allowed to be bought and little done to replace it

amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/13/forty-councils-in-england-built-no-social-housing-for-five-years-due-to-cuts

Here in Scotland, SH is still being built along with affordable homes, my own LA has a fairly decent turnover of SH homes, obviously cities can be slower. Fortunately we ended the right to buy 7 years ago so no more stock is lost.

One option is for the both of you to open a limited company and be equal share holders. Then transfer the house into the limited company. You will have to pay stamp duty on the value, however, the value of the property can be considered as a Director’s loan, therefore, you will not pay tax on the income until the value of the loan has been paid off. You may find this is the best way. You then won’t own half a house but half a limited company.

You may find this beneficial when passing it on to your children to avoid them having to pay inheritance tax. Hopefully that’s a long way off though.

Sell it and buy your own place. If your sister wants a rental income, she can buy a small place with her share to rent out.

The same people who want social housing estates turned into ghettos are the same people who wouldnt buy a place near one "because its a ghetto"

Well no shit Sherlock Its what you wanted.

You won’t convince me on this. Why do you deserve a part funded property whilst inheriting a significant amount of money? How does that make you better than the 1% diddling tax payers as you earn interest on that and pay less for your housing than the private market? Why is it okay you’re taking that from someone in need when you’re technically no longer in need?

I say this as someone who comes from council. Council saved me as a child, but you think it’s okay to remove that from another family in need because of wanting to keep a huge chunk of money in the bank?

Being council also didn’t give my family the right if they inherited a quarter of a million to sit pretty because of some nonsense about social mobility and ‘diverse’ communities. Ultimately - you’re robbing off someone more in need if you have that amount of inheritance. It’s immoral.

If you have 250k - you’ve already moved economically whether you like it or not, in fact you’re probably far more better off than most people - even the ones with mortgages who are paying a wealth of interest. You could buy a pretty decent chunk of a property with that amount if you were clever.

I stand by my comments, the entitlement here is insane and shameful.

There are no one beds around here. It’s mostly three bed and a couple of two bed. There isn’t much difference between the price of a HA and private rental here. Also when a HA property does come up, they struggle to rent out due to location.

You won’t convince me on this.

That's alright @IdleAnimations I don't have to convince you. Since I work in the field I get to develop policy and advocate for and to the sector.

Nah this is just another excuse to denigrate social housing tenants If people really gave a shit about those in temp accomodation they would also be objecting to what happened at Heygate and Balfron Tower.

We see you!

Awesome. If you can’t see that someone having 250k and being in HA is a disgrace than no wonder the system is broken.

Yup.

Your sister is in a very different position to you. She already owns a house, where you do not.
I'm not sure what part of the country you live in, but where I am (SE) £250k would only just get you a one bed flat.

Renting the house out might be an option, for you, but if you inherit sufficient money to house yourself, would that not be the moral thing to do? Free up a HA property for another family on the housing register.

Whatever you decide, I would seek advice on how inheriting that kind of money would affect your tenancy.

Awesome. If you can’t see that someone having 250k and being in HA is a disgrace than no wonder the system is broken.

But they pay rent. It's just an affordable rent. She doesn't claim HB or UC or anything.

I think she should look into buying because it's probably better than being a LL with her sister. But I don't begrudge people 'graduating' from needing help and still having a secure tenancy.

I can sort of see what you’re saying and I mean this as respectfully as possible - how many people have £250k, even in assets? How many people would inherit such a large sum?

Do you not see how that is grossly unfair when your financial circumstances change so dramatically in an upward way to continue to have subsidised housing? Especially during a cost of living crisis. People with over 16k in savings can’t claim any benefits, so why is this fair?

I am from that social housing demographic. As someone whose circumstances also changed in an upward way (thanks to the roof over my head, free education etc), I couldn’t imagine going back and taking a subsidised property off someone in far greater need - and I don’t/didn’t have access to £250k. Because what? I’d graduated from my poverty circumstances so I should stay for diversity? No, I can now pay for myself and should move aside for that same mother and kid (who was me a long time ago) in desperate need of social assistance.

Those homes are for people in need, I am glad my taxes have helped contribute for it - I do not resent social housing. What I’m not glad of or willing to support is subsidising someone who now has the means to house themselves after inheriting a giant whack of money. In fact this will put the OP in a far better situation that the vast majority of the population. I am highly doubtful I’m alone.

OP should look into property ownership, they have the means to do so now.

Op is just assuming she will inherit this anyway, nothing is anywhere near guaranteed.

Why do people repeatedly say SH is part funded/subsidised, it's not; it's affordable rent, private rent is way over inflated. Sh tenants pay rent, council tax, income tax, it's not just for unemployed people, teachers, NHS staff, emergency service staff live in SH.
The Netherlands has 35% of their population in SH, England 18%, home owning will never be in many peoples reach and it is not necessary to be the aim in life.