to ask why so many people think social housing is subsidised?

[butwhythen22]

Not a TAAT but inspired by a recent mention on here - one of very, very many.

I live in a council flat, FWIW.

So, so often I hear people say that it’s subsidised (the implication that someone else is paying part of the cost on my behalf).

This is not correct. The building is owned outright by a housing corporation. It’s a non-profit organisation that charges enough in rent and service costs to cover all its overheads, which are presumably many. This rent is, however, substantially lower than what the flat would fetch on the open market.

However, nobody is paying that “shortfall” on my behalf. It’s simply that the housing corporation’s mission is to provide affordable housing, so they are not charging more than they need to in order to keep everything running well.

(I don’t even receive UC or rent subsidies or anything like that, not that there would be anything wrong with it if I did. I support myself from paid employment.)

Why don’t people get this?

You are correct. I worked for a HA. A friend of mine has lived in the same council house for 30 years. The rent she has paid would have bought a house outright by now.

Could the perception come from the fact that many HA’s receive some government funding?

I think housing benefit and social housing are the same thing in many peoples minds.

Because they're thick.

At least we've moved on from it's free

Because there a lot of people who think that someone's getting something that they're not and are jealous and resentful.

usually Daily Mail readers and Tory voters

People are ignorant basically.
They don’t bother to do their research.

yes, somebody receiving full housing benefit would essentially live for free but the rent is still being paid on the property.
HAs operate on a not for profit basis. Rent is controlled.

My rent is coming up to nearly £500 per month from April. A house on the same road is on rightmove for £800 with a private landlord. Rent isn’t controlled and some of that money is pure profit for the landlord.

I don’t think people think a proportion is being paid for. Rather that it’s cheaper than an equivalent property if done privately. There is possibly some resentment that lots of people can’t access social housing. I was one, on my own, low income but zero chance of council/social housing.

Yep this and those “types” always need people to look down on. It’s also usually people who have overstretched themselves and are struggling day to day with a big mortgage. With the housing situation the way it is it’s the private renters who are at the bottom of the pile. They are at the mercy of landlords who can inflate the rent and evict them at any time. Social tenancies are safe and secure and that’s how housing should be. Not everyone in social housing is on benefits either. Anyone who believes that needs to do do some research. It’s a very outdated attitude

But often it is a reduced rent compared to market average rental costs, is it not?

I think it’s the housing benefit thing that annoys people- that IS basically “ Free” rent.

However people in council houses 🏠 often work and pay full rent.

My lovely in laws had a Council flat in London and never claimed a penny in their lives.

A small lottery win enabled them to buy a place where FIL was born and that freed up the flat for someone else.

It's part of the benefit scroungers narrative. Society is full of people looking sideways at others who they think have got something they haven't.

It’s not subsidised as such but there is a cost to the tax payer as social housing is regulated in a way that private renting isn’t. That regulation is done within the public sector. There are a couple of ALBs that fall under levelling up.

It’s not reduced rent it’s standard rent that appears reduced because private rents are over inflated

Housing benefit is not 'free money for tenants'. It's free money for landlords who are getting their- often several - mortgages paid by the taxpayer.

But I'm a tax payer and I live in HA, pay full rent.

I think this is the case

My dsil lives in a house where there rent is 450 due to the rent controls, the identical houses next door aren't housing association.
Next door is split into 2 flat and one of those flats pays over a grand in rent (don't actually know the cost because it's rude to ask, but when it was advertised a 2020 it was over a grand)

My other sil looked at buying the one next door and their mortgage payment on a 35 year mortgage was 1600 a month. The outgoings she would have if you consider maintainence etc is probably 5x higher.

I think it's the disparity between the rent paid and how much others end up paying for rent/mortgage for the same property. That's without the fact that (rightly so) often people in HA get a solid deal of stuff like regular house refurbishment compared to the lottery that is private renting. And also ignoring that there's a large portion of tenants who a portion of rent is being directly paid for them

It's a complete trap if people then try to rent privately or move on to other accom

Locally HAs are running at a loss and do relieve centralised funding

They are often funded at least partially through grants when originally built, so in that respect they are subsidised.

And you are not an isolated example. All of the people I know who live in social housing are paying full rent and are either working or are retired. Many of the people I know who don’t work are living in private rentals and have housing benefit. I’m not seeking to divide, I’m just putting across a reason that people might see this as ‘subsidised’.

If only private landlords were subject to the same regulation!

No. Other rents are inflated. It's not the same thing.
HAs don't run at a loss.

Lots of private landlords are subsidised by the tax payer through housing benefit.

Some do. That’s why they are regulated and inspected to make sure they are financially sound.

I think this too.

That makes no sense.

You might as well say that privately owned properties were built for £10k so that makes them subsidised due to the fairer costs in the country at the time.

True but that applies to both types of housing.

The cost of building the original asset is pretty substantial and that IS funded through government grants so it's true to say social housing is subsidised to some extent.

www.gov.uk/government/news/fair-rents-will-ensure-higher-earning-tenants-pay-to-stay this government article states that the each property is subsidised by £3,500 per year. It's quite old though, so I'm not sure if that's changed