Surprised with the quality of some council houses

[LydieL]

Hi all, so I recently moved to a town in the north west, very low income area, the town is as you’d expect a sea of terrace houses that open to the street with concrete yards, some of the nicer parts have gardens but for the most part that’s not the case. There are also some newer estates.

Anyway I work for a charity, we support families where a parent or sibling has passed away. As part of my job I’ve seen a lot of council houses, in this area it’s mostly the terraces which are small or post war builds which are bigger but these tend to be “rougher” areas to live.

Lately I’ve been working with a family, mums been offered a council house and today I went with her to just go over a list of what she needs to do to get out of temporary accommodation asap and into it. I’ll be honest I’m a little stunned at the quality, it’s a 3 bed terrace, small front garden, mid size back garden (more than most around here), large kitchen, bay window. Council have fitted a new kitchen and bathroom and re-plastered the whole house.

It’s also in a “nicer” area. For the amount this place would sell for, you could probably buy 2 cheaper 3 bed terraces and considering the shortage of council housing stock I’m surprised that hasn’t happened! She will be paying about a little Over half what it would go for on the rental market.

Now I know this is the exception rather than the norm but AIBU to be surprised councils are holding onto higher value properties like this rather than selling them and either getting 2 houses (so 2 families can be housed) or putting the profit into the local area?

I am aware this is far from the norm but after talking to colleagues the council seems to have several properties in this little area, this mum has also got very lucky with her housing situation as she’s only been in temporary accommodation for a couple of months.

In Wales now you're expected to accept pets unless the landlord can make a good case to refuse under Rent Smart Wales information.

What’s that got to do with the OP?

In Wales there are pretty strict standards regarding social housing. I would say where I live the vast majority of social housing are bigger and higher spec than the majority of private rentals here. They do a lot of work between tenancies too.

The real problem here is the price of land. Agricultural land say top end £16k an acre. Stick planning on it the value goes mad. We know a farmer with an outlying bit of land on limestone he could stick the sheep on for a month then it was bald. A developer came along said that they could build houses on it. Farmer got planning permission. Sold to developers for 1.5 million.

The solution. Central government should compulsory purchase fields here at agricultural prices offer to developers depending on who will build social housing and how many properties. I'd bypass council and councillors altogether because they have locals to placate.

We've a development here 600k homes but the housing association have been given some purely for rental purposes. They're four beds so for bigger families.

I grew up in a council house similar to what you’re describing - 3 bed, end of a row of four, front lawn, back garden with concrete shed for bikes etc, garage in a block a street away. It was bigger than many 3 bed new builds today. It was built in the 60s, but the nearby council houses built in the interwar years were also a good size. Basically council houses weren’t built as small as the older terraced housing was.

Council or social housing was originally developed and built for everyone. Council homes or estates were not for the most vulnerable or poor only, they were for everyone, and estates in the post war period had a blend of people, middle class, working class living there. In this period a third of all of the population lived in council homes.

The state via local authorities built homes, then collect rent from them which paid back the cost of the build. Then, after the build cost had been repaid, councils earned from the rent which was reinvested back into building more homes for all. Council homes were built often on principles of good quality design, sometimes not, but with decent sized rooms, to ensure good quality of life. As a side note England has some of the worst housing due to lax design standards and sizing when compared to European or American homes. Private Homes are often built for profit now (the smaller the homes the larger profit).

When Thatcher came in she banned councils from using the rent collected to invest in building homes. She introduced the right to buy which allowed tenants to buy homes at knock down prices - good for that tenant but taking council homes out of circulation from the state and massively reducing over time the number of council homes. The people previously living in council homes mainly were forced to rent privately, with the councils losing the rent that was previously paid to them. Rents in private sector are unregulated and these soared. Councils pay housing benefit or now universal credit to landlords which means there is a 2 X financial loss - not receiving rental income to reinvest in house building and then paying out to private landlords to support those in need of support. council homes themselves became in short supply and were over time only available for the most needy, and from somewhere in mid 80s there was at times a stigma in some communities, attached to living in councik homes as these were thought of for the very poorest. Think of the rise in 90s of the very offensive “chav” name calling and “estate face” etc.

council homes should be good quality, the state should be advocating and leading innovation, quality in home building. I’m pleased to hear your client has a great home for her family where they can have a good quality of life.

In terms of your concern over the housing crisis, I’d advise checking our Shelter or Crisis and seeing ways you can support campaigns and enhance your knowledge too, on best practice to support how you can be an advocate for good homes for all - no matter what your financial situation.

I guess there is the fact that the poorest in society are allowed to have the best / good things too? If the house for example in question is not expensive for council to run and is a council asset, why shouldn’t council run it? It’s more costs effective to keep hold of assets than sell and reinvest as reinvesting will be more expensive. But, the key point here is, I think the poorest should be allowed to live in good areas, in good housing. If those who aren’t vulnerable and are earning can’t afford to buy such properties or rent them - isn’t the question, should t we have MORE council, and truly affordable homes and how can we get to this point where there are decent, high quality, truly affordable homes for all as quickly as we can. How can we pressurize the government to do this and what means will the government use to do this? For example, more money via wealth tax on those with over 10m in assets/ wealth as a starting point. Look to those rally who have the broadest shoulders to support more.

Imbluedalale

Your home looks so lovely. I’m insanely proud of my old flat and my new one too, as the wait to get housed was so long and the nightmare situation I was left in after I divorced my ex was pretty extreme. I couldn’t be prouder or more grateful if I lived in a mansion. It’s my safe place and I’ve worked hard to make it look how I want it (like you lots of car boots, charity shops, up cycling etc).

If the kitchen and bathroom have been replaced they would have needed doing. Same with the plastering.

Councils don't just replace kitchens and bathrooms willy nilly or for no good reason. They were either due to be done anyway (usually every 20-ish years or so give or take) or they were in really awful condition.

Why stop there. Think of how many tents they could buy if they sold just one of the stately homes they're renting out to Sharon and her 5 kids with 5 different dads.

Yikes, some support worker you are 😂. Im glad this lady has a decent home to live in

Exactly, how dare working class people have nice homes. There are middle class young people out there who can barely afford their mortgages, they deserve these homes and we can easily shift the working class into small flats, they wouldn’t know any difference, would they?

Scotland is the same, I have a 1 bed flat that I rent out I've always allowed pets.

Sounds like you begrudge every single bit of it.

Why should people who live in council houses not have quality housing?

Envious of a bereaved family getting out of temporary accommodation. Nice.

Working tenants should get the best houses, if you don’t work (and are not disabled) then you get a roof over your head and be thankful for it.

What happens when you lose your job? Or get one? It would be like a never ending game of musical chairs.

Council housing is not given out as a reward. They are given out based on need.

Ultra snobby post. I live in an ex council house, solid as anything, you need a diamond tip drill to get pictures up. It’s a decent area, huge kitchen and garden, in the catchment area for the top schools in the town. Should council houses all be in terrible areas?!

I think everyone responding here is forgetting the tax payers pay for these facilities. Of course everyone should live in amazing houses but that’s not how the works works. Out on a limb here - I agree with the poster. Benefits have become so desirable nowadays there is no inclination to work. Should not be that workers are less well off & paying for others in better houses.

My parents are in a council house and don't claim any benefits. They pay for their own rent.
The tax payer (of which they are) is contributing nothing to their living arrangement.

That’s true only when tenants are recipients of housing benefits. The vast majority of tenants work and pay their own rent.

When we were council tenants we paid taxes AND paid full rent. What exactly is your point where do you think these people on benefits should live ? And also you don't seem to understand that many many low earning families receive top up benefits what about those families should they get nicer houses ?

It’s detailed in this thread how social housing building is funded.

as other posters have said many social housing tenants pay their rent from their income.

the main group who pay it using benefits are pensioners, who obviously don’t usually have income.