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.

I’m glad you are not my support worker. Sneering judgement is not a good look.

Social tenants don’t pay “full rent” as in “market rent”, though do they?

Well no but surely that's better for a family, "market rents" are ridiculous and over priced and I personally think there should be a cap on them.

Some private landlords charge well under market rent. Some well over.
What is your point? Because if it is about social housing being "subsidised", you are wrong.

Market rent doesn’t mean anything.

social rent charge per week is usually profitable (as in it covers the cost of repair and maintenance, management, admin etc) depending on property of course.

the fact that a buy to let landlord can charge more (and probably needs to due to mortgage etc) is neither here nor there. Why is “market rent” the right price? It’s just a different price

Exactly! But perhaps misses the point of the thread.....

You’ve taken the worst possible interpretation of the OP’s post.

So, in the same sprit: are you really saying that if the council has the resources for three council houses, the moral thing to do is to buy one expensive house and leave two people on the waiting list? You wouldn’t choose to house them all if you could?

(My main axe to grind here is about trade-offs: they are real, and conducting political discussions as if they are not just leads to bad policy and mutual mistrust. Why doesn’t she support X, it must be because she’s a bad person. Rather than: there’s tough choices to be made and people come to different conclusions on where to make them).

Of course people who have retired have an income. If you have worked and paid NI all of your working life and also perhaps have paid into a works pension, it will be your income in retirement. You will also pay tax. People who haven't paid NI or a works pension will claim the pension credit, a benefit and will probably have access to other benefits as well.

Honestly OP isn’t talking about one fuck off amazing mansion vs three standard houses. She describes a very average house and suggests it costs the same (at market sale price) as 2 x 2 up 2 down Victorian terraces in a worse area.

not only is this a very marginal gain- even looking at sale prices- but as has been discussed extensively on the thread sales prices are not what is important here.

The properties are revenue producing assets, their value is measured differently to their sales price.

OPs example and your idea of value don’t hold true in the way you think they do.

State pension is a benefit.

i am sure a very many pensioners have other income, but i can tell you the majority of social housing tenants who have their rent paid via state benefits are pensioners.

I think ops later posts clarify that that's the only interpretation to be made.

The council aren't buying one really good house for one person and leaving 2 homeless. Council houses were bought and paid for years ago. All the new builds are HA.

Selling their housing stock also wouldn't work like that for numerous reasons posters have given throughout the thread.

Like, you don't seem to understand the housing market at all. The problem isn't that her rent is half of market value, the problem is the market value rents are double the cost of council. You're angry that no one is making a profit out of this woman and it seems unfair to you that some buy to let landlord can't do this?

I live in a HA home. It was new 20 years ago. It’s lovely in a nice quiet village. In Wales housing is expected to be up to standard. I’m retired now, but I’m surrounded by working families. Most in HA housing but some private owner/ occupied or private rented. All the houses in this village and surrounding areas are frequently inspected!! People would be very angry with the local council/ housing providers if the housing stock was allowed to deteriorate, considering the amount of rent and council tax we pay.

You see this over and again. False proclamations that benefits are hard to claim, yet the welfare bill has never been higher and there have never been more people claiming.

How scarce council houses are, well they must be easy enough to get, based on this, and if not than people are living in nicer houses courtesy of the taxpayer than those who are actually paying for it.

The system truly is broken.

THIS! Its a wonder that working HA tenants can keep a job with constant checks and surveys. Coudlnt a gas safety check and a new fire door being fitted be organised for the same day for instance

Maybe more people are claiming because more people are struggling?

And council houses are very scarce. Mums with babies are in B&Bs for months... people with MH issues are in hostels.
Not a single person can rock up to their local council and get housed within weeks.

Have you tried to claim benefits or SH housing? If not, then kindly shut the fuck up because you have no idea what you are on about.

My parents have been in their council house for about 35 years now. They have paid for the cost of the actual house a few times by now.

I think this is a really interesting issue - I also think that lots of readers have jumped to massive conclusions - saying the OP wants council tenants to lives in shitholes is bullshit - she doesn't say that at all. I totally agree that everyone should have a nice home including council tenants. I'd be really interested in people's views on the following: Near me (Central London) families that I know of are being housed in brand new council flats that are worth around £1-2 milliion each on the open market - they're the council part of luxury flats where a two-bed is £1.6M - but the council ones are three bed so probably more like £1.8M each (sort of luxury level including more than one glass balcony per flat - according to someone I know who lives in one - even she couldn't believe it) . Like the OP, I'm thinking that £1-2 million for one family can't be the best use of the council's money. Even a few notches down from that wouldn't be anything like a shithole but surely would be cheaper - which means more housing for more families?

So even though the flats would sell for £2m, you know they didn’t cost the council that to build, don’t you?

so if you can’t sell them on the open market, what use is the information that they’re worth £2m?

it’s very important that central London remains not only socially mixed, but has some population who are actually generational Londoners.

most working class inner London families will be in social housing nowadays. If it wasn’t for social housing they would not live there at all. Then the culture of London would die even more.

This. I have friends who live in a council flat in Camden, it’s definitely worth a seven figure sum on the open market. It’s a conversion in a Victorian house that probably cost the council a few grand when they moved into it over 40 years ago.

I'm completely aware that the flats cost much less to build. But of course you could sell them on the open market - they're part of the luxury flats 'estate'.. I just think it's seems a daft use of council money - one family gets luxury accommodation, other families live years in temporary housing. Better I think to sell them at top dollar and buy more than one flat for less (you could still stay in the area) and house two families at least.

They can’t sell them. That would be illegal. They are assigned their tenure and that’s it. Them being social rent was the condition of many, many things connected to that development. That might change in 20 years, or in exceptional circumstances, but not now.

housing is a very long term sector. You have to think about what the impacts will be in 30 years of your suggestion.

Very strange post.

I thought it was common knowledge that council houses (particularly older ones) are generally of a very high build quality, well thought out usable spaces, good sized rooms, good sized gardens etc.

Don’t really get your point.

'social rent charge per week is usually profitable (as in it covers the cost of repair and maintenance, management, admin etc) depending on property of course' - I think this is BS. My retired uncle lives in a two bed flat not far from central London - his rent for the past few years has been £8 a week. I'm on a committee with council tenants/the local council and it's not profit making. The council tries to squeeze money comes from the leaseholiders (who own ex-council flats) if there are any in the block - the council try to load communal costs onto them as much as possible. People I know who moved into luxury flats I mentioned in a previous post pay £200 pw for three beds and were aghast at that price and some didn't move as their current rent was under £100 pw for two beds - with all repairs/maintenance included, and bathrooms/kitchens replaced every 10 years or so.

Social rent is set in law. It’s not £2 a week.

maybe that’s all he pays himself and housing benefit covers the rest of something.

The local housing allowance and social rent setting formula is easily googleable.