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 talking about the council selling them not the tenant. Get it built for say £400K but it's worth around £2M. Sell it for that and then buy 2-3 flats that are good but not such high level luxury and house more families. You could still stay in the local area.

The council can not sell them. It is illegal for the council to sell them.

i haven’t said anything about tenant. The council can’t sell it.

it probably cost £80k to built btw

£80K! Not being able to sell properties that they've paid to have built in order to acquire more is really flawed in my view. Completely ridiculous law that prevents councils from using their money in ways that gives then more bang for their buck.

Someone I know got a CH (well flat!) 3 bedrooms and…..a sea view in a coastal town where to buy the same would probably cost at least 500k and I’m very happy for them couldn’t of happened to a nicer person

This just isn’t how it works, you’ve got it all wrong.

on the plot you describe, a number of house builders (let’s say Taylor whimey) were given planning permission to build flats as long as, say 25% of the estate was affordable housing. This is a legal obligation, and has to be met.

Taylor wimpy put out a tenure for a joint venture for a social housing provider to build the affordable housing on the estate, or maybe the council do it- maybe they were involved directly from day 1- maybe it was even their land.

The properties are built, Taylor whimpy sell theirs. The council rent theirs out for social housing rent.

thats the end.

Now see how your idea of the council suddenly selling them all off doesn’t work?

Also- as has been said frequently in the thread already- the council want the brand new housing to add to their balance sheet, not some crap old stock that was up for sale for less.

@AquaPeercalling state pension a"benefit "is a relatively new phenomenon. As far as workers "hard working people " are concerned, it is something they have paid into for previous generations. If you do not have paid employment you do not pay NI so therefore you are not paying into the system for a state pension.

Not true. Claiming working age benefits confers NI credits. Theoretically you could never do a day’s paid work and still qualify for a state pension.

NC'd with a throwaway as outing-but I live in a housing association property & have for over 10 years now. It is considered a "nice" property in one of the "nicer" areas-the HA have recently done major works on the house and we have done a good deal ourselves, keep the garden nice/decorate regularly etc. We also both work and we bid for this house with a priority for working people. The road we live on is now mainly privately owned ex HA stock.

We also live in an area that has a lot-and I mean a lot-of poor quality HA housing and it is heartbreaking to see-there is a development plan to get rid of them and replace with better accomodation, which can only be a good thing. No one deserves to live in anything that could be described as a "shit hole". People on lower incomes/ those who cannot work/retired/living with disabilities deserve to have a nice place to live too.

It doesn’t really matter what they think, and to be honest, until recently there was such a lack of transparency about how these things worked that people just believed whatever.
It has always been a benefit, the way it works means it can’t be anything else

the reality is, as I’m sure you know, older people overwhelmingly hate “benefit scroungers” and dont want to be lumped in with them.

This is really sad. There’s no societal benefit to creating ghettos of poor people living ‘where they deserve’. That creates all sorts of issues for more reasons than I can list.

Our first home was ex council and the street was about half ex council and half council. It was my favourite place I’ve lived and I never begrudged anyone on the street for living in the exact same home I did. Mostly I’m just glad that I’m lucky enough to be able to buy a home and raise my kids in it.

i think you might be burnt out and could benefit from a break or a career change as your indignation must be showing to this family and any others you support.

Anyway thinking about it I think you’ve misunderstood me anyway.

I’m not talking about Pensioners paying rent with their state pension. I’m talking about pensioners being in receipt of housing benefit/ the housing element of UC.

If they pay it all themselves, why is it a council house? Why not just rent privately? It’s taxpayers funds.

What is tax payers funds? Can you be clearer what you mean? What is tax payers funds used for when it comes to council
housing?

I think a lot of people including myself have been clear and taken the time to explain why tax payers money is not used, but you persist. It would be helpful if you could explain exactly what you mean

I don’t disagree with a lot you have said OP but I do think you’re in the wrong job.

You are just saying"tax payers funds" on a loop what do you mean ?

My guess is they don’t know what they mean. It’s nonsensical.

You are in the wrong job you are supposed to be supporting people that have had a significant bereavement and yet all you are doing is being judgemental. Go and get a job where you don't need empathy.

Yeah just buzzwords they have read "somewhere ".

https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/05/16/sanctuary-review-nearly-4000-cases/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKFpvRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmFlKRGbgVWM8TCNmFi0-J2aD3_bDwn6Kq-EoVw80lQrs4aPUV6-kXTnhSi__aem_D-hJCPLUeWBeaBVTjaGPOg

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/notting-hill-genesis-london-biggest-landlord/?ref=the-londoner-newsletter&fbclid=IwY2xjawKFtJxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHnFJ2WcW9xE0gowGtaXO3_w9sdF6OZspXbbNL260mBcLdGZlUgOXuciC9e2v_aem_tddZKqyV5kEVplioFyMfrg

How judgy and condescending - my sympathies to your clients.

Speaking of subsidised, From my Notting Hill Genesis link.

Across the river in Nine Elms, Janine Streuli is one of many NHG shared ownership tenants in a block called Viridian Apartments. But far from delivering Kenrick’s utopian vision of good quality housing for everybody, regardless of wealth, Streuli and her neighbours have ended up paying for the concierge and garden landscaping of the wealthy residents of the adjacent luxury block. They’re facilities that she and the fellow affordable housing residents haven’t been given access to; their block has a separate “poor door” and their entrance to the communal gardens are sealed shut.
The charge was only announced five years after Streuli moved in, when the affordable housing residents got a bill for thousands of pounds. While their initial leases made clear they wouldn’t have to pay these fees, NHG’s own lease with the building’s management company — which actually runs the development and its facilities — said the opposite. When the discrepancy was eventually identified the tenants were asked to take on the cost. They were now going to be paying to maintain the luxury gardens and concierge that they weren’t even allowed to use. Now she and most of the other residents spend upwards of £6,000 or £7,000 a year in service fees, almost 500% the rate promised when she moved in. While subsidising the facilities of their neighbours, many of their own flats and corridors have dealt with flooding, penetrating damp and mould — problems that have never been adequately fixed. Eventually the residents cobbled together enough money to take NHG to a property tribunal, and next month their fate will be decided by a judge

https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/25135814.oldham-residents-fight-housing-association-20-rent-hike/?ref=wa&fbclid=IwY2xjawKFwzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHnpDY6Nx85aVgwqwKUlb92344kBujb0kcVvUpRV-3aQ8jL_sO7kdoHG1DPsP_aem_IRKVMI8v2uAwagHYE6KiCw

Agreed, council tenants should only be offered damp substandard accommodation.

Encourage them to work harder.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic.