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.

@AquaPeer As a single person, the mortgage payments would obviously be double for me than it would be for a couple, so just because someone can get a mortgage, doesn't mean they should max out on their budget like this. Also, many houses at the lower end of the market are often in need of thousands of pounds of work, which is not taken into consideration.

Also, your comment does not negate my point - if I had spent a lot more money like my peers on travelling, music festivals, and regular drinking, I would have a lot fewer savings, meaning I would be eligible for help that I haven't been so far , like they would be.

People where I live in California would kill for a place like this.
We obviously don’t have counsel houses. We have what they call “Section 8.”
And the flats and limited number of houses with reduced rent that qualify for Section 8 are literally in the worst areas of town in the most rundown properties.
And my friend and I have commented to one another more than once whether the state and counties deem the low-income people not worthy to live in anything other than shitholes.
It’s heartbreaking AND insulting.

As a fellow charity worker, your attitude towards the charity's beneficiaries is shit. You should be looking for work in a different sector.

I live in a (since sold on) right-to-buy ex council house, most of my neighbours are still housed by the council. The houses are of great quality - as it should be.

This is really good to hear. Local authorities should be providing high quality housing that people can be happy with. A good home is the foundation for building a decent life for people and their children. All the old council housing stock in my area is lovely. Big solid semis with good sized rooms and large gardens, built as an improvement on the drafty, pokey victorian terraces. All we need now is a lot more of it!

Hi OP. What you've discovered here is a good thing. Clustering all council houses together in 'shit' areas does nothing for social cohesion. You create pockets of depravation. If the LA is responsible and focused on building mixed and vibrant communities they will not simply shove social tenants behind 'poor doors' and create good neighbourhood/bad neighbourhood and ghettoisation. A good, mixed community has people with a range of incomes and tenure types living side by side. The Tories tried to get councils to sell off high value properties. The receipts did not go towards building new social housing. Family-sized council properties are in such low supply now that a lot of LAs are looking at purchasing empty homes. If they do this in a range of areas all the better, and being online attractive properties all the better.

Really dislike your posts OP. I live in an ex council house. We live on a nice estate and the private houses and social houses are about 50:50.

Most of my neighbours are council tenants and I love them. They work hard and look after and are proud of their homes and they are exactly how you describe. 3 bedrooms with gardens.

Recently the council made home improvements all over the estate. I didn’t begrudge anyone getting this done. Ours is in need of similar and we will need to save up for it but we have the advantage of owning the house when the mortgage is paid.

My grandparents were council tenants and worked hard and eventually were able to buy their house.

We should have more decent council houses built countrywide

So you couldn’t buy outright (with a mortgage)

that’s not the same as being rejected for shared ownership or a home buyers loan. I do not believe you were rejected for shared ownership, and you would not have been rejected on savings.

your peers managed to have a few holidays and a mobile phone and buy a house, bully them. You’d be able to do the same if you earned more.

You’ve a gorgeous house! Glad things are looking up and you’re getting better!

DD’s CH is stunning. Big 3 bed terrace but with two parking spaces and a loveky little back garden. Like a show home and high spec finish. In process of helping her buy it atm - fingers crossed.
However I do see your point as my DS pays twice as much for a crappy rental flat. ( He’s off travelling soon but besides the point)

What a nasty judgemental small minded comment.
Perhaps you would feel better if these people were living in Victorian slums.

Well done! You have done a great job with your property!

Oh dear. Your posts don’t get any better, do they? Starting with council tenants living in nice houses when they should put up with the dregs. Then moving on to the fact this woman hasn’t lived in the UK long and hasn’t ‘paid in’ enough. Poor woman having you supposedly on her side. I hope you’re a good actor.

We have had a similar response from some people regarding new Housing Association houses being built near us. They are beautiful. A mixture of semis and detached. Solar panels. Decent gardens. Plum spot beside the area’s only supermarket. And the snide comments started on Facebook a few weeks ago. Decent people paying mortgages being excluded. Immigrants getting everything. Anti social behaviour. Nobody even lives in them yet FFS. Thankfully there was a fair bit of pushback and the OP deleted her rant.

Edited due to my inaccurate terminology that the woman being helped by the OP is an immigrant.

I think you’re in the wrong job, TBH.

What would be the advantage of pushing people into slums?

It’s the tenure that is the significant difference in housing.

Lots of them where bequeathed in wills to councils and HA's by decent individuals.

Quite a lot where abandoned often damaged post ww2, some just taken over by unscrupulous landlords who where discovered and cleared out in the late 60's early 70's, forced out and properties left empty again.
Some where squatted and licensed by councils if they formed HA's.
The little HA's then got taken over by bigger and bigger ones.
Many in good areas where left in poor repair by the big HA's, used for land banking and then tenants pushed out so they could be sold to developers, or knocked down and shared ownership smaller 'starter' flats built in their place, to make profit and encourage those who could get mortgages to buy. The previous tenants who could get mortgages where allowed to part buy, the rest forced into poorer and poorer areas.

Some got brought up cheap in exchange deals for a tenancy deal in sheltered housing. ( 'in laws' did this, 'cashing in' their home for way under the market value, to get into a particular sheltered scheme that was disabled accessible and know they'd given someone in need a good home.)

@AquaPeer I've already explained it to you so i can't be bothered to explain it again.

your peers managed to have a few holidays and a mobile phone and buy a house, bully them. You’d be able to do the same if you earned more

What a callous response. For your info, those people earnt exactly the same as me, so they weren't spending more because they had better or higher paying jobs.

It’s not. Housing accounts are ringfenced and not subsidised from the general account.

Considering how often mouldy council properties come up on the news surely having a decent clean home is a good thing. It’s about time mouldy homes are not acceptable. If this is your job surely posting on a forum about someone else’s story is a confidentiality breach.

Im not saying council houses should be the bottom quality of housing but I also don’t see how it makes sense for them to be the top?

Because they deserve to live somewhere nice. In your job you should want the best for them.

No, social housing pays for itself. Its not taxpayer subsidised.

Tenants are absolutely not getting the “same” thing more cheaply. Nothing would persuade me to sell my house and go back to he being a tenant. I suspect the same is true of you. Much, much better to own the deeds than to have tenancy rights, if you can afford it, as I think you are perfectly well aware.

I think you have over shared massively about a a client you are working with professionally and really overstepped professional boundaries!

I agree that you may need to reconsider your choice of job, it isn’t appropriate at all and makes me very uncomfortable as a mental health professional.

YABU on many fronts!

I was born and brought up in a very nice council house on a very nice estate
Why do you assume there aren't any nice council houses?
I would guess that in many cases they are much nicer than privately rented properties .

Yep this!
people renting privately pay a lot and many are really awful …they can’t get a CH or HA home so have to pay astronomically high private rents and many aren’t up to scratch …

it’s a very unfair system about who gets a CH/HA house and who doesn’t …

That needs looking it who is getting the homes…it was supposed to be working people needing a helping hand but that’s been turned on its head …

I know people been waiting years to get a home…housing situation is a mess.

Another myth - social housing isn’t means tested.

That's what's called "planning gain" or sometimes "planning obligation". It enables councils to achieve wider public benefit on top of developers' profits. It's a condition included when planning permission is granted.

One lot built in my district were 12 small houses in a gloomy corner of a large new estate of 4 bed detached and 3 bed semis, inferior in both design and quality of build, and in a low lying spot that was waterlogged if we had 3 consecutive rainy days. They were truly horrible. And all the neighbours knew they were council homes, and the tenants were pretty much ostracised by their neighbours in the bigger houses.

I think most councils now make the agreement that they will have a fixed number of the homes built for sale, but I've not worked in that area for several years.

Absolutely this. You sound like a goady sly back biter. I hope the new lady tenant can enjoy living in her new home.
So judgemental you have no idea.