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.

Our council build small developments. The latest one, twelve very attractive houses, solar panels and underground heat pumps. They're well insulated and built to a higher standard than many private developments.

I see the 'So you want poor people to live in a box in the road' crew have arrived. There's a huge number of people living in inadequate accomodation because of decades of failure to ensure that we have the housing stock we need. Many of whom would qualify for council housing, but the housing simply isn't available. Essentially a small number of people win a lottery and get decent council housing and a lot of people equally deserving don't. None of which means I have a problem with her getting the house, because I don't go with the logic of 'If we can't all have it, no one should'. But the wider situation is crappy. It's good that we built a bunch of council houses to decent standards. That as admirable ambition to actually look after the population.

Page 11 is the start of the qualifying criteria. Page 34 onwards lists exemptions. The ones you’ve quoted are specific to the properties ie for a studio or 1 bedroom you can’t earn in excess of 30k but for a 3 bed you can. It’s right sizing property size to need

but yes, it could mean that your family member couldn’t get the property they need.

Income limits were brought in (some places) because of shortages.

If we build more social housing, we can go back to the old way of not having income limits and more tenants could have lifetime tenancies.

The answer is always to build more.

Thing is, when councils sell council homes they are obliged to hand over a chunk of cash to the government, they can’t simply hold onto it and use it to buy two smaller, (shittier) homes.

A council near me managed to get some government funding towards building some much needed new bungalows in a village with a shortage of affordable smaller, accessible homes for older folks to downsize into. This also helped to free up larger family sized homes when the older person moved - usually homes sized for one tend to be flats which are not always suitable. Within a few years they’ll be bought under right to buy, the council is obliged to sell them to the tenant at a discount, pass most of the money to government and the social home disappears, probably to pop up as a private rental at many times the rent. Shit system.

I thought that when council houses were first being put up, the build quality was generally very good, and they have lasted well too.
Ones that had been sold to tenants and then sold on again are usually very much sought after too.
In the 60s my DM and DF were friends with a family of six who had had just been allocated a new 4-bed council house, end terrace or semi-detached i think, in Stoke Newington. It was lovely and spacious, didn't need anything doing to it at all. The family moved away as the children grew up, this was before Margaret Thatcher and her right to buy; I'd put money down that it's in private hands these days.

In my town there are a few houses that are council properties in the historic town centre.

I asked a housing officer how this came to be, and she told me that when someone dies and they're intestate and have no heirs, the property reverts to "the crown" and if it includes a house it can be passed on the to local authority for housing.

The HO in question was a bit eccentric though, so that may be nonsense. But it would explain how a fine 3-storey Georgian or early Victorian house came to be a council house!

They couldn't get on the list at all because of their income and savings.
It took him months after his sec21 ended to find somewhere. There is a shortage of private rental places too.

I think some people post from positions of extreme privilege, but everyone in a town has a nicer life when the poorest have decent housing and tenures are mixed in. It always amazes me that some people can’t see that.

My uncle used to work in a council housing department before he retired. He said the thing that has ruined everything is the right to buy. The only people who have profited are the tenants who bought, and some of them possibly not because they will have or, have had to already, sell their houses to pay for their care in old age.

I am housing association. I must to call them if I have a blocked toilet/shower etc. it's part of the tenancy agreement..possibly the same for your sister. Oh and I pay rent.. I also work and pay tax

Within a few years they’ll be bought under right to buy, the council is obliged to sell them to the tenant at a discount, pass most of the money to government and the social home disappears, probably to pop up as a private rental at many times the rent. Shit system.

My BIL is a builder and he does a lot of work for a property company. They buy former council houses that were previously sold under right to buy, then lease them back to the council on 3-year terms, and the council uses them to house homeless families.

The rent the company get from the council is equivalent to the max HB/UC will pay for that size of the property, but it's guaranteed, and the council undertake to meet the cost of any repairs that are needed both during and at the end of the lease period.

How bonkers is that? The council are paying private rental rates for homes they used to own, to house people who probably wouldn't be homeless if the council hadn't had to sell the houses.

You sound very resentful.
I think you’re in the wrong job.

You also sound miffed that she’s getting a lovely home even though she hasn’t been in temporary accommodation for long.

Presumably you’re in a position to buy, so don’t ever compare.

People can’t afford right to buy anymore. It’s not common at all.

You sound like the last person who should be supporting anyone.

Get Iver yourself

You don't know what state the previous tenants left it in. The people who used to live in my council house were horders. Lucky for me they were putting in new kitchens and bathrooms in the area. The kitchen was covered in grease not that any of the units were useable. Every room had filthy woodchip. They did do some plastering but only patching up. I was just greatful to have a home that wasn't a health and safety hazard for 2 severely disabled children.

My parents lived in council property most of their married lives. They could have bought their council house outright, no mortgage needed.

My lovely lefty dad wouldn't do it, he said that these houses were built for people who needed them and when they didn't need it any more, it should go to someone else who really needed it.

I admired him for that, although the inheritance would have been nice...

Are you busy writing your resignation letter OP?

businesses and councils don’t make decisions based on the market price of things. The value to their organisation is represented completely differently to that.

Councils are part of the real world. In the real world assets can be exchanged for money, which can then be exchanged for different assets. If it doesn't work like that, it's because someone has decided it won't, not because it actually doesn't

It sounds very much like the NHS where a box of paper clips costs £50 because you have to source them via procurement rather than being able to buy them on the open market at 1% of the price

Having a disabled child wouldn’t necessarily push anyone up the housing register unless already in social housing, say in a second floor flat and said child was a wheelchair user or couldn’t use stairs.

The main criterion for a Band A - basically being top of the bidding list are:

-Overcrowding- missing a bedroom but this cannot be done intentionally -ie deliberately renting a place that is too small eg 4 kids in one room. It would only be if the kids were born while in the property leading to overcrowding.
-pregnant living at home and ‘mum kicking me out’ , once got Mat B1- sometime temporary accommodation first for short while but with a Band A and high chance of bidding successfully
-Opposite sex children sharing a room
-Veterans - automatic band A
-Care leavers -automatic band A
-Anyone in Temporary Accommodation - so Asylum seekers with leave to remain/People fleeing violence in refuges or needing to move area due to risk of violence/ people who have been moved out of home due to flooding or fire etc/ substance users/ ex street homeless people in hostels engaging with support as part of moving them on
-Anyone who has been served an eviction notice (not a S21 notice to quit but eviction)

The above get you a band A so long as you earn under the income threshold - as an individual or couple - when I worked in housing helping people set up their bidding applications (home link) was around 30k PA for a couple combined so lots low earners would only ever get a Band D as were over the threshold.

it’s a minefield
and there is lots of collusion.
where I was working (Camb city ) small number of highly desirable properties and huge numbers of people bidding on them .

very hard explaining to young couples especially who lived and worked in area both at home but looking to move out, live together start families etc that they would most likely be bottom of list /earned too much. Also that the minute they were in a private rental they would be considered housed and the bottom
band D - and would likely never ever access social housing

There is no point in me losing an asset that can be on my balance sheet for 100 years, generating revenue, to get market price cash.
I (probably) don’t need cash, I need asset value. If I need cash, It’s selling the family silver and it’s unsustainable so I’ll be bankrupt soon.

likewise, I don’t need to exchange one asset as per the above for 2 low quality assets that will only last another 20 years and need significant capital investment, only to generate the same value as the one good asset above.

that is the real world

There’s absolutely an earning threshold 100
it’s around 30k here where I live.
and a savings cap.

We got pushed right up because we were living in a private rental not far from a main road and DD1 had a tendency to escape the house despite all usual measures (we resorted to electromagnetic locks). When we bid on our house we were placed 3rd but then got the offer of the property.

Everyone deserves a nice, warm and decent quality home whether it’s council, private rent or owned. I wish more people viewed housing as a human right rather than something else.

Well said.

What’s truly batshit (but you see it on MN all the time) is homeowners envying council tenants.