Council houses owning brand new cars?

[TheCluelessMum]

I’m writing this post with the hopes of being educated, not slandered

however I completely appreciate I may be just completely shot down for asking this.

i live on a new build estate, 12 houses at the start of the estate are council houses. I don’t know this because I’m a snob, I know this because it’s clearly marked on plans when you buy those houses.

i see so much stuff online about how the UK benefits system is failing people, the higher rise of food banks. It’s absolutely abhorrent people are in this situation.

however, when entering my estate today I noticed that each and every single council house had a car newer that a 20 plate. Mercedes, Audi’s, BMW’s even range rovers.. there was not a single house out of the 12 which had an older than 20 plate car.

I am now confused as to why this is the case? Everyone I know (including those receiving benefits) continually speaks about how hard the cost of living is.

so could someone please answer how/why those in what we would presume lower income families, are able to afford such lavish cars.

@XenoBitch

"They don't own them though."

True but it doesn't stop them being parked on people's driveways.

Equally 80% of cars that are not purchased through Motability are bought on Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) where technically the buyer doesn't own the car either.

You don’t know what you don’t know

Yep.

Proved it.

You’re exhausting.

Precisely

No requirement to reply should you not want to :)

Public resources should be more widely available so they don't have to be reserved for the most needy. This is more likely to be facilitated by more people paying rent to the local authority thus increasing its revenue, than by pushing them to line the pockets of private landlords as soon as they have money to spend.

So we give people council houses then if they earn a good living throw them out and bring in someone poorer?

Nobody's suggesting an emotive "throwing them out", @Coconutter24

If such a policy was adopted it would take so long to implement that people would have plenty of time to make their own arrangements, and even then those considered no longer in need of help would hopefully get a grace period after the assessment

Agreed if more resources were available all the needy should get what they need. But we live in the real world, sadly.

Not to further derail to derailed thread, but I didn’t know there were subsets of social housing and I wouldn’t know that because I didn’t know they existed. It’s not like I google “how many worlds are there of which I am not aware so shouldn’t even be conscious enough of to be googling this”.

But a poster comes and makes a thread and oh, it’s a troll etc. “Educate yourself, snob!” You can’t win. I’ve never set foot in a state school before…so I could ask a question and then get called names, I could then offer to go into a state school and then I’d get accused of “poverty porn” or other such nonsense.

The absolute chips on shoulders

By law local authorities are required to give reasonable preference to people in certain kinds of housing need when prioritising housing applications. Each local authority can decide the way it prioritises housing applications as long as they give reasonable preference to those groups. As demand continues to outstrip supply, some social landlords are looking to review the way they allocate housing to refocus on applicants with greater housing need and local preference rather than also including other local priorities. But fundamentally the purpose is to provide housing assistance to people who cannot meet their housing needs in the privacy market. That doesn't just mean they can't afford it - there are various kinds of need.

I work as a nurse, I live in a housing association house and I have a 24 plate car. We were homeless for 18 months before we got this house

Might send this thread to as many housing associations as i can
So they know that its popular with the public for them not to bother with the charging points for electric cars

Bet you fucking social housing haters didnt think of that did you!!!!
Still the HAs will be pleased to save the money

Again. That was on the table. Councils didn't want to do it. Why would you want to create transient ghettos (for want of a better word) over settled, mixed communities?

We do. A real world where its beyond ridiculous for people to suggest that other people should give up secure affordable tenancies on homes where they are happy, to move into insecure more expensive tenancies in the private sector to 'be kind' to a more needy family. I'd bet my own house the people saying council tenants should do this wouldn't disadvantage themselves and their families to house some theoretical needy household. The responsibility for housing vulnerable people lies with the authorities. Private citizens who care about this can use their vote to elect officials they feel will do this most fairly. They can use their money to donate to housing charities. They can lend their support to campaigns. Expecting them to give up their own home is too great an ask and not somethong those calling for it would be prepared to do.

I didn’t say they should, you did

THIS! And in the case of single parents who are stuck in hotels etc social housing tenants who are complete strangers are expected to be more responsible for the kid(s) than their OWN FATHER

A lot of new build housing estates have to have a % of Social Housing nowadays , often tho the properties are ' shared ownership ' and not just for rent.

and...people do still have / get company cars.

When I asked what do you suggest, make someone else homeless or push another family into poverty?
The answer was yes, loose their subsidy to a more needy family.
So yes someone did think some should loose their home so it can be given to someone else more needy

Do the usual benefit haters who think that "families who really need it" will move into these council houses once the existing tenants have been evicted not realise who would get these houses?!

Very well put but, and I 100% agree BUT, essentially, should families on shelters not have priority over those who are able to rend luxury cars, the cost of which is probably commensurate with their subsided rent?

My apologies, mis-typed, entirely contrary to what I was trying to say. Why should most needy NOT get the most help? Apologies again.

What are you insinuating?

After our lovely downstairs neighbour died after living there for 19 years we got
A. the druggie and his non resident girlfriend who used to throw furniture at each other
B. tthe alkie who banged on the ceiling and called me a cunt through the floor.

I don’t think we really disagree. But people paying for their own accommodation presumably release more money for the council to distribute equitably. But bottom line is, for me, morally, the most needy should get the most help… and I agree again it is the system as currently constructed that means councils do not have adequate resources for what they should be able to provide…p.s. not a Tory by a country mile!!!

I’m not for kicking people out of their homes BUT if someone has £600 a month to spaff on a tit-mobile like a BMW, wouldn’t a better thing to do would to charge him open market value for their rent and with the extra money you receive from that person invest it in new social housing?

So eg if open market value on the private rental market for a property is £1,000, housing benefit should be adjusted to cover a proportion of the rent depending on how needy the tenant is. If you are severely disabled and will never work your housing benefit covers the whole cost. If you have a low income but are earning the housing benefit is reduced and you pay more in rent. If you have a good salary you’d pay the entire £1,000. More social housing needs to be built in the UK. We need to find ways of funding it. This way we aren’t paying housing benefit to private landlords, but to housing associations who will hopefully reinvest the money.