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.

People allowed to live in council housing and benefit from reduced rent should not then be able to spend £400+ on car finance. It's counter productive and immoral.

Has the needle got stuck on the record.

Absolutely, when allocating available resources priority should be given to those in most need. However an occupied council house is not an available resource. It's already been allocated and is someone's home. Typically someone who will have had their share of disadvantage and for whom securing that tenancy a rare piece of good fortune. To take that from them just because they are working and have improved their lives is not an act of morality, or indeed of necessity, as there are other options to address housing need. If we are resorting to playing Robin Hood, then it shouldn't be the comparatively less/no longer poor we should be taking from to help the poor.

Both can be true

I don't have a luxury car. We have 3 cars and a van. One car was left in a will to us.

Another thread on social housing.

Maybe they upgraded to fit in with the new neighbourhood.

Possibly DLA cars.

Who knows? Who cares.

the most thoughtful post I have seen on this thread. I guess the implication might have been that the level of income/wealth might have been higher than others that or ‘on the list’. And presumably if this is a new build, people who are allocated these new houses should be the families most in need, not those that splurge on luxury cars?

No, housing associations are independent companies whose entire business is properties to let. They're typically a little more expensive than council rent but cheaper than private. Some housing associations work with local councils and you can bid on those properties from the Council list if you can afford them.

Council rent is quite cheap so probably why tenants have more disposal income if they work full time.

The only requirement to go on the council list is links to the local area, must have lived there for at least five years and you can't make yourself homeless by giving up a private rent, you basically have to be evicted or living with someone else and need to move out. Even then, the wait is years long, decades in some areas. I waited 15 years.

Is what you're saying that if your landlord finds out you have a BMW, they should put your rent up?

How do you propose they be stopped?

@Arraminta

If a family is earning, for example, £4000 a month and the rent is £550 (plus other bills) then the rest is theirs to spend on whatever they choose.

There's no upper salary limit for living in council houses. They are fair rents and rise every year. And are a secure tenancy. But much cheaper than private renting which isn't secure tenancy.
I imagine a lot of people are just below the level for being able to get a mortgage so they are having nice cars. Our 23 plate only cost 8K for example. But we paid our mortgage off 20 years ago. Both of us retired, and are in the fortunate position of having no money worries.

‘Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant’

This is a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, which refers to the benefits of openness and transparency.

I have no idea what PPs think this means, but please research this before attaching sinister connotations.

Here are good places to start:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/opinion/the-news-comment-transparency-would-help-to-reassure-on-fire-safety-1105353

https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/london-fire-brigade-branded-institutionally-racist-and-misogynist-after-independent-review-79234

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/sunlight-is-the-best-disinfectant/

Not at all. I’m saying if you qualify for high benefits then your rent will be low. If you don’t qualify for any benefits you’ll be paying market rent. Seems a fair and easy to administer way to do it.

I know what the phrase means. I was questioning what pp meant to imply by using it in the context of the conversation e.g. in response to being asked why hatred of social tenants has increased since Grenfell.

Bad debt is wrote off your credit file after 6 years. If it’s still there you need to tell the companies the money is owed to to remove it.

You also may want to get off you high horse. If you check what I actually wrote up the thread, I support people receiving money for mobility vehicles/help when disadvantaged. Perhaps if we didn’t let people living in social housing when they didn’t need it m, there would be more accommodation for people like you.

So you live in subsidised public property with 4 vehicles (albeit ignore the inheritance, fair enough), but if you can afford 3 vehicles (I presume the van is for work, so again discount that)… actually. It sure where I’m going with this as we live extremely centrally with 3 kids so get by with one, and other people need two because they love more remotely… I retract my comment ! Have a lovely evening

Of course it is. But they should be paying a higher, market rate for their council house rent rather than splurging excess salary on an expensive car.

There simply isn't enough council housing to go around even for those people who can barely meet their rent, and couldn't afford to even buy a decent push bike to get around on.

No they shouldn't. I'm presuming you donate your money to needy families to help pay their bills.
After all if you have surplus money don't needy people need it?

So what about people who get PIP but have a luxury car? Which camp do they fall into? Enhanced mobility is c £310 a month and people have been complaining about SH tenants paying hundreds a month on cars.
What if you're on benefits but the landlord looks through your window and sees a nice TV or an expensive laptop? What if you're not on benefits but you don't earn much?

Not subsidised.

Are you paying the open market rent? Because if not, the rental value of the property is more than you are being charged and therefore you are getting a subsidy. This is very basic economics.

Well here's something else to ponder....

What if council tenants don't buy "luxury" cars but drive an old banger and spend money on holidays instead...or designer handbags...or pedigree dogs?

Or is it just cars that piss people off because they can physically see a car on a council driveway?

Yep, it basically boils down to anyone on benefits and/or in SH is not allowed anything nice. If they can afford nice things, they should not be on benefits/in SH.

It's really not. Once the build cost of the property has been recouped, the rental value for a non profit organisation is the running costs (maintenance, staff and so on). Plus the value to the local council and community of having secure and settled tenants can be measured in monetary terms, if that's your thing.

Who do you imagine is paying the subsidy?