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.

Of course they do. Well, through the conduit of the taxpayer.

Possibly. And not everyone has to go through some sort of trauma to get social housing. Nor does everyone who does get social housing

Tax revenue doesn’t go anywhere near housing accounts.

People who live in Ha or council, work too and pay tax.

No it doesn’t. In some cases the rent might pay the ongoing costs (but often not when you take all costs such as pension for workers into account) but in no case are they paying the value of the property. Nor are they paying the tax subsidies they are given on an ongoing basis

Central government has a direct housing budget of billions a year for housing associations and local authorities. Then there are billions more in indirect subsidies

Some do. They are taking money from the state though.

For the best.

What about the government's Green Homes Scheme? Hundreds of millions given out to housing associations to improve their eco-efficiency of their houses? So, thousands of housing association properties massively benefitting from new solar panels, ground source heat-pumps, new double glazing, new doors, exterior wall insulation, the list goes on.

From Cambridge City Council website:

^If the tenant pays their own rent in full, as a tenant of a local
authority, they are paying the full rent charged by the local authority
for the occupation of the dwelling. Social housing rents are well below
market rents, but are not subsidised rents. The Housing Revenue Account
(HRA), which is where all of the properties are accounted for if they are
owned by a local authority, is what is known as 'ring fenced', which means
all of the costs of providing the social housing need to be met from the
rental income received from them. The housing fund cannot be subsidised
from other areas of Council activity i.e.; Council Tax, planning fees,
parking income etc. Under the same rules, the HRA cannot use its funds to
subsidise the rest of the Council's services.^

Maybe subsidy is the wrong word. But without doubt, council house rent is significantly cheaper than open market rent. Therefore, some of those living in council properties may well have more disposable income than private renters or home owners paying a hefty mortgage. The irritation comes because those of us with mortgages or paying private rents, receiving no benefits, paying for prescriptions, paying tax etc are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford to purchase and run a new car.

And, the money poured into the government's Green Homes Scheme is, obviously, taken from tax payers.

Whether the tenant wants them or not!! see theres the difference YOU get to choose

As a tenant i havent asked for ANY of that crap

You mean the scheme that was scrapped in 2021 and covered private landlords and owner occupiers?

Because companies want to make money

The building and provision of housing does not equate to subsidy. It's investment in vital essential infrastructure which will pay for itself many times over across its lifespan.

Unless you are suggesting that social tenants already have other properties that they could use and don't (such as second homes), then like everyone else they are in need of housing and that need is being met.

Well presumably you don't get to choose because it's not your house?

I think you'll find that many HA are still availing themselves of the Green Homes money.

Everyone’s in need of secure housing! Why should someone pay open market rent on the private rental sector, knowing they could get kicked out of their property with a few months notice when someone in exactly the same financial circumstances could be paying 1/3rd less rent and have the security of not being asked to leave at the drop of a hat? Why is that fair? Doesn’t sound it to me, and most other taxpayers.

My apologies, it's now called The Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund.

Were home owners forced to take out that hefty mortgage What was used A gun to their head. Their arms twisted behind their backs. Im intrigued as to how this was achieived if it wasnt a CHOICE

NOW we are getting to the truth. People who are pissed that they have overstretched themselves with a massive mortgage so cant afford any extras so want someone else to blame for THEIR choice. So they look at SH tenants with a half decent car and resent them for being able to afford it when they cant because of their OWN decision!!

SH tenants are blamed when money is spent on these ridiculous schemes but are also blamed AGAIN when we say we dont want it and told not to be so ungrateful Cant win

Exactly. We've just become mortgage free, but even that doesn't provide total security. Certain devastating issues are not covered by your buildings insurance, as discovered by some friends of mine, who were also mortgage free and thought they were home and dry.

Why should there be a win scenario in this situation?

If none of us took out mortgages or rented privately there’d be even less council housing available.