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.

And knowing you could be given notice at any time
Why would actively choose to put themselves in such a precarious situation.

SH has always been looked down on I think. Even now you hear 'theyre a little bit council' to describe people. Now council houses are desirable and people can't stand that. It's always 'those poor folks on waiting lists needing somewhere '

If the people saying it are so bothered. Why don't they offer people a home. Especially if they have spare bedrooms.

I'd hazard a guess they themselves wouldn't budge up to make room though.

Also the upcoming renter's rights bill is likely to make the situation even more dire. Of course private tenants should have robust rights but this legislation isn't backed up by a simultaneous increase in social housing. In Wales, the Rented Homes act meant lots of private landlords evicted en masse just before the act came into place. Now there's a real scarcity of rental homes, along with ever more stringent demands on the part of landlords for guarantors, advance rent and so on. If the PRS was bad before, it's going to be terrible soon because of the lack of cohesive housing policy and provision. Why would anyone in their rightful mind leave a secure tenancy in order to enter the fray?

Absolutely
Capping Deposits adversely affected people who wanted to rent with pets and removing the ability to offer more rent for having a pet will do the same
Of course Landlords can't actually discriminate against people with pets or children but as you have no right to know WHY your application for a Rental property was unsuccessful they still can and will

The original ides was that council housing was for those who could not afford to buy, not just as another stream of rented homes.

Actually no. The issue is complex but essentially boils down to pragmatism. It wasn't good for society to have people living in slum conditions, it was costly as it promoted ill health and subsequent lack of ability to contribute fully. That's still the same, it's just that society has come to see housing as a commodity rather than a basic requirement. Political climates, however, do not change human need.

to receive information?

are there not many thousands of families out there ARE actively looking for council help with housing, living in temporary housing, because (for exampke) people who can afford new BMWs are hogging the limited council housing supply?

i have read it all :) But people's 'explanations' don't add up, morally. "I can get away with it so I will"..

The answer to your original point has nothing to do with morals. You proposed cross pollination with other council services which the legislation around social housing prohibits.

addressed but not yet justified... can't quite wrap my head around people believing the most needy should get the most help...

can't quite wrap my head around people believing the most needy should get the most help...

Hmm you might want to rephrase that.

There is no moral imperative for council/HA tenants to give up their secure homes. The onus is on the government to ensure decent, affordable housing for all. There are myriad reasons why that will never happen in practice, none of which obviate the responsibility.

And also, get away with what? Peaceful enjoyment of their homes according to the conditions of their legal tenancies? You make it sound like SH tenants are setting fire to B&Bs and kicking the dogs of homeless people!

You can try to justify it till you are blue in the face. Just keep going round in circles.

I am not trying to justify it as I don't believe is is justifiable. Limited supply - ergo should be dispensed to most needy families. Simple.

I agree re supply issue. But reality being reality this is never going to be the case in the near or medium term. So, having the resource available that we have now, who should benefit? Those who can afford BMWs or families living in temporary accommodation?

"Afford" is a nebulous concept. And there's no precedent for removing tenants with legal contracts/tenancy agreements. The law would have to change. As I may have mentioned, that was mooted before and didn't happen because it was impractical.

You've not addressed the question of settled v transient communities I don't believe?

getting away with depriving the truly needy families of a home so that they can 'afford' a luxury car...

no precedent indeed. But does that address the moral question at the heart of this thread? I'm not sure what you are raising re 'transient people'? Do you mean travellers (as they are known as in ireland), or something else?

That isn't what happens, outside people's fevered imaginations. I don't know how to explain to you how ridiculous is the concept of people legally inhabiting their rented homes somehow behaving in a way that is immoral and harms others. I mean it seems so clear and logical but yet you can't seem to take it in. I'm not really sure what the point is in continuing this bizarre discussion!

Oh please look the word up!

Define needy because it could mean anything

I have a child on DLA am I a priority over someone who just "has children" unsecure job situation are they in need because it's a secure tenancy and a bit lower than private people fleeing from domestic violence are they in more need?there are always going to be people in need how do you decide who is a priority? Then you get the demanding people in need I need a three bedroom house but not in that area because it's rough then they get the MP involved and everyone else involved they are being offered suitable accommodation just not in there preference area they are a minority but a loud one

The reason I am a housing association tenant is because they took pity on me when I was being evicted I wouldn't be a priority but they had a flat in a rough area and I took it

Needy is people needing a home. Apparently there's a tier system in some people's heads with a set time alarm clock to those people who need a home. It's weird

The law sets out reasons why different groups of people should be given reasonable preference by local authorities responsible for prioritising applications for social housing in their area. Local authorities can decide how much preference they give to each of the groups, while taking into consideration local needs, as long as they give them reasonable preference. How exactly that is done is set out in each local authority's housing allocation scheme.

Statutory reasons for reasonable preference:

1. Homeless households
2. People living in unsanitary or overcrowded housing
3. People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds
4. People who need to move to avoid hardship
5. People occupying accommodation which is temporary or insecure

The reason I got mine is due to my child's needs rather than my own. Our previous rented property wasn't suitable for him and we were able to pretty much go straight to the top of the list and have first choice to a suitable place based on his medical needs.

We were incredibly lucky and only had to wait for a month. It was in the perfect location too right by his school.