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.

I'm surprised that since I drew attention to the government's Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (where the state is currently giving hundreds of millions to Housing Associations to improve their housing stock) some posters are still insisting that social housing isn't subsidised, in any way, by the state?

A social housing development near us, of over 100 properties, is currently being retro fitted with new solar panels, new double glazing, new external wall insulation, new front doors, new ground source heat pumps, new extractor fans. The list is endless.

I think it's a ridiculous use of my tax payer's money, frankly. I would much prefer the hundreds of millions to be spent building new, compact social housing units that are already energy efficient.

The HUG Scheme (Phase 2) is ongoing, Blossomtoes, and definitely includes social housing

It used to be called LAD but is basically the same thing

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/green-homes-grant-local-authority-delivery-lad-and-home-upgrade-grant-hug-release-june-2024/summary-of-the-green-homes-grant-local-authority-delivery-lad-and-home-upgrade-grant-hug-statistics-june-2024#:~:text=LAD%20Phases%201%20and%202,are%20off%20the%20gas%20grid.

Correct. LAD standing for 'Local Housing Delivery' obviously.

Though it's now largely superseded by the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund which has been rolled out, on a national level, over the last few years.

Sorry, Local Authority Delivery.

So now maintaining and future-proofing homes equates to subsidy. Clearly, to some, it would make no sense for landlords to look after their stock!

Do private landlords subsidise their tenants by providing such features or does it just apply to tenants who rent from councils and housing associations?

Much straw-clutching going on here.

I'm surprised that since I drew attention to the government's Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (where the state is currently giving hundreds of millions to Housing Associations to improve their housing stock) some posters are still insisting that social housing isn't subsidised, in any way, by the state?

As with various other "funds" used for the same purpose I suspect it's a case of constantly repeating something in the hope it'll be believed, @Arraminta

Nor does the "private LLs operate for profit and Councils/HAs don't" explain the price difference, since rental income reinvested in the provision of homes - which is what many of us are advocating - would then put social providers under the not-for-profit umbrella

It’s also available to owner occupiers and private landlords, ergo not a subsidy to social housing.

It provides funding for both private landlords and Local Authority housing. Both.

And the government's current Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund gives hundreds of millions to, not surprisingly, Social Housing Associations.

The clue's kinda in the name.

It provides funding for both private landlords and Local Authority housing. Both.

That’s what I said. I notice you seem happy for private landlords to be subsidised.

I know, Blossomtoes, and FWIW I'd say it's a subsidy to both

However your post I was replying to said "You mean the scheme that was scrapped in 2021 and covered private landlords and owner occupiers?", when in fact the scheme (though renamed) continues, and the second part seemed to me to imply that social housing wasn't covered

If the private landlord had to provide these extras out of their own pocket, they would have to increase the rent.

However, Housing Associations aren't paying for these millions of pounds worth of improvements to their housing stock. The government is simply giving them the money through this fund. Tenants aren't being asked to pay more rent to cover the costs.

I rent from council but don't get any benefits.

My DC is disabled and this was the best way to get the adaptations we needed and a secure tenancy for them.

When my DC is old enough and responsible enough to take over the tenancy themselves I will move out and buy/rent my own place because I don't need the adaptations but they do.

Strange that you're choosing to ignore any mention of the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund? What are your thoughts on it, now you know it exists?

As for the private landlord thing, we were private landlords (and bloody decent ones, I might add) but we have now sold our rental because it was no longer viable thanks to all the legislation. We offered it to our lovely tenant at slightly reduced market rate in recognition of him having been such a good tenant for so long. But sadly he just couldn't get a mortgage.

We all live in a capitalist society, and that's never going to change.

@HamptonPlace
you’re weirdly defensive about something you appear to know nothing about.
Do you expect families with a secure tenancy to uproot their lives and move due to a social conscience? Newflash they don’t have to.
My DS1(31) has had a council( now HA) tenancy since he was 16. He works full time and earns reasonably.
He lives in Bath however, which rents for similar properties are around 1K
He was granted the tenancy as he was removed due to physically attacking his two younger brothers., who stayed with me.
You know nothing about the circumstances and are going round posting the same old shit every time

It’s very simple, actually. If people in council homes can afford luxury cars they have enough money to buy or rent privately rather than hogging a lower rent council house which could be given to someone who needs it (ie someone without thousands of £££ of disposable income to spend on luxury cars!)

Mobility cars?? Most of them are new and they have to trade in after 3 years
A gift?
Perhaps their circumstances changed?
Not on benefits, but rent from the council. Not sure how that works but I know loads of people do this, I think people just go on a list?
They worked and saved up for it...
Won the car in a competition
Have it on finance

Lots of reasons really. Easy to look at it from the outside without thinking of the complexity that life is.

Solar panels and heat pumps are better for the environment if I had my way all new build houses would come with Solar panels as standard the heat pumps are not good in Scotland allegedly so I would say standard where they will be effective

New doors I get a new door every 15 years I believe but I only get two and my house has three doors it's random but I currently have three composite doors extractor fans had to be fitted by law apparently they have stock standards we have a stock survey every two years where they go through your home loft to celler (if you have one)

Ultimately I firmly believe it's the lack of affordable houses to buy that is an issue and ties up rental stock people can't afford to buy if they could they would I have new houses to buy near me they cost an absolute fortune for little boxes no-one is buying them no-one can afford them

And this is the problem. People who see things very simplistically and extrapolate. There's no nuance and no real knowledge of what the private rental sector is like, hence the inability to understand why social tenants aren't somehow discovering a conscience and leaving in droves. No comprehension of the myriad reasons people rent socially, no grasp of how things work in reality. Just public sector bad, private sector good.

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Gosh that's quite ironic.

Please do explain how you apply that particular theory to the suggestion that someone with an expensive car must ergo be able and morally obliged to rent a private sector property? I'm sure William of Ockham himself would have been intrigued to know!

That applies equally to the private landlords who get the subsidy. I bet they put their rents up anyway.

Council rent’s not cheap, HA is even more expensive. It was cheaper for me to buy rather than rent.

Oh dear. I sense that you're flailing a bit now. Has me drawing attention to the hundreds of millions the state is pouring into the Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund, ever so slightly spoilt your righteous argument?

Morally, if they have excesses of money, to the tune of many hundreds of pounds a month, they should use that excess to pay a more enhanced rental rate.

Less rent to pay since social housing rents are cheaper than private tenancies. Therefore more money to spend on other things.

No mortgage and all that interest to pay. Different priorities, happy to rent and perhaps have a subsidy towards rent rather than struggle to buy and if working have very little help?

Some might be Motability cars.