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.

If you have more than £6000 in savings on benefits UC then it reduces so it encourages people to spend all their money, on anything they want, and not save. People who don't have top up benefits or entire income benefits might save if they can afford to.

And that particular point of view has what to do with Occam's Razor?

Are you arguing that the presence of an expensive car in front of someone's house means they have hundreds of pounds spare each month?

And if you are, bizarrely, arguing that, again. How do you apply Occam's Razor?

In social housing (pay rent, no housing benefit) We have a brand new car every three years, it’s a company car, we don’t own it.

Not in the least because the fact that social housing rents aren’t subsidised remains. I notice that you’re ignoring my pointing out that similar subsidies are also available to private landlords and owner occupiers.

i'm not (necessarily) claiming the luxury car drivers are illegally inhabiting the property, it's the concept that the system doesn't prioritise the least well off...

I have so done now, not sure where that fits into this conversation?

Yes, of course I know they're available to private landlords too. I used to be one, though we never accessed any state funding.

Social housing tenants will not be asked to pay higher rents for the much improved units they live in. They will also benefit from the cheaper heating and electric bills, or course.

Well no of course it doesn't. Like I say, in some cases working people are prioritised for social housing. It isn't, and never has been intended as housing for the poor and destitute. It's a scarce resource, yes, but not closed off to everyone.

Again, nobody has a moral obligation to leave a secure tenancy that meets their housing needs unless they break the terms of the tenancy. Would you take your child out of their school if someone else needed a place there?

i am sincerely glad you have been housed. I can only imagine how traumatic that whole scenario can have been.
To your point, people whom choose to spent have a grand per month (or whatever) on a luxury car rental don't seem to be the most needy?

I'm sorry about your son, or happy if it's worked out well...i don't 'expect them to' i expect the system to be logically arranged such that the most needy families are prioritised. Is that so unreasonable?

When I say that secure communities are better than transient ones, what is it that's hard to understand?

Would you rather have the same neighbour for ten years, someone who perhaps worked locally, who you could leave a key with or who'd take in a parcel? Or new neighbours every six months, some good, some bad, never getting to know them?

It’s just jobs for the boys. Plenty a brown envelope will be changing hands.

not really comparable, are they? There is space in the school system for everyone, is there not?

And if there wasn't? Would you then be happy to give up your child's place because the government started to treat school places as commodities and not invest in enough for everyone?.

selfishly, of course, the former

Great! So now you see that it's beneficial for social tenants to stay put and not be arbitrarily evicted. Right?

but that is not the case? I am all in favour of more public housing being built at the expense of my and all others taxpayers cost. But in the reality based community... What is the most utilitarian process for limited resource?

of course it's beneficial for them. Doesn't mean that it's morally right...

Try to imagine that it is the case. Then what would you do?

The more you read on here, the more you realise just how truly awful a lot of people really are.

the 2 just aren't comparable. "If you had to shoot your child or someone else's what would you do". In this instance, someone can afford a luxury car new iphones for their kids etc, they can afford to give up their subsidised accommodation to some family in need.. there is an essentially unlimited supply of education..

Ah I see that you still don't understand.

Beneficial for society. Not just the individual. Beneficial for the tenant, for their neighbours, for local schools and businesses.
I mean this thread is reaching the end and thankfully nobody will have to repeat, ad nauseum, that no social tenant with a valid tenancy has a moral obligation to vacate their property for an unfavourable option. Just like you have no obligation to give up your school place or your doctor's surgery place or even your job because somebody else doesn't have those things.

But I fear I'm wasting my time because you genuinely cannot comprehend this and constantly loop back to the start. Tiresome.

See above.

Well gosh, I don't really know for sure. Not absolutely, absolutely, definitely for certain, of course. But crickey, I'm somehow inclined to believe that sometimes, very occasionally, the tenant is cheerfully funding the snazzy car on their drive because they're perhaps, possibly paying a much reduced rent?

That could possibly, only possibly, explain the previously HA tenants, yes driving snazzy cars, who could suddenly, magically afford to rent our private rental. This was when our rental suddenly became hugely desirable when the catchment area for the local school changed. Miraculously, paying an extra £400-£500 month in rent was suddenly affordable for them?

But I'm, no doubt, completely wrong. And there would have been some other, perfectly plausible and terribly virtuous reason. Most certainly, I'm sure.

When I worked for a housing association, about a half of the tenants were in receipt of housing benefits, of those vast majority were pensioners, the rest were mostly disabled in some way. The other half were normal working people with families, sometimes they had nice cars, mostly they had no car.

Are you sure that they are all fully social housing OP? They could be shared ownership, or keyworker housing, which may be owned by the council or HA, but are not on social rents.