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.

It's fine that you can't back your point up. No shame in admitting you didn't quite understand Occam's Razor. Or anything else. I don't believe you post in good faith anyway.

it's not the individual involved - of course it's natural to protect your own interests - it is the system that should be structured in a just way.

Oh Sweetie, I understand lots. And of course, the sickening thing for you is that I'm the private landlord (now ex) who can speak from a hugely privileged position. For all your righteous posturing, nothing you say here will change a single thing.

Good for you I guess?

It seems to me completely clear that @Arraminta does understand and has applied occam's razor. Council house dwellers whom can luxury cars don't merit privilege over the really needy families...

Yes, I feel my work here is done x

Yes? Nobody disagrees. My viewpoint is that fairness would involve affordable housing for all.

The world isn't fair. Not remotely. Never has been and never will be. It's utterly futile to believe it ever will be.

Oh maybe you can explain how that particular philosophical theory can be applied to (a)the assumption that people with certain cars can afford privately rented housing, (b) that using the PRS is innately morally superior to renting socially and that (c) transient populations are preferable to stable ones?

The pp didn't have a lot of success elaborating what she meant.

Could be Motability

No point arguing that it's fair for people to surrender legal tenancies then.

It’s. Not. Subsidised.

At this point I think people are looking for attention. The evidence has been posted and they're still pretending they can't understand.

But back in those days, most people could not buy. The criteria for getting a mortgage were incredibly strict. It was more akin to the vision of the NHS - good provision for everyone.

on this point we both agree!

well i found it quite simple to infer from her posts that those who can spend £500/month on a luxury car are not the most in need?

I never did argue that? It's endearing that you are so passionately idealistic and I salute you for it. It won't change a single thing though.

well. it is. the difference between what it would make on the open market vs what is charged is plain and simple a subsidy. Not that subsidies are in and of themselves a bad thing, as such. But pretend it's not a subsidy is laughable.

Uh huh. Do we know the circumstances behind the car? The cost of the car? Do we think that people should be evicted from their homes because their circumstances improve? What could be the pitfalls there?

it's cars though. 12/12 per OP. We know the cost is high, be it bought outright or rented. I think we agree the ideal scenario is for more social housing but, in the real world (and i think i'm repeating myself, because I am!) there is a scare public resource that should be equitably distributed...

@HamptonPlace You don’t understand what a subsidy is, do you? I advised you before to RTFT but as you clearly haven’t, once again this is from a 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.^

Meanwhile, in the real world, people in social housing are allowed cars. And being able to buy one outright or lease one, or swap their PIP for one, does not mean they should be evicted out into the private sector. That is not how it works, no matter how many people on here are stamping their feet insisting it should be that way.

I mean, even private rental are not easy to come by nowadays with upwards of 30 interested parties per property. Should someone who can easily afford private rent, and have a nice car, be forced out and made to get a mortgage?

Ok say people are evicted because of their car. What next? What other things are people in social housing not allowed to have because others think they're a lower class of being and wrap that up in a coat of faux concern?

Expensive Sky TV packages and Peloton will be next.

There seems to be a long standing myth that you have to be claiming benefits in order to be eligible for a council property. There seems to be so much council tenant bashing on Mumsnet.