To think that there is a misunderstanding about social housing.

[Bitchesbelike]

On social media, lots of people assume that people in social / council housing are getting a free house and don’t work.

i grew up in social housing: my dad worked from age 15 to 65.

my brothers have worked since they were 16 and both live in social housing.

its not “free housing”: it’s rented, affordable accommodation.

So anyone who is renting or HA should not class where they live as there home because they didnt buy it hope circumstances never put you or yours in that position.as I said I looked into a 1 bed property there are none on offer in my area. And as moving out of London to commute i couldn't afford to commute into work the cost as the rent would still be to high for distance from.my office.. my Dds since moving out have moved back at various times when needed and it's there home too. Or should I say to them it was never there home as I didnt buy it. If I can find suitable affordable housing I will move and make my next place my home too..

People often bang on about "it's not your home" but us SH tenants have rights. There are very specific circumstances in which SH tenants can be evicted and therefore, while we inhabit the home within the rules it IS our home. I'm sorry private renters don't have that security, I really feel for them. But my home is my home. I might not own it on paper but I won't ever break the rules and therefore it's my home for as long as I want it. People can say that's wrong all they like, but that's the tenancy agreement I signed.

When people buy a property, they don't say it's the banks house! But it is until the mortgage is paid off. Don't keep up with the mortgage and yes you can lose your home. Does that mean you don't call it your home in the meantime? Of course not.

SH tenants are given an empty shell of a place and it is up to them to make it a home. You often don't get even so much as a light bulb left behind! If you want it to be more like a private rental then councils/HA's would need to start decorating and furnishing these homes, providing white goods etc, that's what private landlords do. How much would that cost them?

It's always been the way that if you qualify for it, you can get SH. But it's a roof over your head and it's up to you to make it a nice home. In recognition of that, you're given a secure tenancy, to incentivise you to invest in it. If you want to change it so people only have short term tenancies then the whole model of SH would need to change. That's without all the other problems that would come with that, which other posters have already highlighted.

I won't ever buy my house, so eventually someone else will get it. Whoever does get it, will need it I'm sure. So doesn't really make a difference if it's family A, B or C. To be blunt, SH tenants are dying every day! Just like the rest of the population. Their houses are going back into circulation, as mine will at some point. The fact supply isn't keeping up with demand, is not the fault of any individual tenant. Nor is it their problem to "solve".

How will you pay the rent when you're retired?

Yes this always annoys me OP. I live in social housing, have always worked and do not recieve any benefits at all. My rent goes up every year and of course, I am expected to maintain the house (decorating etc) at my own cost- which obviously I do because contrary to belief, I look after my home just like everyone else. All housing should be affordable. The fact that landlords are able to put rents up to ridiculous amounts, with no regulations is the real problem here. Other family members in private rented property pay way over the top for a house which is neglected by the landlord, repairs never done etc. And have to move constantly despite being excellent tenants.

How will anyone pay a mortgage that's not paid off. I have worked since I was 18 and will have a pension. And as retired I can move to somewhere cheaper.

Most homeowners have paid their mortgage off by the time they are 67. Most lenders don't allow you to have a term that takes you beyond 65.

If public money is finite, why funnel it directly to landlords and ensure people can't progress in life and have spare money to boost the economy?

I'm sure you think you've got the right of it but it makes no sense to me.

Why does anyone rent instead of buy? It's pretty much the same set of reasons the government doesn't just build loads of houses and stop renting from private landlords.

Firstly it costs a hell of a lot of money to build a house. The state doesn't really have this kind of money so would need to borrow and would be subject to very high interest rates. That's if the market would want to lend it to them in the first place considering it's current debt. The government would also need to think very hard about increasing the debt by building houses that would have a very bad ROI as this may well reduce confidence in the country's economy and crash it. Put bluntly, it costs a lot less to fund a year's rent than it does to build a load of new houses. You can make an argument for the houses being a long term investment but that doesn't help the issues the state would incurring trying to raise the necessary capital.

Not exactly the same though…. 1 is secure the other depends on what the landlord plans

i know which I prefer and it’s nothing to do with costs

I didn't say it was the same? I was highlighting the cost difference.

I don't disagree with council housing but it should be means tested and reviewed every few years.. If circumstances have changed and you are then able to pay private rent then you should be made to leave Same with the single person hanging on to their 4 bedroom house,, needs to be a system of swapping for smaller property

Made to leave??? Daniel Heweitt would be busy reporting on that eviction for ITV News. If i ever got wind of one id make damn sure he and his news team knew about it. Would this happen in Germany?

VE Day tommorow Lots of flag waving and jingoism Which group of renters has the better quality of life? The British or the Germans

So how would you make them leave?

This is a common but idiotic viewpoint.

So a person has a council house. Then they get a job (or a better job) and earn just enough.ti pay private rent. So you throw them out of their council house, away from their friends and family and the children move school. Then the landlord wants to sell, or the rent increases, they can't afford a new private rental and, oops, back on the housing list, in an expensive temporary b and b.

OR, more likely they don't take that job, or the better job, because what's the point? Why should they try when ambition just means they'll lose their home and have less money overall? Would you?

Plus you end up with a revolving door of tenants, no continuity, no pride or sense of community, no stability.

So short sighted. It's not the answer.

I do agree with this, eligibility should be reassessed because, while a single mother escaping domestic violence should be considered ‘’in priority need’’ and be given social housing, when her children are grown up and she has a full time job she is no longer vulnerable.
What’s worse, social housing can pass to children (or other adults) when a social tenant passes away and I know a few such children wirh great jobs in the city who inherited 2-4 beds houses in central London. They can then buy the council houses with 1/3 discount….

Given that the country and especially London is so badly affected by homelessness, why did nobody think to change the law??

Council housing is a lot cheaper than private renting.

Define alot?
Private rents have gone up in most areas of the UK
A few years ago.My social rent was comparable to private rent rent in the same area ,now I can see a difference but it certainly isn't double or treble it really is area dependent.

It varies quite a bit. Older housing stock often built in the 50’s and 60’s is good quality usually and whilst you do pay rent (or claim uc housing allowance) it was built on land allocated by councils so far cheaper than private. Housing association housing built more recently isn’t always that much cheaper because whilst the developers are made to include social housing, they do charge the housing associations for the land. Rents can be pretty high

Yeah it doesn't work that way anymore when I got a housing association house ten years ago it was made abundantly clear there is one succession of tenancy ,so I have a joint tenancy with my husband whoever dies first the surviving,partner inherits the tenancy as a single person ,neither of us can allow our children to.continue to inherit the tenancy

Think there always has been one succession. But if a single parent is the tenant then and adult child could succeed if they were living there

Most tenancies nowadays allow succession to a spouse/partner in occupation but it's at the HAs discretion whether or not they allow a child or other family member to succeed.

Ok maybe but I don't think it's straightforward if they are not already on the tenancy

Social housing is not subsidised there’s jusy no landlords making a profit

This is correct! Finally! Social housing is not subsidised it’s only cheaper because there is no landlord making a profit from it, no one is getting anything for free.

In my area a 3 bed social housing is £170 per week
= £8,840 p/a

Cheapes 3 bed private rental is £1200 per month and they go within a day of being listed.
= £14,400 p/a