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.

Working people in social housing is a good thing;

Private income into government pots.

Housing benefit claimants in social housing is fine;

Government money back into government pots.

The big problem is housing benefit claimants in private rentals;

Government money into private pockets.

The best situation would be to build enough social housing to accommodate everyone who needs housing benefit, keep the government money circulating, ban people from using housing benefit on private rentals which then brings the costs down so people with lower end private income can afford to move there and free up more social houses for those needing benefits.

Because when the poster needed social housing for herself and for her 2 kids she was given one, she wasn’t told to go seek help from the kid’s father.
And now a new mother with children needs social housing. There isn’t enough to go round so who should have it, the poster who was once in need but not anymore, or the single mother who is currently in need?

Of course I don’t think the poster should be kicked out of her house, but I am pointing out the injustice of the system. There will never be enough social housing and blaming the government is not going to suddenly create social housing overnight. Which is why the existing social housing should be used accordingly, depending on need, and assessed every few years, in the same way disability benefits are. People move in and out of privately rented accommodation all the time, why can’t people in social housing do the same (assuming they are no longer in need, ie vulnerable for whatever reason)

One of the less well known advantages of social housing over private is that local authorities and housing associations have additional powers to manage the behaviour of those using their property. If your nuisance neighbour is in social housing you have a much better chance of something being done about it.

Landlords pay mortgages. The mortgage interest in itself is often more than social housing rental. Plus the landlords pay tax to the government and are responsible for repairs to the property etc.

i am not a landlord but just pointing out that basic thinking skills may be insuficient to understand the whole picture

There clearly needs to be a shit ton of new houses built and because of the tenancy agreements given out years ago anyone who now needs social housing is screwed. The woman who posted about living in a two bedroom flat and not being able to find anywhere else isn’t the best example but there are people who being allowed to take the piss. My husband’s parents are a good example, two of them in a four bedroom council house, it’s been just the two of them for 20 years now. They see is as “Our home” Without acknowledging at all that if the housing crisis had been the same as it is today they would have found themselves with three children probably living in a travel lodge for years on a waiting list. I get it, it’s a beautiful home in a lovely area and privately renting in the same area would be triple what they are paying for social housing, It’s why me and my husband had to move out and commute 90mins to work every day.
They should be told, you either go into a smaller property or you privately rent. It was stupid to allow life long agreements in the first place.

Landlords don’t necessarily have mortgages. Housing associations also pay tax and carry out repairs.

I remember when Bob Crow was in the news for saying he would be turning his back on his working class roots if he bought his own house and have up his Council house. He was earning £145000 pa at the time.
I have a lodger currently who is planning to move in with his girlfriend. She is in process of a 3 way swap that will gain her an extra bedroom for his child. Her adult child and their partner live with her already and all 3 have reasonable jobs. Light earns up to 50000 pa so they will be 4 salaries coming into that family unit.
I think I find this more frustrating than occupants who genuinely have little income and little opportunity to earn more, such as single parents with young children.
I have also had a friend( single mum) in private rental who had had to move a lot as landlords kept selling up. She was very relieved to finally get a HA place but by the time she did, her son had got a job and left home and her daughter will start Uni soon, so when she really needed the security of tenure, it was not there.
I also know a few people in SH who have since met wealthy partners that they do not declare who share bills/ buy shopping/ fund treats and holidays etc. People seem to get away with what they can and milk the system where they can which leaves not enough money to sort those most desperately in need.
We all need to look at ourselves really as are all guilty. I happily accepted child allowance for my 3 because we were entitled, but arguably could have survived without.

Most HAs have charitable status and are therefore able to mitigate a lot of tax. They do not pay Corporation Tax of 25% for example on their "surplus" like any other business, including a private landlord if he ran it as a business, would have to. Private landlords also have to carry out repairs.

But are you getting a secure tenancy because if you are that's a huge advantage over a private rental as you well know.

If they don't have mortgages then they have a hell of a lot of capital tied up in housing. You do know that landlords could extract that money from the house and put it in a bank account and passively earn 5% a year? So £270k (average UK house value) could earn £13k a year just sat in a bank and you wouldn't need to worry about vacant periods, expensive maintenance and difficult tenants.

There is an opportunity cost associated with tying money up in property, especially if you can't charge people enough rent to compete with other investment opportunities. Lots of landlords with property they have already paid for are using this as a form of pension and security for old age and aren't necessarily rich at all.

HAs are a totally different beast and benefit from lots of advantages that the private rental market simply doesn't have. The problem is those advantages aren't really scalable without costing the government an absolute fortune

Those saying SH should be related to income and it should be regularly reviewed - How does that work in practice?

Say for example I live in social housing, I have worked hard, studied and gained qualifications and now earn £55k per annum. At what point would I be evicted from my home? After passing the probation period? Upon signing the contract?

If I have previously been in a lower paid job chances are I haven't had chance to save enough of a deposit to secure a mortgage so do I have a grace period to start saving?

What does that look like to you?

And?

Why are people so resentful of that security? Is it because if you're not poor and miserable you're doing it wrong? Don't worry I'm still poor despite working full time and living in SH! The security isn't money in my pocket, it's a bonus that I don't have to keep forking out to move annually or less for sure, but I'd still need to opt for the cheapest place to live that's available to me, be that secure or not. I'm not sat counting my piles of cash in my 27 bed mansion laughing at the silly tax payer like people seem to think HA or council tenants are. Be rest assured I'm still skint and struggling!

And, yes I well know because I lived in private rental for years, moving every couple of years or less, having to job hop because of it, having what meagre savings I could manage wiped out by moving costs, again.

I've subsidised social care by working in it for the pittance you get paid, and other people have definitely benefitted from that, not having to care for their own elderly or frail relatives and not having to pay more for it so I can have a wage where I could afford private rent or to buy.

So like I said, maybe we get rid of all of it and people can start to pay the true cost of things like social care or childcare, so that people like me can afford to private rent or shock horror buy somewhere?

Thing is, why would you bother to retrain or educate yourself, and get a good job, knowing that as soon as you do you will lose your home, your security, and totally upend your life?

Where's the incentive?

Exactly, I totally agree with you. You can't just chuck people out when they meet a certain threshold, it just wouldn't work.

The London borough I work in has thousands of new build HA flats being built, I have no idea where they keep finding land to do this in an already very built up area, but somehow they do.

It should be related to need - certain property sizes for certain number of people, accessible properties only for those with mobility needs etc. Relating it to income disincentives progression in careers etc, as someone couod get a pay rise and then actually end up worse off if need to move to private rental

And where exactly are these people going to be moving to? If any one bedroom accommodation in areas are only allocate to over 55's. Then those under that threshold won't be moving there will they? Those who are only eligible for a 2bed won't be moving into a 3 or 1bed will they?

If you seriously think there is the money in the system to swap tenants around housing stock like chess pieces every few years. Then I've no clue what part of housing you've been working in for years? Add in the money it would take to conduct these "assessments". The home visits, the money drained into ensuring each of these homes was brought back up to standard for new tenants on a 2-3yr turnaround.

Up routing people from areas with family, friends, employment. Then whose footing the bill for these moves? Furniture removal, ripping out flooring/replacement of flooring, as you're not allowed to keep it in SH when a tenant moves out.

Then you need to add in the fact that tenants have been issued with license agreements. Unless they breach the conditions of these then they can't legally be asked to leave the property. Then you need to consider that the LA actually sold off most of their stock so they now fall under different HA's. They are all ran separately they won't have enough housing to do these "swaps" anyway!

I personally think there should be move movement in the system. Houses for the need should be the way with social housing - need 1 bed, then should be moved to 1 bed. Family needs more beds so should be swapped with people who have too many bedrooms. The luxury to say no shouldn't be there because they rent. Tenancy should be reviewed based on need. If people weren't in big homes then some of the struggling families could be moved into them. Just because someone has occupied a rental for 15 years shouldn't confer rights to keep it when not needed.

Social housing is subsidized- the initial building costs and often ongoing running costs are paid by the taxpayer. The tenant doesn’t pay a market rent because the taxpayer is paying for some. That’s especially unfair if the tenants are not even in need

Social housing is not subsidised.

^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.^

From https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/is_my_social_housing_rent_subsid

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. A SH brick wall 😂

And how do you feel about the taxpayer paying for the housing element of people forced to live in expensive private rentals, where all our money goes straight into the pockets of private landlords?

At least social housing is owned by us, the public*, and charges reasonable rent, therefore bringing the benefits bill down.

*kind of

Damn right.

Are social housing life long agreements still being issued? Or have they been phased out?

I’m going to go against the grain and say that I actually think the concept of the right to buy was a great idea and a great way to get people on the housing ladder that otherwise wouldn’t have been. The problem was that rather than investing the money from the sales of the houses into building more houses the government used it to make the overall bank balance look better. Had that money been reinvested into housing we wouldn’t have the housing crisis we have now and potentially the costs of housing wouldn’t have skyrocketed the way they have.