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.

I've got a lifelong tenancy (recent). It meant so much to me- freedom from fear, anxiety and uncertainty.

But I will give it up once I'm sure the DC are settled and don't need to boomerang back, in favour of a retirement bungalow- there are plenty in my village.

No, I’m staying put in mine

i have kids who have moved out, got partners etc but I also have a dd who works abroad and may want to return and sad to say but if my boys relationships should break down then there’s a room here. Also somewhere for grandkids to stay

theres no help for young males if they find themselves homeless

family are everything right? Mine is, to me.

I don’t blame you and I’d probably do the same thing given the opportunity. It doesn’t make it right though and it’s blatantly obvious from this thread that the life long agreements given out with these homes along with right to buy has caused a massive housing crisis for generations to come.

Perhaps only people with children should get social housing - other than 1 bed, then they must move on in the 3 years after the DCs reach 21.
So many families are in temporary accommodation which is very sad.

If you are single or in a couple, you only get 1 bed anyway. Where I live, a tiny studio flat is deemed enough.
A lot of adult children are living at home for longer now. Evicting a whole family once an adult child reaches 24 makes no sense.

Families in temp accommodation are not the responsibility of people already housed.

So I should kick out my 2 adult kid's and I find myself a one bed flat? None of us can afford private rental. Until my HA says I have to move, we not going anywhere.

Yes many people who work in social housing have jobs - but why are they more deserving of reduced rents than other people in good jobs - if someone is earning more than £40k a year they wouldn’t qualify for social housing.

Social housing is in such high demand it should be returned to people who really need it

My local council allows you to apply for housing as couple if your income is £40k.

If you say that someone should be evicted if they earn over a certain amount, then there will be no incentive for people to try and earn more. I get there should be a cut off at the point of applying, and I would agree with that. But not when you are already established. Secure housing is a basic human right.

And rents are not "reduced". Private rent is just more.

We need a mass social housing build, it should be the norm for the majority of renters and private rentals for more short term transient renters.
Private renting is not more virtuous, you are simply paying someone elses mortgage in the majority of cases. A huge amount of HB pays that mortgage, that should not happen. Lower rent requires less benefits to pay for it. Robbing Peter to pay Paul so to speak.
'Affordable' housing should be redefined to NMW affordability.
I am in a council bungalow having downsized, it took nearly 2 yrs for a suitable property to come up. I work FT and pay full rent.

We do need it though?

Everyone who has their rent paid for entirely by UC is getting their house for free.

Everyone getting private rent paid by UC is the same surdy

Same with people in private rental who are also claiming the housing element of UC. Except if their rent is above the LHA, they have to pay for the shortfall themselves.
What point are you trying to make?

I live in social housing, work full time I've paid full rent for over 30 years. I'm very lucky I realise this, I couldn't afford private rent rates in my area. My young adult children still live at home saving like mad to try and buy a home. I work with people who earn the same as me who are in private rental property UC covers the difference but they have short term tenancy. UC are subsidising private landlords and lining their pockets.

Yes, if you private rent and claim the housing element, then "the taxpayer" (and I put it in "" as some people seem to think they have the moral high ground for being one) is paying the mortgage of that landlord...and if not, then it is even more profit.

My parents have been in their council house for over 35 years. They would have paid it off ages ago of they were owning it. They will be paying rent until they die. But what has been important to them is the secure tenancy.
When they die, I will have 2 weeks to make good the house... strip everything including the lovely decking in their garden. I live nowhere near them and am disabled.

And those of us on less than £40k in private rent can just suck it up right? You don’t see the disparity when our taxes are subsidising people who are better off than us?

So what do you want us to do? Move out ?

There is a disparity, but it's not the fault of people who are living in social housing, it's the system. Right to buy has decimated the social housing stock, it has generated lots of private wealth that unfortunately hasn't filtered down. I'm the last social tenant on my road the other houses were bought years ago and are now in the ownership of private landlords some of them have been converted into HMO's and the private rent is the same per room as my home thats comes in at nearly 400% above what I pay. I haven't bought my home it will at some point be passed on to a family who need it hopefully like I did and still do. Until then it's my home and I do feel very fortunate.

Do you want them to swap places with you?

Don't fight each other, it's the system thats the issue.

It absolutely not the fault of people in social housing - right to buy was a stupid scheme, ex council houses 3 bed semi’s now sell for over half a million around here. There just has to be a better system that once people are “back on their feet” that it’s evened out again.

For clarity I do t begrudge anyone who’s needs the help - I’m glad it’s there - but it needs to be there for the next person who needs it. Not to mention the people who are getting seriously rich out of social housing.

If you read my posts that’s exactly what I’m saying. The system is wrong.

If you can now afford private rental or a mortgage well yes, obviously not just kicked out. I know people desperate for housing who are waiting 4 months to even get a first appointment with the council - years before they get a flat - how is that far if people on good incomes are in houses they no longer “need” the help for?

I’m not talking single mothers on minimum wage - I’m talking people whose careers have taken off and are hitting higher tax brackets.

How else are we meant to keep enough housing stock for those that desperately need it?

Keep building more. Don't sell them off.

You're advocating for temporary housing and ghettoisation. The only people who get a permanent home are those that stay in poverty, and bring up their children that way. Anytime anyone does well, they're evicted. Children grow up without any aspirational role modelling and all they learn is that working hard and bettering yourself gets you punished and thrown out.
Well done on cementing the underclass and making sure there will always be another generation.

Given that all new build social housing are mixed in with all other houses - sites near me have homes for sale up to £950,000 and 40% social/affordable housing on the site, how am I supporting ghettoisation?

Otherwise, great let people stay in the social housing and let the people made homeless suck it up - is that really the best solution we can come up with?

What about all the not new builds...the majority of the housing in question? And as said, the best solution is to keep building/buying new stock, not pitting people against each other