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.

My HA was built in the 90's. One side of the road is Ha and other side of the road is Council.

I know of some smaller charities who have been working to take existing buildings into the social sector.

ultimately on the whole building new houses will always be a cheaper option than buying existing houses, so there’s not a lot can be done about existing housing, but there’s is only so much land that can be built on before we can’t produce food.

I've been homeless twice when I was younger. The thought of being turfed out of my home terrifies me.

The argument that "other people need it more" really doesn't hold water. There are people using food banks every day. Do the high earners among you make massive donations to them because hey other people need it more right? Sure you might pass over a few cans now and then so you can feel you're doing something but would you actually sacrifice your own lifestyle to feed the hungry? Because that's what you're suggesting current SH tenants do.

You're saying that they should be put in a worse position because there's people who are even worse off. Well unless you donate every penny over and above what you need to survive, you can shut up quite frankly! Because you're not practising what you preach.

There are ALWAYS people worse off in this world. But 99% of people put their own families first. They might donate a little surplus if they have it but they make sure their own are taken care of. That's all SH tenants are doing. It's irrelevant who owns the house on paper. When a tenancy agreement is signed it is legally binding. We aren't breaking any rules. You can argue its not "fair". Well I think lots of things aren't fair, that's life!

My husbands grew up in social housing from 70s to 90s.
When he left home his mum purchased from the council for circa £40k and sold it 3 years later for circa £170k. Therefore no one else could benefit from it - this is the only issue I have with it.
Needs to be much more social housing, not less.

I agree completely but this is exactly why the rules need to be tougher. Turkeys don't vote for a Christmas. People will actively deprived others of a scarce resource that they don't actually need just because they won't want to be 'worse off'. It's human nature but when it involves resources funded by the tax payer then we need strict rules in place to make sure that the housing goes to the most in need.

How are the resources funded by the tax payer though..? Someone pointed out about that council housing is not paid for by council tax etc

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people decide of their own back to give up their council home because like you said, why would they.
I think most people are suggesting that the rules around staying are changed.. Do you really think it’s okay that my husband’s parents live alone in a four bedroom house that was given to them fourty years ago? They don’t want to privately rent or downsize.. There tenancy means they get to make that choice. It shouldn’t be down to what they want or feel entitled to though, the system that allows it needs to change. But until that happens you’re correct, it is just tough shit.

It's quite complicated and will differ for different developments but ultimately it is usually funded by the state either directly or indirectly through providing cheap public land to build on or striking a deal with developers to make a certain % social housing or affordable. Housing Associations can also access private funding due to the 'profit' they make but this profit only really exists due to state subsidy at the building stage. Basically all current funding models aren't really massively scaleable so social housing will always be a finite resource.

3 beds where I live are 3500-4000 a month...Zoopla/Rightmove

The anger and bitterness about this is always directed at social tenants. It’s not my fault their rent is double what I pay so why be angry at me?

I'm just trying to digest all these posts, and see it from all angles. At some point I will either die or downsize. Hopefully by then my children will have enough money to buy a home of their own. If not they will be homeless.

I think it should be in the contract that when there is only 1 adult or a couple in a 3 bed or more move into a 1/2 bedroom house, flat or bungalow. More of these should be built.

What about all the housing built post war by the councils. That's been well paid off by now

Yes and when they die, presumably that house will go back into circulation and be given to a family in need at that point. Sure they could hand it to another family now, who would then probably be there for 50yrs plus themselves. Or it can go to a different family in say 10 or 20 years. What difference does it actually make? None really in the grand scheme of things.

Single adults in need already have a very low chance of getting SH. But they exist, they need the few 1 bed places that are out there. I worked with vulnerable people for many years, a lot of whom were single and needed housing. Not all of them got it. But it was life changing for the ones that did. But do we just kick them all out then? To make way for these pensioners who don't want to move?

Housing is in short supply at every number of bedrooms. Shuffling people around isn't going to help. Because people will lose out at other levels. There already exists a mechanism in which to do it voluntarily, mutual exchanges. And it works well for many people. I've exchanged more than once. A lot of HAs have a scheme where they will pay if you voluntarily downsize. It's not much, but appeals to some people. It's not like people can't downsize if they want to and people do take that option sometimes. It's how I got a bigger place because someone was willing to take my smaller one.

There simply isn't enough housing for everyone that needs it. You can try and shuffle the pieces around to squeeze more in but each household is 1 unit, be it an old couple, a family or a single person. You can't fit in more units than you have properties, no matter how you do it.

Those who private rent, what is included in your rent if any?

Yes, and remortgaged to help build homes for other people

No, if someone earns over a certain threshold, they may be able to do what many people do and buy their own permanent home.

The children learn we take what we need when we need it and when we don't need it we pass it on to others who need it more. Teaching social responsibility and generosity rather than dependence.

The only ones who should have a permanent home provided by the state are those with high levels of disability who need a specific accessible property, pensioners who do not the capacity to increase their earnings

My heritage is immigrant parents, I was raised to believe you were a failure if you needed it.

Same. I was brought up by immigrant parents who talked negatively about ‘council house people’ who were on the dole and got their homes for free etc. it was only many years later that I realised how bigoted they were, but also that council homes were coveted by many. I had been brainwashed that they were the worst possible place to end up.

I'm so glad that someone has raised this issue. I get sick of people assuming that everyone who lives in a council or social housing property is on benefits and lives there for free. Agree with the previous poster who said that they are not always particularly cheap. Cheaper than privately renting I grant you,but sometimes by only a small amount. There is a really snobbish attitude towards council housing.Numerous times I've heard someone say that they'd never move to a particular area or street because it's next to a council estate. OK,there are some rough estates around,and as a council tenant myself,I wouldn't fancy living on them! But there are a lot of decent ones around,such as the one where I've lived for nearly 41 years!

No

we could afford to as it is Right now

but I don’t know what lies ahead. Adult children may need to return, one of us may get ill,disabled or lose out job. It’s the security we need not the cheap rent.

sldo, we downsized to this house 4 weeks ago. So no. I’ll stay put. For the (priceless) security. Would not really relax in a landlords house who could sell up at any time, yet I’d be paying double what o pay here? Nah

Council house people 😭.

Also…I have just paid for new flooring and upgrade on one of the bathrooms

i wont get that money back if I ship us all off into a private let!

@YouWillFindMeInTheGarden I understand exactly what you are saying. But what do you think people with a mortgage do? They take out a mortgage based on right now. They might become disabled, lose their job unexpectedly, their children might need to come home and they might not be able to afford it. Even with insurance, if you become unable to work or suddenly need more bedrooms? You have to find the money and if not? You lose your home or have to say no to your children.
That is a very simplified example but it’s not difficult to understand the position of both sides I think. We need more social housing.

They'll like be too old or too poor still, so what then?