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.

Er, yes you do need to move out of a 3 bed semi after k8ds have moved out.
My DM has been told she has to downsize now me and sibling have moved out.
She's been told house is needed for families.
What she's being offered by the council to live in instead of her 3 bed semi house that she's lived in for 25 years and maintained beautifully is bloody horrible, miniscule and depressing.

One bedroom flat in a tower block? What does her tenancy agreement say?

My HA don’t move you out if under occupying….its not a thing. Never heard of that before

What if she doesn’t engage with the ‘moving out’? If her tenancy is a lifetime tenancy ( like mine, so no, I’m not moving out because I have a spare room now) they cannot force her

I’m all for shorter council house tenancies. I think a lifetime tenancy where there is a shortage of council houses is necessary. I’d favour a five year tenancy. After 5 years you have to re-apply for your home and you are assessed on the points you have now, not the points you had when you started. For example, if you need a large home because you have 3 kids and they all move out, you are given a smaller home. If you increase your salary and can afford to buy, your point score is lower so you may not have your tenancy renewed, but - you are given an incentive such as the deposit for a new home. 3 tenancies and you’re back to the bottom of the list (could be 5, if I’m in a generous mood) There would be exemption for low paid public sector workers.

The point of social housing was to help people improve their situation. It’s too easy to do that and still benefit from social housing when you can afford to pay privately. I don’t begrudge paying tax to subsidise housing for those who need it, but I do begrudge paying it for people who have lived in social housing for 20 years and are earning above the average wage.

Whether it is HA or Council run, this housing is subsidised in some way. Councils may not give money directly to housing associations but they do offer land deals to these organisations. The Council will sell a site at below market value. That is money that isn’t coming in to the council’s finances. Where a private developer is building affordable homes, the council uses that as planning gain instead of other aspects such as improving infrastructure, building schools etc. Again that’s money the council is having to pay elsewhere. They offer grants and matched funding in some instances.

The private property market isn’t particularly lucrative on its own, market rents aren’t generally inflated that much. Housing associations can offer lower rents because their costs of building are reduced. The spec of housing association homes is lower, generally, and their land costs are often very low.

My parent's HA offered them money to move.... but there was nowhere for them to move.

Ignorant of what? Staying in council house you no longer need is ignorant of the housing crisis.

So, this is the problem isn't it. I love the idea of social housing but if it's not accessible for the people coming after those "rattling around our 3 bedroom house" it's irrelevant if it's paid for, partially paid for etc etc. Whatever it is, it's subsidised. If it's not available equally, which it's not now, it's unfair. Lots of people in private housing expect to move in their lifetime, it isn't ok that an 18, 20 or 30 year old boy now doesn't have the same access those before him had. It needs to be distributed fairly.

I don't think this makes sense to me really. The funds for social housing come from taxation. It's a limited pot we all contribute to. We are not suggesting people give up their own personal funds over and above the taxes they pay.

ignorant yes. Do you have the £1000’s to hand for a deposit and advance rent for a private rental?

no

and what about the money I’ve spent on my HA home? Upgrades,flooring,garden,decorating,minor repairs?? Do I get reimbursed?

but it’s pointless worrying because I DO still need the tenancy so I will remain

Well I don’t now I’ve been paying my mortgage for 12 years, no. Have I been able to replace my flooring? No. Have I done anything to the garden minus general upkeep? No. Did my boiler get replaced by the council when it broke? No, I had to put 3.5k on a credit card.

Is that a race to the bottom comment? If so, you're still paying your mortgage off on a property you own. You're not paying rent on a HA one, and they do come with bare floors as even if the carpets are laid 5wks before they're still ripped out.

Also paying for a new boiler is a big red herring, as regardless of HA or private rental. Nobody is paying for a new boiler unless they have a mortgage. Plus of the HA/council do upkeep your garden they just run the sit on mowers over it. They're not popping round to plant pansies.

If you've shelled out 3.5k on a new boiler then that's because you're investing in the house you're paying for. Nobody renting regardless of circumstances is going to be doing that are they? It's not like they'll take it with them when they move.

If your house is paid off though, you own it.
Someone in social housing does not own their home, they they have to supply wallpaper/paint, carpets, white goods. All those things are catered for in private rentals.

If you have a mortgage, you are not at threat of being evicted if you behave antisocially. You wont get evicted if you wont let contractors into your home. Social housing tenants have to be good all round people to stay where they are. People with mortgages don't have to behave a certain way to stay housed.

I paid for a new boiler because I had to and I didn’t ‘shell out’ for it, it is on a credit card. My point was that the other poster had been able to do work on that house because the rent is cheap and any of the big, emergency costs would be covered.

There are content creators who show off about how much work they’ve done to their council houses and say that’s why they should have lifetime tenancies when we have a housing crisis and people who truly can’t afford anything else.

You paid for the new boiler because you own your property. Therefore it's a financial asset that you have. As I said PP isn't going to be leaving their rental with their boiler because it belongs to the HA/council as does the property they're renting.

Content creators is a crappy example to be fuming over really. They "do a kitchen makeover", by going to B&M and spending £90 on stick on door vinyl, and new handles.

Realistically though as a nation we are genuinely still better off financially with those is SH who work and pay full rent vs those who get maximum HB. If you do the maths it's not that hard really.

And yet ppl would moan if tenants let their homes turn into a shit tip,

Paid off? We are 12 years in to a 35 year mortgage and we are stuck in a house that is too small for us.

Social housing is needed but should be means tested every five years and lifetime tenancies should not be given.

You will pay it off eventually though. My parents have paid rent on their council house for 35+ years now. They don't own it. They will be paying rent until they die.

You taking on a mortgage was also your choice.

And? im in a poky flat because i havent got living proof that ive had sex without contraception

It’s got nothing to do with you - you assumed our mortgage was paid off. If you don’t like your poky flat then do something about it.

No i didnt That was another poster. Lose the booze goggles

Rydon were still getting contracts post Grenfell, So tenants still had no choice about letting them into their homes whereas home owners can just choose not to use them

Like what Get pregnant Im nearly 52 so that ship has sailed

No, get a better job.

This.
I work with families with disabled children. Those who don't work or work in a low paid role get rehoused in a brand new council property, yes it takes a few years which isn't ideal, but they always get one eventually. Which is great, they need a suitable property to support their child in.

But the middle earner families I work with, who have privately bought a flat in a split house conversion for example, because buying a house in London is out of reach for them, earn too much to get a council property but too little to be able to afford a property which suits their child's needs, so are carrying their severely disabled child up flights of narrow stairs, and sleeping on a sofa bed in their lounge as they have given the bedrooms to their disabled child and their other child, they can't share as the disabled child is up multiple times of the night for their medical needs. They don't resent others getting a suitable property, but they do resent the fact they have worked hard and paid significant amounts of tax but they cannot access same help.

A council tenant can claim overcrowding and ask to be rehoused to a larger property. A home owner has to stay in a property which is too small for them as they can't afford a larger one.

Absolutely agree that should re assessed every 5 years. That doesn't stop anyone painting the walls of their child's bedroom or buying a new fridge or carpets, but it does stop somine being a property longer than they need. It's a form of benefits and should be linked to need or income.

Not letting your home turn into a 'shit tip' is about providing an appropriate home for your family and having some self respect, it not doing someone else a favour. No one else (apart from maybe social services) cares how clean and tidy your home is, so no, they wouldn't moan.