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 don't get it people choose to buy a house and have a mortgage. One day it will be all theirs.

Social housing and private renters get repairs done via the landlord because that's how it is with renting regardless weather you rent private sector or social housing.

Depending on the landlord private rent can come fully furnished. Or just carpets. Or just white goods. Or nothing at all.

But social housing 9 times out of 10 it comes with absolutely nothing . They even strip the walls back , All the wallpaper is removed all paint is removed. No carpets/flooring.

I'm not saying theses things should be supplied. I'm just saying people in social housing don't have everything handed to them.

You seem happy to just wallow in you flat if you think that social housing is the only option.

oh FUCK OFF and book your subsidised childcare

You act like we should all have limited our salaries so we could have social housing. Most of us had a choice between private rent or mortgage as we have never been eligible for social housing, which is fair enough.

And you chose to be poor.

I used to work in care Cheers for that though Its come in handy for another thread

Care workers aren’t paid enough, but you really seem to have something against people with children.

A lot of people have the option of buying or renting privately- buying is better if you can afford it as you get a return on your investment. Lots of people who buy though would probably welcome a secure, affordable tenancy which included repairs; especially as now the expectation is that you'll sell your home in old age if you require care so it might not be an investment which benefits your children.

And you have something against SH tenants If you cant take it dont dish it out

No I really don’t; I have only said that lifetime tenancies reduce the social housing market and lead to those really in need not having suitable housing and people who now earn well still getting the support they once needed. Nothing wrong with that.

Well my higest paid job was in the sex industry Talked to loads of men Could even have been the husbands of some MNers

Loose translation "im allowed to talk about "subsidised" housing but dont you dare talk about subsidised childcare"

Of course you can talk about it. It’s not to help families by the way, it’s to increase the workforce.

yes i know

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326040-childcare-is-not-a-dumping-ground-for-the-unemployable?page=1

Almost?

I feel like looking for the tiny violin me.

The support that is NEEDED is security….which a lifetime tenancy provides….thats the NEED not the cheaper rent. The security

safe in the knowledge you won’t be chucked out cos the landlord wants to sell up!

Someone I know got a 3 bed semi detached new build for around £600 a month, the mortgage on that house would require a £25,000 deposit then around £1400 a month payment. People also often get help with rent if on UC

Exactly. It's weird everyone's banging on about need. Everyone NEEDS a home. People aren't chess pieces to be moved about to get their turn at feeling secure for a bit.

Bring in cast iron can't sell up guarantees for private tenants and you might find people think differently. But nobody is going to give up secure housing to run the gauntlet of greedy landlords.

If being a landlord was so lucrative there’d be lots of landlords and lots of available properties.

So if someone is living in poverty and they rightly get a council house, over time they manage to build up their income and they are earning 40k+, they should get to live in social housing forever whilst people in poverty are in temporary accommodation?

People are ignorant. Blame the tabloids.

I live in public housing here in Australia and here if you start to earn too much you lose eligibility for the house and get evicted do you get to keep your house in the UK? Your house isn't forever here unless you stay poor!

Doesn't all this " move people out if they become better off" just lead to ghettos though? I can remember my grandmother saying that in her day to get a council house you had to prove you could pay the rent and was expected to keep it decent.

Now I can understand needing help to pay rent ( which applies whether social or private renting) but can't understand why it's acceptable to turn places into complete shitholes. Although tbh the tradesmen who work for the council seem to be find of doing a shitty job also. Friend of mine had a beautiful council home. The council decided they would do " improvements". Rewired and put plastic trunking half way up the walls, fitted central heating leaving pipes exposed everywhere and radiators placed lower so wallpaper finished above it. She refused the kitchen " refurb" as they wanted to replace her solid wood cabinets with everything built in with some cheap chipboard crap and not build in the appliances.

Now that doesn't help people take pride in their home.

It's not easy to private rent. There are many families that are in work but still get help with rent via UC. Private landlords will not touch them. Or there has to be a guarantor who then has to be a home owner or earn 2 or 3 times the rent. If there are problems with payment that then get put onto the guarantor.

If people from social housing move into private rented it could be as little as 1yr and the landlord could decide to sell . That then means a section 21. Bailiffs and back to temporary accommodation for God knows how long. This includes people who work.

Mumsnet is littered with disingenuous posts like this at the moment on loads of topics. The message is always 'don't focus on those of us hogging a scarce resource but instead fight for this scarce resource for everyone'. They knew full well that this isn't possible and that something like lifetime tenancies on private rentals can't possibly happen for a whole host of important and valid reasons.

People don't have an inalienable right to subsidised housing. We need to make best use of the housing that we have and this will involve moving people on when the housing they occupy is no longer appropriate. There really isn't another way the system can function well and meet the higher number of people's needs.