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.

Give them time to save up for a mortgage then. We cant keep up with the housing need.

Also, what about all of the people who never qualified for social housing but also didn’t earn enough to save for a mortgage? They never get that security and might be earning less than people on lifetime tenancies.

I believe social housing provides a cheaper alternative for those that 'need' it. You can still work, and be unable to afford private rent, or to buy. I don't however agree with those that abuse the system by earning more than enough to buy, yet choose to stay to fund an extravagant lifestyle. Dh, and I work hard to afford our house, we moved out of a council flat, and were lucky to be in the position eventually to buy. I have a sibling however that stays in council accommodation, when they can more than afford to buy. Sibling can afford luxury meals, clothes, eg £160 coats, etc, and has a great deal of expendable cash due to cheaper rent, free repairs, and renovations. My sibling had to audacity to complain about the new kitchen thay eS installed for free recently. Ours is old and falling to bits. I have asked sibling if they would consider buying, as obviously there is a fair bit of complaining about the repairs and renovations. The response was that sibling didn't think they could survive without the lifestyle they lead, and likes working 4 days. There is over £60,000 going in the household of two.
This I don't agree with, when there are people seriously in need of that accommodation.

This is true but it depends on whether you look at "the council housing budget" or "the council budget".

A given council housing scheme might be able to be self-sufficient and pay for all its own direct costs (repairs, management, perhaps interest on mortgages if still active), while still offering rents below the market rate (i.e. the private market rents).

However, the council that runs it might be (and is increasingly more likely to be) running up deficits in other areas to be able to afford, say, social care or SEN funding. They have a potentially productive asset (lots of paid off houses) which could in theory be used to raise money to cover these other costs by charging people the market rent instead of the lower social/affordable rents. But instead, they raise council taxes on everyone in the area to be able to cover their other costs.

This is an issue that could either be solved by increasing council rents to closer to market rent, or by lowering costs elsewhere in councils.

I don't think the council are allowed to use rents for non housing stuff

Yep, my DP is not eligible for social housing, but can't afford to buy (and is too old anyway). Almost half his take home pay goes on private rent, so he can't save much either.
Lots of people in his position.

How are they saving for a mortgage? Their money is going on rent ? Also if they are getting help with their rent via uc . Then once they have a mortgage how are they going to pay it? As the UC will no longer help them.

The second part i do get you its like a rock and a hard place. I think its seen that all the time a private renter is able to private rent their not priority because they have housing.

I think its mainly familys in temporary accommodation/homless /care leavers /Dv/medical that have priority.

Also just thinking that people spend years in temporary accommodation/hostels etc. Theses places are often awful. Shared kitchen bathroom with several others. Often dirty. Its very common to have damp , rats , nice, cockroaches bed bugs even self contained places are simlar condition.

I can't see how it would work for private renters to go into social housing for the security. And skip the shitty bits.

I personally think there should still be life time tenancy but I think there should be a change. Something like the life time tenancy is with the social landlord not the actual building. Meaning once you don't need that size property you get moved into something smaller.

Yes, but they could!

Or to put it in the form of an AIBU analogy:

My mother lives alone, and owns her own house outright as well as an investment property she bought years ago. She allows my sister to live in the investment property on a "covering costs" basis, i.e. she pays enough rent to cover the costs of repairs and maintenance but my mother doesn't make a profit. This is fine and I'm glad my sister is supported, but my mother has started asking me to help her out with her own living costs like groceries and fuel etc. My sister knows I do this but doesn't see the problem, and says my deal with my mum is totally unrelated. AIBU to wish my mum charged a proper rent to my sister so she could support herself instead of asking me for more money?

Neither side is unreasonable per se. In a context where council budgets are really squeezed it does start to make sense to ask why they are deliberately not maximising their use of assets though.

This is exactly it. There is an opportunity cost for the council having this amount of money tied up in housing that isn't providing the best return and also leaves them liable for expensive maintenance and repairs. Compare this with putting this same amount of money into a bank account and getting an easy 5% return a year then you can see that owning the social housing is actually costing the council money even if there is no mortgage to pay. This is particularly relevant at a time when councils are so cash strapped and they really need their assets to work for them.

This is how my ha works, I have the tenancy for life, but not specifically this place. I'm under occupying at the moment, 2 of us in a 3 bed, DD is at university but obviously comes home regularly and will be living here when she qualifies.
They do send letters & emails about under occupancy and moving to a smaller place and I've responded each time, but unfortunately under this ha, two beds are bungalows for over 55 or disabled, of which I'm neither and we can't have a one bed because then we'd be over occupying, I discussed with them that I'd be happy to take a one bed and use the living room as a second bedroom instead - we barely use ours because we basically live in our bedrooms and although the housing officer themselves agreed it would work if we were ok with it, they couldn't knowingly let us over occupy.

I get that but I'm now stuck until I'm old enough for a bungalow or DD moves out and I get a one bed - although a lot of those are only available to prison/care leavers and those more vulnerable than I am, with a lot of them having support.
Smaller means cheaper for me to run as well, less fuel for light and heat for a start and less rent which would make my financial situation better than it currently is, but there's no where for me to move to, except another 3 bed so there's not a lot that can be done, and although 'only' around £100-£150 per month more expensive than private rent, that's money I just don't have 'spare' without going back to the bare bones of life and not being able to afford things like turning the heating on in winter, new shoes when I need them etc, as was the case when I private rented - and prices have only increased since then.

I’m not saying private renters should go into council for the security, I’m saying SH should be reserved for the people who really need it and when they earn enough to save for a mortgage, give them time to save up and then move out. Your idea about the size of house would be better than what we’ve got currently.

The lifetime tenancy many of us on this thread is just that! Not the house/flat we are in

we can move from property to property and area to area by exchanging our homes with other people

ive just done it myself. My lifetime tenancy had seen me go from young family, to a bigger place as they grew, now to a smaller place as they marry and move out….next exchange will possibly be a retirement home in 15 or so years time….litte bungalow somewhere

The ‘lifetime tenancy’ IS with the tenant……not the bricks and mortar

do people not know this?

I have been speaking out about dodgy SH contractors both pre and post Grenfell both on here and in RL for years. I posted a thread on here about having the front door of my flat replaced with a new one and my concerns about it. Got told i was being AIBU
They took away my old door which self closed with no gaps and replaced it with a door which does not self close with a gap at the bottom. So they have taken away a front door which met fire safety rules and replaced it with one that doesnt AND threatened me using my tenancy agreement to have this done to boot! This willl be being replicated all over the country and tenants are powerless to do anything about it. You just get "remember your tenancy agreement" every time you voice concerns and then get proved right like i have been.

The reason SH tenants complain (see my post) apart from what ive posted above is because tenants dont get to choose when these things are done. Friend of mine has had a letter about new kitchens two months ago Havent heard any more so dont know the dates. His neighbour who works in the NHS cant just take two weeks off work so has refused it. Tenants dont get a choice over dates Home owners can choose the dates that suit them to have this done. Would you be happy if your childs TA or child minder took two weeks off You would moan like fuck. And these things often overrun and take longer than they say And would you be happy with this kind of appointment.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4922126-to-think-a-three-day-call-is-not-an-appointment

What if you're say 2 people in an appropriately sized flat though? I know a couple who earn well over £60,000, close to 70k now. They no longer need to live there, yet have said they don't want to give up their extravagant lifestyle. The cheap rent, free repairs mean they can go out for nice meals, buy expensive clothes. They just got their kitchen renovated for free, and complained about it, not up to their standards etc.
When I asked if they wouldn't just buy somewhere, as they have the means to save, the answer was that they didn't want to give up the lifestyle. Meanwhile dh, and I worked hard, bought a house, moved out of social housing. Our kitchen is falling to bits, we do all of our own repairs where possible. Shouldn't their flat go to somebody who actually needs it? How is this right?

Yes the joy of being able to choose a kitchen installation date when you're paying probably around £10kish.

Why does anyone need to take two weeks off work for a kitchen fitter? Nobody, homeowner or otherwise does that. You want the choices that come with home ownership, you'll have to pay for it yourself. Can't have it all ways.

They have a key as well, you don't need to be home. When I lived in social housing years ago, they renovated while we were at work. Anything important was locked away. It was nice not to have to sit in a dusty building site as well. It was all free, our kitchen looked miles better. When we earned more (very fortunate), we moved out and bought. I hope who ever got it after us took care of it.
The couple I know need to stop complaining about pedantic things like the tiles, and buy somewhere. They have openly admitted they have the means to do so, which a lot of people don't. Somebody in need could move in, and absolutely love that flat.

Versus the joy for tenants of having to have Rydon in their home when they were partly responsible for Grenfell!

So they have a key for every single flat on a huge estate which will then be carried by all the different contractors plumber electrician etc as they dart in and out of different flats doing the work. Can see them all standing in Timpsons getting copies of loads of keys for a large estate so that the plumber is carrying loads of keys for different flats the electrician is carrying loads of keys for different flats and im absofuckinglutely sure no key would get lost in this ridiculousness

My HA does not have a key to our front door Which i was assured of when the door was changed.

It was provided by the housing office at the time, they hounded us to let them do it this way, we gave them the spare. I'm only talking about my experience a few years back. Maybe things have changed? We took the key back at the end. This was the system at the time.

When they do the flats they dont just do one at a time. They dart in and out of different flats all day

That's how it tends to work. Even if you're the one paying them, they don't just sit around waiting for grout to dry. They're in and out. It's not remotely unique to social housing.

Oh, I wonder if it has changed, or maybe dependent on council? This was the process for us, but you're going back over a decade mind. The housing officer was actually annoyed with us when we demanded the spare key back. They weren't doing the snagging, and things had become unproductive at this point. Funnily enough, the job got completed after that. The system worked out in the earlier days, or we would have asked for it back sooner.

oh so you and all your neighbours have all had this done at the same time too. Cool