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.

It's not subsidised, it's just not for profit. Big difference

Before they ran out of money, councils used to build council houses, and rent them out extremely cheaply.

Councils then transferred the majority of their stock (which hadn’t already been sold by the tenant under right to buy) to housing associations. In the 80’s and 90’s housing associations used to receive up to 100% of the cost of building new homes, so HA’s could also rent their properties out cheaply.

Grant rates have been cut to the point that housing associations these days may receive as little as 10% of the cost of building a new homes, and with all their other priorities (building safety, customer satisfaction, damp and mould), building homes for new tenants isn’t high on their agenda.

As so few homes are now being built, demand for housing is currently at a high and tenants who no longer need their home vacated very slowly, people who aren’t on the receiving end of these subsidised home, seem to try and take it out on those who are living in one.

The focus should be on the government, and how they are going to get reasonably priced homes built for people who need them.

There is no difference. But if you’d prefer to call it charity that’s fine. My point still stands.

Depends on the area mine was virtually the same until recently now I'm only a little cheaper than my private neighbours but my tenancy is secure

Your point is wrong. It's not charity, it's not subsidised.

It is below market rate. That is a subsidy, simple definition. And not for profit is another word for charity. No amount of wierd double think or assertion is going to change the facts.

Sounds more like selfish than determined

The lifetime tenancies concept is weird. While it is great for the person living there, it means that one home is blocked for ages, even if the tenant would be able to live on their own and someone else could benefit form the leg up of lower rent and temporary stability.

Lifelong tenancies are increasing the discrepancy between those lucky to get this opportunity and those who didn't.

Many years ago. Now a single working man with no disability/vulnerability doesn’t stand a chance in getting social housing.
My LA has a criteria on income too, I think it’s household income of less than £23,000. Anything over this, you simply can’t apply for social housing.

It is seen as free housing as if you don’t work, your rent will be covered by either UC or housing benefit. If you own a property, your mortgage is not going to be paid if you don’t work. The security in not comparable.

Nope we are no longer subsidised we were in the initial transfer from council to housing association after a set number of years we turned independent part of the company is run as a charity the rest is not

My point is not all areas will be run the same

No we pay rent most people are not on full benefits 😒

About 15 years ago, me and the DP were house hunting to buy and viewed a property that was about £130k. That very same house is on the rental market right now and they want £3k for it. It is a piss take.

100% agree.

Social housing providers get government LOANS to build (or sometimes buy) properties, which they have to pay back with interest. They also build/buy properties with the money they make from rents.

Yep, that's right - the money they make from rents. They charge less rent NOT thanks to any subsidies, but simply because they aren't gouging their tenants like private landlords do.

The answer isn't to keep being mean-minded about social housing, but to encourage more building by HAs and councils. This could be done with a levy on private developers.

The Conservatives imposed a whole set of weird strictures on social housing providers, which essentially prevented them making any money to fund new builds. I haven't kept up to speed with that but, if they're still having their hands tied, that needs to end.

This. Social housing is generally always cheaper than the private sector as rent is linked to a formula based on local incomes.

I think likely people may have an issue with it because even when people are back on their feet earning an above average wage they’re able to stay in council housing which by default as said is essentially subsidised so not as OP says the same if that person was in private rented as they wouldn’t qualify for HB to ease the pain of the higher market rent (which they can now afford of course). This is why people like millionaire Levi Roots refuse to move from properties they now no longer need.

To a point, yes, but knowing what she went through i think it was much more complex than that. And to her, it was her home, where she raised her children. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

And she refused to take up her right to buy, she knew the house wasn't hers really.

My parents looked to downsize from their under occupied 3 bed house. No properties available. 1 bed are in huge demand.

Fair enough

To give you an anecdote, I own a 2 bed flat in a Victorian terraced house. The upstairs flat is also a two bed, it’s council owned. I bought mine from the council when they sold it at auction a few years back. It’s located in a nice part of the world; houses on the street usually sell for around £1.8-£2.2m.
Anyway I’ve gotten to know the tenants upstairs from when I did the renovations. She and her husband have 3 children and as part of another conversation, she mentioned to me that their rent is fully covered by housing benefit. Her flat on the open market would probably rent for £3k per month.
My tenants, in a similar sized flat downstairs but with garden, pay £3,200 per month.

Your household may pay full or part rent for your home, however most social housing tenants do not pay full rent, and receive housing benefit.

Join the finance department of a housing association, the rents and collections team will open your eyes, and you’ll soon begin to really understand the numbers.

"Build more social houses"

As someone who has worked as a construction consultant in social housing for 15 years I say I completely agree with building more.

The issue is who gets the houses once they are built.

I was on very good terms with a HA Director who told me they manage 300 houses and have a 15 year waiting list to get one based on the number of voids they get per year.

New builds are being asked to accommodate inter-generational families now, 8 or 10 person houses but the funding makes them unviable. The sweet spot for funding is 4 person 2 bed flats but there's only so many of those you want to cram in to an area.

And social housing isn't the free meal ticket some think it is, you can have a nightmare neighbour move in next door and there's almost nothing anyone can do about it as long as they are paying their rent.

If a nightmare neighbour moves in next to me I just sell up and move.

My mum is in her 70s and a couple of her friends have asked the council to downsize but they didn’t have any 1 bed homes available.

We are given incentives to downsize here they go through it every couple of years cash for an exchange

My understanding of the word "subsidised" is that it's when the price of goods, property or service is partly paid for by someone else. Which isn't what happens with social housing. Nobody is giving the HAs money to keep their rents down.

The case is more that private rents have been artificially inflated for the sake of profit.

But if you get UC housing element and it covers the rent then it literally is a free house isn’t it? You get given money not everyone would and you get a house for money you haven’t earned?