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.

Subsidy by another word then. Whatever that word is.

Im not sure why people get so arsey about this, we should have subsidised or cheaper social housing, its not a problem to say that.

Theres nothing wrong with having a private rental sector either, except that in his country the governments over time have preferred t have the private sector prop up all rental properties rather than have a health social housing sector.

Does is matter? Someone has a roof over their head, which is great.

There is a big difference in houses being built on government owned land (so the cost of building them is massively reduced as the most expensive part of building a house is buying the land in the UK), tenants paying rent for 20-30 years to cover the building costs (again reduced as buying materials in bulk and basic fixtures and fittings) and then after that the rental income going back into the government coffers after maintenance. Even if the rent is paid by housing benefit, the rent payments are still going back to the government. The government still has an asset which generates income. They should never be sold so the increase in value of the property is irrelevant.

As opposed to a tenant paying a landlord’s mortgage so that landlord then has an expensive asset paid for, and benefits from the increase in value at the same time which they can capitalise on, by someone else’s hard work and/or conversely the government using tax payers money to fund the landlords mortgage in the form of housing benefits with no asset to the government or income generation after it is paid off.

Councils are not for profit. Landlords are.

Who is being subsidised in the above scenarios?

And they are costing the state much less than if they were privately renting and claiming housing element.

And how do you think they can afford not to make a profit? Could it be because the business is subsidised by government funding?

Agree with your general point, but business loans aren't subsidies!

FFS, they are not-for-profit enterprises. They make profits and plough them straight back into the business. That's how all non-profits work. No subsidies involved.

Not by very much any more, sadly. But any subsidies they do get are earmarked for building new houses, not put towards lowering rents.

UC housing element payments are also subsidising private landlords mortgage payments too.

It is subsidised housing. And needy people dont have access to these homes because folk are given lifetime tenancies even when they can well afford to buy or rent privately. And the usual answer of build more homes is nonsense. It hasn't happened yet and probably never will.

Of course it is subsidised. HAs are currently waiting for the next round of funding for new build programmes to be announced from central government.

I think they are given a bad name as all the people who can work but choose not to work are housed in them giving hard working people like your family a bad name

Apparently in the 70s in the UK around a third of the population was living in social housing, so a lot of people these days probably had some grand parents / parents / relatives living in them at some point for one reason or another

Speaking of subsidised.
Across the river in Nine Elms, Janine Streuli is one of many NHG shared ownership tenants in a block called Viridian Apartments. But far from delivering Kenrick’s utopian vision of good quality housing for everybody, regardless of wealth, Streuli and her neighbours have ended up paying for the concierge and garden landscaping of the wealthy residents of the adjacent luxury block. They’re facilities that she and the fellow affordable housing residents haven’t been given access to; their block has a separate “poor door” and their entrance to the communal gardens are sealed shut
The charge was only announced five years after Streuli moved in, when the affordable housing residents got a bill for thousands of pounds. While their initial leases made clear they wouldn’t have to pay these fees, NHG’s own lease with the building’s management company — which actually runs the development and its facilities — said the opposite. When the discrepancy was eventually identified the tenants were asked to take on the cost. They were now going to be paying to maintain the luxury gardens and concierge that they weren’t even allowed to use. Now she and most of the other residents spend upwards of £6,000 or £7,000 a year in service fees, almost 500% the rate promised when she moved in. While subsidising the facilities of their neighbours, many of their own flats and corridors have dealt with flooding, penetrating damp and mould — problems that have never been adequately fixed. Eventually the residents cobbled together enough money to take NHG to a property tribunal, and next month their fate will be decided by a judge

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/notting-hill-genesis-london-biggest-landlord/?ref=the-londoner-newsletter

What do you think should happen to the "people who can work but choose not to"?
Do you think they should be kicked out onto the street?

If you have any idea of how the benefit system works, you would know that no one chooses not to work and as an easy life.

Because private rentals are for profit whereas social housing shouldn't be

Quite, but that means rental income does not have to cover the cost of new houses which the business needs in order to develop. Therefore, rental prices are effectively subsidised by the government/ other grants or income streams.

I am very pro social housing. I grew up in social housing. However, it’s not true to say that social housing rents are equal to the cost of provision - because that’s the whole
point of it.

you would know that no one chooses not to work and as an easy life.

Don't be ridiculous, everyone knows there are plenty of people like that around, there was even a post on here yesterday about a woman admitting that her sister was committing benefit fraud…..everyone is aware this goes on

I saw that thread. OP's sister is not able to work. The fraud was her not declaring a live in partner.

BULLSHIT.

The Elephant and Castle neighbourhood is being physically, socially and ethnically transformed. This started with the demolition of the Heygate estate, a classic for stigmatised perceptions of council housing and the people who live in it. As the local 35% Campaign has meticulously documented, a succession of promises to Heygate residents were broken to arrive at a situation where 1,214 council homes were demolished, to be replaced with 2,704 new homes, of which only 82 (3%) are for social rent. The HA partner was London and Quadrant. To be eligible for the cheapest one-bedroom home built by them on the Heygate site, people needed a minimum household income of £57,500. The average household income in that part of Southwark is £24,324

Do the fucking maths. 1,214 council homes replaced with 82 social homes

That doesn't say how much the rent was though. Just that those particular tenants get housing benefits . Different people in the same property might now

Still benefit fraud of some sort is being committed up and down the country and everyone is aware that it is going on, any post that is benefits related on MN has commenters admitting they personally know people who are doing it,

I struggled to go down from my 5 bed to a 4 bed

you can’t just move, you have to find someone to swap with who is eligible

tgen jump through other hoops too

You can also get UC housing element in private rentals Would imagine actually more likely as rents higher

Yep, I know people who are struggling to swap like for like.

Aww dont spoil their fun with facts.