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.

Oh no, I bet you wish you had a disabled child too, then you might get all the goodies she does 🙄

Maybe discounted is a better word than subsidised then?

As i understand it, the idea is that any profit from social housing once costs of building it are paid off, should then be used to fund building more social housing. It should be a self sufficient process rather than requiring continual government investment.

My rent is 'market rate'.

When I first moved in it was only slightly more than the rent I had paid as a private tenant, but the annual increases have made it much more expensive than private.

My private rental was carpeted and had a built in oven, when I moved I got concrete floors and a space for a cooker.

Nope, not discounted either....

It might help you to look at social/ affordable rents as closer to what rent should cost, and private rents as grossly inflated.

Not to be a show off but my home is beautiful ! Lifetime tenancy and succession rights . Nice area outstanding schools and I keep my home clean and tidy as do my neighbours we are very proud of our homes and gardens

HAs do do this, but margins are extremely tight right now, and they wouldn't be able to afford to build much without further funding.

But building social housing is a worthwhile investment of public funds, and should- if built in sufficient quantities- bring the benefits bill down as less people claim housing element for inflated private rentals.

No it doesn’t because at least 50% of them are “no income” rather than low income (or working on the black market) and only arrived a few years ago.

Eh? You think it’s not subsidised, even though the actually building of social housing is partly paid for with tax payers money? What is that if it’s not a subsidy?
And of course tax payers pay part or sometimes all of the rent for SOME people in social housing. As we should, because a secure, safe home should be available to all.
Personally, I’d like to see Angela Rayner confirm exactly how many of these 1.5m new homes that are apparently going to be built are going to be social houses? She’s said nothing so far, (well, in one interview she said “a vast swathe” but that could mean anything)
Waiting lists are huge, families are living in temporary, totally unsuitable accommodation, it’s dire for many.

Tax payers live in social housing too.

They'd also get benefits in private rentals then

Your assuming there are more suitable properties they can move too.
That's not always the case .

My rent is £850 a month and I pay every penny of that. I don't claim any benefits at all.

I'm in a 4bed house and wouldn't necessarily be opposed to downsizing in future. But the problem is that anything I've seen and liked has a higher rent than mine for a smaller place, around £1000-£1200 a month. (I'm not going to go for something I don't like or move to a cheaper area, why would I?). This is because I've been a tenant for a long time so my rent can only be increased by a certain percentage, whereas newer tenancies are priced higher. Additionally, there's a possibility with some that I'd have to give up my lifetime tenancy and go onto a fixed term tenancy. Which obviously I'm not going to do. A smaller place and less security for more money, no one would choose that.

There's also an issue on flats having service charges, that can spiral out of control. As I don't think there's any kind of cap on that. My HA made an error and billed me £30 p/w for "tree work" when they don't do any here! It was eventually resolved but clearly they think that's an acceptable charge. Let alone everything else they can charge for in flats. So a rent of £250 a week could become £300+ with service charges.

So I will probably become one of those old people rattling around in a 4 bed. Because it just makes no sense financially to downsize. If they want people to downsize they need to make it viable. I'd want to at least break even on any move I made, I'm not making a move to lose money.

Absolutely. I didn't say it's necessarily a bad thing. We need more affordable housing. But I do also think we need more transparency.

I haven't seen anyone say they thought social housing was FREE per se. More that it's subsidised/below market rent. It certainly was for my mum, who had a council flat from my teens through to her death in my 30s.

She worked and did not claim any benefits. She COULD have afforded private rent but why would she when she got a much cheaper deal through a council tenancy and effectively a guaranteed home for the rest of her life?

I'm sorry but I think this is a really selfish and entitled attitude. You are clearly paying well below market rate for a large house that you don't need anymore and is probably in demand by families that actually need the space. You have already benefited from years of subsidised accommodation and now you won't move unless you 'break even' financially. What a joke! You have never really paid your way when it comes to housing and now want to be compensated for moving to a smaller house or flat that would actually meet your needs.

I get it. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas but this is why we need powers to move people like you on and stop you hogging housing stock and being so heavily subsidised to do this.

Well said

They were offered a one bedroom flat, they have said they will only consider a two bedroom. There attitude is “This is our home” They can’t see that actually that home was given to them because they had small children and needed it. I think it’s disgusting that they get to stay there forever.. Yes they both worked and now have good pensions but why should they get to live in a cheap rent council house when you have people with multiple children living in shitty temporary accommodation for years, or couples who work continuously yet still have to use food banks to feed their children because private rent is so high?
unless they are going to build enough houses to cover the people who need social housing the agreement should change to.. It’s yours until your children leave education and then you either go to the one bedroom we offer you or you privately rent, just like everyone else has to.

Eliminate social housing. The going rate paid for ALL properties and no one is treated differently. Equally. end of argument.

That's not going to happen.

My rent is around £25 a week cheaper than the advertised private rents, £100 a month, part furnished as in has cooker, fridge, freezer etc. One is £150 more and fully furnished with well , furniture! Every private rent I lived in had carpets, curtain rails and generally curtains or blinds, and at least a cooker if not fridge, freezer & washer too, all supplied, maintained and replaced by the LL. And just as open to being 'subsidised' by housing benefit (or whatever the equivalent is now) as an SH home - at a higher amount because they cost more.

SH has none of that, you pay to install, upkeep and replace those things yourself, the HA doesn't supply, maintain or replace any of those things.

It's the 'no frills' end of renting. Why would you expect that people pay the same 'market rent' as private renting when they're not actually getting the same? Would you pay the same rate for a budget hotel with no frills as a 5* because that's the 'market rate' for a hotel room? Or would you expect that the price increases with the amenities?

That's often completely ignored because it doesn't suit the agenda of 'Free housing! Subsidised housing! All not fair!'

I pay my rent from the low wages I receive for working full time, plenty of people have been and continue to be 'subsidised' by that work being delivered for less than it costs for the person doing the work to live. Perhaps it's time to scrap it all and people can start paying more for the services they want and need instead of relying on cheap labour and then bitching that they're paying for everything and getting nothing in return?

In my area a private rented house will be £1175 for a 3 bed. Social housing in the same area for a 3 bed is £480.
It isnt the landlords purposefully raising the rent. For my 3 bed that I live in and own my mortgage is £1100. So if I wanted to rent it out (which I don’t as I need to live in it) then the rent would need to be more than £1100 to cover the costs. It is the mortgage interest rates that has caused rents to rise.
I thought that social housing was meant to be affordable housing for people that don’t have high paying jobs. So my friend who is renting hers for £480 was a carer for years and years but she is now training to be a nurse. She is the kindest person I know but doesn’t make much money and has 3 kids and a useless husband. In terms of whether social housing is free no it’s not free but in some cases housing benefit will be paying for it. It is subsidised though as the rent is way less than someone would pay if they were renting it privately and way less than it would cost if someone got a mortgage for what the house was worth and paid the mortgage if for example they had a 20% deposit.

I know several people who live in social housing - yes they all work, and all of them pay around £400 a month for a 2-3 bed house.

Compare that to the cost of a private rental 2-3 bed house in the same area of £1800- 2000 per month.

So yes, it is ridiculous to imply it isnt cheaper or subsidised.

I've said it before, but what is actually needed is low cost housing for rent available to all. 1.5 million units into social housing would be far better than 1.5 million units into private housing for starters.

A cross-party, long term housing strategy, covering the next 25-50 years, incorporating sustainability and using MMC needs to be set up. Fund it using institutional investors, who look for long term, steady returns on their investments. Offer apprenticeships for all trades involved in construction, with CICs set up to provide jobs and ongoing maintenance to the housing stock. Central government to provide some of the funding to offset land costs and subsidise infrastructure. They've had loads of money from RTB, it's time to reinvest it in housing.

No lifetime tenancies with an obligation to move up or down as circumstances change, this keeps fluidity in available stock. Lower rents to enable people to save for deposits if they wish to buy from private housing stock. Making the housing available to all, takes the heat out of the private rental market, which in turn should release stock onto the market for people to buy.

It's a win-win all round. Everyone is housed in well maintained housing, running costs are low and people have more disposable income due to affordable rents, so more money is in circulation, less housing benefit is needed. Those who are not so fortunate are looked after too in housing that meets their needs and is fit for purpose.

Why? Straghtforward system which applies to all no special exemptions for the entitled.