To think council housing is really unfair??

[Helpmechooseausername]

I totally get that some people need to be housed by the council, but AIBU to think that the system is abused - but it seems to be his the system works?

I know of two families who have lived in their council houses for years and raised their children there. They needed help when they first moved in, and so were quite fairly given council houses. But, now the kids have grown up and moved on. The parents both have got jobs, nice cars, holidays, go out for meals, etc., etc.. They can continue living in their council houses for the rest of their lives.

It seems massively unfair. Is it really not means tested?? Surely the houses should be given to other people who need them? How can it be right that they aren't told to move back into the private property market?

I feel a bit like when I stand in a queue in a shop, waiting to pay, while people come in and just take what they want without paying or queuing!!

And yes, I'll admit that I'm jealous! I can't afford to do any nice things for my kids and I, despite working hard, and it seems to be because I chose to own my own home and get a mortgage instead of getting a council house!

Your post is dripping with jealousy!

Looking at it another way…..Maybe social housing rent is as it should be and it’s the private landlords who are charging too much

Capitalists jealous of a socialist policy.

The point is that both the absence of a proper return on the capital used to build the homes and the opportunity cost of missing out on market rent are subsidies. The fact that HAs may balance the books on a day to day basis is irrelevant. If rents are below market rates the tenants ARE being subsidised.

Should they? Says who? That’s not a requirement of a lifetime tenancy, never has been

and saved for a deposit? But that’s assuming they are eligible for a mortgage at that age….and are still fit enough to work full time to pay it for next 20 years? I think not….

If Maggie hadn’t sold them all, we would still have the best social housing in the world, like we used to.
Greed did it. Pure greed.

I don’t see an issue with it. There should be more council houses available.

I know multiple people who have essentially been gifted sizeable deposits from parents or grandparents to get on the property ladder so buying homes isn’t all equal either.

It’s the politics of envy.

Exactly. But people would rather be sour over social housing tenants who are paying rent. Not to mention some of the people got those deposits gifted because their parents utilised right to buy.

Who would have got the "proper return" on the costs of building (which social landlords pay interest on) and who would be getting the benefit of higher rent if there were no social housing? Apart from the social costs of inadequate poor quality housing, it costs more to house people in the private sector - I cited the costs in my post. And subsidy doesn't mean getting an asset for less than another person.

There are lots of claims of jealousy - I do not want or need a council house. I also have nothing against them - my mum grew up in one and my Grandma lived in a 4 bed council house on her own for well over 40 years. She was offered a retirement bungalow several times but refused to move, which I think was wrong.

I work with disabled children, whose parents are carrying teenagers up flights if stairs on their backs while they wait for a suitable council property. And children who are developing life threatening complications as a result of inadequate housing. In the borough I work it's up to a 10 year wait for a 3/4 bed house, and I have seen many disabled children die before they made it to the top of that list. Nearly all the ones we work with, despite seeing their child in pain, being up all night, being in and out of hospital, will see their single biggest challenge is housing.

So I don't want limited tenancies/mean's tested tenancies due to envy, or dislike of council housing, or any of the other reasons which have been mentioned on here, but because it could literally be the difference between life and death for a disabled child. I'm sure I will get comments of 'not my problem' and 'that's the government's fault' but we are all responsible for the most vunerable in society.

Not envy, realism. We just can't keep going with British freeloaders whilst relying on immigration to get work done.

I kind of agree. We have lost so many young families from our school as there is no social housing available to them. Yet I know of of a few older people who are in 4 bedroom houses alone or as a couple as their kids have long left the house. I know one of them regularly even rents the property out on Airbnb.

It's a shame because people who desperately need certain properties aren't getting them as they are being occupied by people who no longer need the space. It is unfair that younger people are being denied the same support that older tenants got when they needed it.

It’s not easy to downsize….so people stay stuck in homes that are too big

theres not much help from a HA/council when it comes to downsizing

If your problem is “freeloaders” well they’d be paying even more in private.

A woman I know was a “single mother” of 3 (not truly single as her partner was kind of hovering around but not really contributing ) was paying about £2000 in rent for private rental in London except she wasn’t paying it.
Housing benefit was covering most of it.

She/housing benefit is now paying much less now that she’s working and is living in social housing. It wouldn’t make sense to turf her out into the private sector.

Wtf

Council houses shouldn’t just be for those in need

Those in need should get priority but everyone should be able to live in a council house

Unfortunately most were stupidly sold

So here we are fighting amongst ourselves over something previous governments fucked up royally

And that's a huge problem with the system. There should be something in place to reassess need and make sure families and single tenants are in appropriate properties.

I feel a bit like when I stand in a queue in a shop, waiting to pay, while people come in and just take what they want without paying or queuing!!

People in council houses aren't stealing them... they pay!! I have a family member in a council house who pays about £80 less than they would if they were renting privately. It's not free ffs. And they waited a long time in temporary accommodation i.e. they were homeless.

You are turning on people who checks notes pay to live in council houses. I'd think twice if I was you, as people will start turning on you for having children who you can't really afford by the sounds of things. (Not my view, just trying to show you that you are judging people in council houses, in the same unfair way people will judge you!). Also where would they go? Many would become homeless and need.... council housing!!

Honestly, be annoyed at governments over the last decades who sold off council houses and stopped building them, and governments who have never properly regulated the rental market, nor build affordable houses for people to buy. What an absolutely ridiculous post.

No I'm advocating for a system thats fairer.
Right now social tenants receive a significant benefit in the form of cheaper rent, and many of them are no more needy of it than plenty of struggling families in private rentals.
Lifetime tenancies should never have been granted.
Council homes are a finite resource - it should always have been the case you don't get to stay in it if you no longer need in it. Or certainly you should be paying market rent for it.

People keep saying blame the government. It is ok to believe people are morally bankrupt if they choose to take a home from a young family when they could afford to live elsewhere just because it has been their home for a few years. It may not be illegal but I believe it is immoral.

Council houses were not historically a safety net for those in need. If people want them to be time limited for only those in need that would require a big change of policy. Both sets of my grandparents lived in Coucil houses - they were all working people and paid their rent.

Britain has a productivity problem because work often doesn't pay and removing someone's home if they do well for themselves will just be one more reason to stay under-employed and supress your own wage. Why earn £500 a month more to pay £700 more rent and get an unsecure tenancy?

Kicking people out for under- occupying takes us back to the days of people having more and more babies to keep the gravy train rolling but this time at an increasingly older age to keep hold of their home.

The housing crisis is real and we need to build many genuinely affordable homes as well as dis-incentivise/legislate against second homes and air b n b.

I am pleased council tax rates are being multiplied on second homes and I hope air b n b starts to require planning permission for change of use so that Council's can say no when residential properties are in short supply (which is pretty much everywhere).

I strongly disagree with you OP. The fault lies with the government. For not building enough Social Housing, for allowing starter homes to brought by overseas investors and for not protecting assured tenants in private rents.

There is no way to solve the housing crisis by flinging more people out of their home. So they end up in a private rent and then some will qualify for housing benefit. It makes no sense.