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!

Given that we have a massive shortage of social housing. I agree with you @Helpmechooseausername.
In an ideal world, with plenty of access to social housing for those in need, people should have lifelong security as per the original intention of social housing.

I have a family member, has a large family, now all grown and moved out. Has a HUGE council house, which she pays a ridiculously low amount to live it... It's now just her in a giant house.
That's not fair when there are so many families with nowhere to go/over crowding.
That house was given to her (at an extremely reduced rate) to house her children. Now there are now children, so she should be told to move into a small flat. The house should then be given to another large family.
It's crazy.

It is.

Many people confuse the words 'house' and 'home'.

No one who has paid full rent and continues to pay full rent should be forced from their home in order to house someone else.

People aren't taking homes from a young family - the system has let young families down. The answer to this problem, isn't making other people homeless! If there were options for people to downsize, that would be a different story, but there aren't and housing associations make no effort whatsoever to help people. Also how do you know they can afford to live elsewhere? These are hypothetical people. We should absolutely blame those in charge.

Jealousy is an unattractive and completely pointless trait, it eats away at you. Mind your own business, just be glad you haven't needed social housing, I am.

But they are, in effect, taking a home from a young family given that the resources are currently so limited.
I agree that this is the fault of successive governments, starting with Thatcher, of course.

I get that they are doing that in effect but not intentionally if you know what I mean. But what should people to do? Make themselves homeless so other families can have their homes? It makes no sense. It is the fault of successive govts as you say!

The solution isn’t getting rid of council houses but putting a cap on the market prices. That’s how it’s done in Sweden (although it’s changing now), and it works really well.

Read the current thread about a women with young children in hotel as there is a lack of housing available, then how many council houses are unpopulated with people with a nice car and luxury holidays because they had a tough period in the 90s. Heart breaking. I'm shocked as how many people don't see a moral problem with this. I assume its just like people get themselves comfortable with shopping lifting as a victimless crime - just blame the system.

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?

Exactly, watch the benefits bill go through the roof even more if they introduced such a policy. Why would someone bother working if it means they’ll get turfed out and pay several hundred more for insecure private rent?

We’ve already got an issue whereby it’s more financially beneficial for some to stay on part time work topped up by benefits. This would just make it worse.

More likely the person paying market rate re t can’t afford a mortgage so will still be paying it.

You will have a major asset to leave to your kid. What an incredible thing that is. She may even choose to come back and live in the family home when you're gone, feeling some attachment to the place. Or else, of course, sell it, which may do anything from give her enough for a house deposit of her own, to pay for private health treatments she needs, to allow her to travel or undertake a graduate degree, or to give her the wherewithal to leave a bad marriage...

Council house tenants will likely have no significant asset to leave to their children. Imagine what a worry that must be if you have a vulnerable child or one who would benefit from provision being made for them under a trust, for example, for any number of reasons. You can't do shit for your kids, all your money has gone on paying rent all your life and they can never come back to their childhood home.

Christ have you nothing better to do than nosey around, checking which neighbours own and which rent then cross referencing it with their cars? You might not have ended up questioning your life choices if you kept your beak out of other people's businesses. Comparison is the thief of joy and all that.

So unreasonable! I was pregnant with my 4th when my (not so d) h decided to have a fling and leave our marriage. Destroying in the process, my Dad's family business and ultimately losing myself and my Dad our family homes!

Circumstances change, sometimes through no fault of our own!

Sorry for the excessive use of exclamation marks, it gets my goat when posters assume!!! (!!!!)

I can't believe that someone who is in a position to buy their house and in the process choose where they want to live is actually jealous of someone who lives in a council house, that's mad!

Or market rate is significantly higher than it should be....

This here is the problem. That and the Thatcherite donkeys selling off all the housing stock without replacing it.

In reality, most people would never give up a good thing, even if their circumstances change and they can afford to buy or rent privately. Given the huge shortage of council housing, which is making so many children homeless and ruining their life chances, the system needs to change imo. More social housing would be a start but, as that will take some years, they should have introduced assessments every 5 years or so, with properties being given to those in greatest need. I totally agree with you about how disastrous successive governments have been at sorting out this basic need.

Agree OP. Should be means tested, and subject to review every few years so the houses can be for only those who need them. I really don't see how anyone could object to that.

I agree but, unfortunately, most of us humans are innately selfish!
I find it shocking how many children are growing up homeless. How can the UK call itself a developed country?!

Yes bit unfortunately often there are no suitable 1 bedroom properties for people in larger properties to move into that's not the tenants fault

because so many of us have lifetime tenancies and invest in our homes…..if I’ve decorated,improved and spent money on my home then I’m not being assessed and told to move….i have the right to buy . many would choose that over upheaval

Jesus Christ!

Green eyed monster is not a good look. Don't be jealous of other people and hope this thread educated you at least a bit.

Well generally most will be entitled to housing benefit once they become pension age so you're not 100 per cent correct here. Councils were going to start changing tenancies, it was no longer going to be house for life but more of a stepping stone , which ties in with what op is saying but the idea was buried before it even got to the discussion stages. The idea was meant to help the housing crisis.