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!

I get your frustration, as you are bitter that you can't get a social housing home @Helpmechooseausername and also jealous. (By your own admission.) But I will bet my entire year's salary that if you DID get a social housing place, (with a secure, lifelong tenancy,) you would not let go of it, unless you were forced to.

Some people even suggest that people in social housing should 'do the decent thing' and give up their social housing anyway if their household income exceeds, say £30,000 to £35,000 a year. LOL, no-one is going to do that.

No WAY would you (or anyone else,) get to a point with no children at home, and with around say, 600 to 700 pounds a month surplus income, and think 'hey, I know what I'll do. I'll give up my low-cost-rent, secure, affordable housing home, and move into insecure private let, (that costs £600 to £800 a month more,) or saddle myself with a mortgage that costs 3 times more than the social housing rent did! You'd have to have rocks in your head to do that. Come on! As I said, no-one is going to do that! 😂

If someone who has 600 to 700 pounds a month surplus income gives up their cheap affordable secure social housing - for someone who 'deserves' it more because they're on less income, the person who gives up the social housing property will then be in the position that the person who has their property was in! It's batshit.

ALSO, if someone is forced to give up their social housing property because they have a household income of over say, £30,000 a year, what happens if they're forced to leave, and have to move into expensive private let, and then the following year their circumstances change/they lose their job, and their income drops to a much lower amount? They will have to rejoin the housing list and wait YEARS to get rehomed again.

Moreover, if there is a threshold, people in social housing will just make sure they don't earn above that threshold. It will be a race to the bottom.

Seriously, no-one is going to do anything that jeopardises their secure affordable housing tenancy. I know some people who are in affordable social housing, and they have the most comfortable happy lives, because they have a secure home and cheap rent, and they don't have to worry about repairs and maintenance..

They have surplus income and can enjoy life and have a nice holiday every year, and a decent car, are not scared about the winter bills coming up, or losing a few weeks pay from work if they're ill, because they have some decent savings.

As a pp said, moving people out forcibly based on their last year's wage (for example) would be a total farce (as they could be on less this year/next year, and go below the threshold again.) And they would be poorer overall, as they will be paying £550-£700 or more a month extra for private let (compared to what they were paying for their social housing home.) And as another poster said, you would be making 1000s of older people 55+ (many of who will have health issues and mobility issues) homeless, and forcing them into expensive, insecure private let.

The people saying YANBU on this poll are clearly people who aren't in social housing! 😆

As has been said, 100s of 1000s more social housing properties is what's needed. What's not needed is throwing people out of their social housing homes that they are happy and secure in, because they have the temerity to make an effort to do reasonably well for themselves, and have ....GASP... some surplus income, a nice holiday every year, decent clothes, and a decent car! That's ridiculous!

Plan it

but you are talking about chucking people out or a mutual exchange?

pensioners packing up to move to a flat, yes likely a high rise. Lifts break and don’t get repaired for weeks at times. How will they manage with mobility problems?

Also most private landlords don’t (or didn’t until recently) rent to people on housing benefits, meaning those who struggle end up with nowhere to live when they would have been able to live there previously when it was a council house! It’s a disgrace. I don’t think they are allowed to discriminate now but as usual they probably will refuse benefit claimants and cite some other reason for refusal.

I wouldn't means test Council Housing but i don't think it should be a home for life.

There are so many elderly people in my area living in the 'posher area' Council homes with 3 and 4 bedrooms, lovely big gardens etc. A man recently made the local paper for living in the same 4 bedroom home for 70 years, it was his Mum's tenancy originally and when she died he kept it on. He's never married and has rattled around a 4 bedroom house for 30 years on his own. That home should be for a large family.

Council housing should be reviewed every 5 years or so and if you are living in a property larger that you need, you should be required to downsize with a monetary grant provided to help with moving costs that is paid back interest free with your rent over say the next 5 years.

Required to downsize to where?? How does that work?

I’ve just downsized after years of trying and it was so stressful snd nearly didn’t happen. Such flippant remarks…

When big family council homes have only one adult left our council do ask if the tenant would like to move to somewhere smaller, less expensive to run. Very rarely will they agree. The reasons are their neighbours are all friends. The new place inconvenient, they can't face the upheaval. The same reasons as a homeowner.

my friend got a ha flatr in london im glad she has it and is secure she could never afford anything round there and wants to be near her elferly df

she still has to pay 700 and all bills shes not in a high wagejob-she had to pay out for carpet and all white goods to funish it herself

The market rate is the one that is wrong, a roof over your head is a basic need yet there are those who see renters as cash cows to be squeezed and squeezed and then thrown out if they can no longer afford the extortionate increases which the estate agents/landlords will argue are 'market rates', yet these are fixed by avarice and nothing but avarice.

Anyone CAN live in a council house. They just need to apply for one. On my street, half the allocation of houses had to go to key workers, so we have a mix of professional, working families like us, and tenants who are in receipt of benefits. Everyone is more than welcome to apply, if they think it's that amazing.

I think that minding the business that pays me and not being badminded and grudgeful comparing mine to "theirs" is one of the reasons why I have a fat bank account, a nearly paid off mortgage, a successful, resourceful and resilient well loved adult child and a face that skews ten years younger than my peri menopausal age.

All that from a Victorian built council house beginning that my father had the temerity to remain in when all his children left!

I was perfectly calm. And I didn’t think you were trying to be rude. I asked you a perfectly polite question. Now I think you’re trying to be rude, with your ‘calm down’.

It’s not fact that all pension age renters qualify. HA tenancies aren’t automatically considered to be temporary accommodation and Pension age is set to increase to 67 by 2028. If you live with your partner, you both have to have reached retirement age before claiming. My DH is eight years younger than me. I’ll be at least 75 before I can make a claim, assuming I never manage to save £16k+(which is unlikely, to be fair). So in light of some health stuff I have going on, I’ll be working until I die to make sure I can pay my rent. Do you think we’re the only couple in this situation?

I don’t think it’s the system not working…..I think we need to start a massive council house build again - like we did during/after the war.

On a new build estate with 126 homes going up near us, there are barely any social housing homes.

The town in which we live, simply cannot provide affordable housing to the young adults who want to stay here and work. In fact, a few months back, I looked online and there was 1 social home available in a bigger town miles away - the only 3 bed available in like a15 mile radius. Imagine how many families were bidding for that!

I really think that with the beautiful architectural designs that can be conjured up nowadays, we really should be building appealing, low-rise flats for young people with communal gardens, parking - low rents, available from local councils and priority given first to locals born in the place.

No wonder families are so dispersed today. Young parents don’t live near to their parents and the whole extended family unit has broken down. Lack of support and so many families needing expensive childcare.

Towns lose their heart because commuters don’t necessarily spend lots of time working where they live anymore.

There are zero new council house estates that I know of - especially not ones with a maximum of 2 or 3 beds - proper starter homes.

but you could say the exact same thing about most other people forced to private rent because there aren't enough council houses?
'what landlord is going to rent to a single mum?'
'what landlord is going to rent to an unemployed person with mental health/physical mobility problems'
'what landlord is going to rent to an ex care leaver?'
'what landlord is going to rent to an ex-junkie trying to get off the streets?'
'what landlord is going to rent to a refugee who can't speak english?'
and "How on earth are they supposed to be able to afford private rent?" to all of the above.

at least the people in OP's scenario have
a) jobs
b) can get a good reference from the council that they have paid rent on time for years
c) 20 years of potential savings if (hypothetically) they knew there was a set limit to entitlement to council housing thus had time to save

those examples I've named might not have any of those, and might all also be in receipt of benefits. Yet they have to do it, somehow.

I actually agree that there's probably no practical way to limit how long people stay in social housing, I just don't get the idea that it's somehow more unfair for them to only benefit for a proportion of their lives than for all the many other people who never benefit (and are equally in need) at all.

Like I said in my previous post, it probably would be really hard and unpleasant for someone living in social housing to have to leave and rent privately. But it's also very hard and unpleasant for all the people who are currently renting privately because those people are 'taking up' the social housing they might otherwise be living in, it's just OP's couples (and others like them) were lucky enough to get there first.

Yep.

I had to rush out to pay for flooring, blinds etc having no choice but to use his DLA as it's the only way I could afford it so my disabled son had a home to be discharged to from hospital as our privately rented home wasn't adapted and he became disabled pretty much overnight after almost dying due to complications from an illness.

The rent isn't any cheaper than what my rent was when we lived in a private rental, it's actually exactly the same amount so I'm not saving on rent at all.

Totally agree with OP. I know people living in million plus houses paying only £500 per month. They work and now earn good money but still only have minimal expenses due to the council/housing association.
while people like me who don’t qualify for social housing have to pay triple the amount in private housing.

But they don't own that million any more than you and your rental.

It's not their fault the housing market's fucked. Right to buy is at fault here.

Yes,get there first…..and stay there!

So what do you want them to do? Move out so you can move in?

Exactly

@gemgem57 hate the game not the player. All these people you know who are in cheap affordable housing have a right to it, and they do not have to leave it, just because you're angry that you haven't got it. And good for them that they have surplus income and minimal outgoings, but it's not their fault that you don't... And as I said earlier, no WAY would you ever give it up social housing in the future, (if you had it,) no matter what you earned. Nope. You wouldn't.

I think that's what a lot of the social housing tenant bashers do want (secretly!)

I agree, I think council house rent should go up with income and if you end up earning lots it should be more expensive to be in a council house so you have a strong incentive to move out and leave it for those that need it, or you should need to take up right to buy with the funds going to buying/building more.

Oooh go on then….how much rent would you want a household on 30k to pay? 35k?

are you including benefit claimants in your ‘earning lots’?

and you are recommending ‘right to buy’?

Great way to continue to incentivise people to limit themselves to part time work (or not work at all) which means less tax paid!

And we all know the way right to buy was implemented is part of the problem. There’s zero hope of them replacing each house sold off - they didn’t do it back in the 90s and they don’t do it now - so why would you even suggest that as a preferable option to working people paying rent in council housing?

It’s almost as if some people resent those that don’t have the ‘burden’ of a mortgage or private rent. Miserable.

Ha! That’s hysterical! Some of these posters would sell a kidney and pimp out their DH before buying a house next to a council estate, let alone move on to one.