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!

But that's the problem, it isn't their home is it?
It's subsidised by the taxpayers, and it's usually massively cheaper than private renting or a mortgage.

They would be in the same situation as a private tenant when their tenancy ends: they would be expected to look for another place to rent, and most of them will find one.

Or do you think that just because they used to be in council housing they will prefer to go through the process of homelessness / emergency accommodation / being offered a place far away / etc, rather than looking for a private rental like most people do?
If that’s the case I guess offering them council housing at market rates is the solution.

There aren't any small properties available as they have families in them waiting many years for a larger property.
It is definitely easier to get a smaller property though - where I work the average wait for a 1 or 2 bed flat is around 3 years, a 3 bed house is 5-8 years and a 4 bed 10 years plus.

I can't imagine it's beyond the HA's to look at this 'family X have 3 children 2 adults' in a 1 bed flat. Family Y have 2 adults in a 3 bed house with garden let ask then to swop'. However, I suspect family Y with a nice garden will in most cases refuse to swop with family X in a 3rd floor flat!

Well that's why the system needs to change. Councils need to start managing multi household swaps. The current system can remain as well for those you want to arrange their own swaps

its not that simple…..what you are describing is a mutual exchange…checks have to be made on each property, everyone’s details much match who is living there etc etc it’s a nightmare!! So many people adapt properties themselves which cause issues….and are dangerous.and the actual state of some of them is appalling.

Personally I don't think anyone should be kicked out of a council house because their circumstances change. However I do think that the rent level they are charged should be dependent on circumstances.

Those who can least afford it should get subsidised pricing while those who can most afford it should be paying market rent (or in some situations above market rent to either subsidise the lower rents and encourage them to move out and give the house to those more in need).

If you are an additional rate tax payer in a council house you pay 120% of the market rent.
If you are a higher rate tax payer you pay 100%
If you are a basic rate tax payer you pay 80%
If you are on certain benefits you get an extra 10% off for each benefit.

(Example figures, if it were implemented then far more research would be needed to come up with the right figures)

Once councils get involved with swaps then the costs rise. The annoying if self made adaptapeople have made to houses are honestly dangerous! I’ve seen some shocking things

ha/council are obliged to put it right. But don’t pay for flooring,decorating ,garden tidy….nobody would want to downsize to these hovels.

id rather stay put and utilise our right to buy scheme than put my family through that

You can’t just increase someone’s rent mid year the minute they get a payrise! How ridiculous

same as over charging them to force them to move out

heard it all now!

I agree and why my next reply said they need to build more one bed places rather then 3/4 bed houses

which is also a bugbear of mine. Don’t have a 3/4 child if living in a 2 bed place via the council

If costs have to rise marginally so be it. It wouldn't cost a vast amount.
If dangerous adaptations have been made, they will have to be righted eventually anyway (unless of course the house is purchased). That could be resolved by banning dangerous adaptations - breaches of tenancy would mean eviction.
Ultimately it shouldn't come down to what people would prefer and 2/3 moves over a lifetime is perfectly reasonable.

Like I saw, situation reviewed - if they can’t afford to buy, then downsize. An older couple on their own doesn’t need a 3 bedroom house, they can be moved to a smaller property and then a family takes on the house with the number of bedrooms necessary.

lol those dangerous adaptations aren’t discovered til an unsuspecting family are about to move in

and no council/ha are going to start forcing moves…..that will only create trouble and bad feeling amongst normal hardworking everyday people….not going to happen

I didn’t say make people homeless, I said situation to be reviewed. If people can’t afford to buy they can always be moved to a smaller property.

It can’t possibly be that unusual, my contract states I have to move out to a downsized property once my child moves out.

Another ignorant, flippant ‘downsize’ comment!!

do you know how increasingly difficult downsizing is? I’ve just been through it and been on all the forums hearing and seeing absolute horror stories!!

there is a strict criteria set by HA/council

Where is this ‘downsized property’ then? Good luck with that

odd contract you have there btw!

My own contract says I need to downsize once my child moves out, so it’s not ignorant, flippant or particularly unusual - surely they haven’t put that specifically on my contract. I personally find it a very reasonable request.

It can’t be that odd, I assume it must be standard practice 🤷🏻‍♀️ it’s through a HA

No

mine is a lifetime tenancy. Same as those on this estate. And those I met on the mutual exchange forums.

@YouWillFindMeInTheGarden as of 21st of November 2024 the Government has reduced the discount depending on the region in the uk. Those who applied before that date will still get that maximum discount. However anyone applying after that date will get the small discount I mentioned in my post.

So what you are saying is that people can't be matched with properties suitable for their family size as they don't look after the social housing they are allocated/dont stick to the rules about what they are allowed to change and not change, and they aren't honest about who lives there? Do you work for a HA? I have heard similar from a friend who does, but hoped that wasn't a general trend!

So basically, families can't get house in size they need because others take the piss?

All the council properties I have been in for work (I work with disabled children) which are the correct size for the family are looked after well by the tenants, but these are nearly always new builds. Older properties are harder to adapt for disabilities so I think the council tries to housebin new builds where possible. But the waiting times are terrible, the the damage to the children while waiting is heartbreaking. I wish some people holding on to big properties they don't need could visit these families, only those with a heart of stone would continue to do so after seeing what I have seen. It is devastating that as a country we can't do more for them, the council are building on every tiny patch of land they can but it's sadly not enough 😢

It’s how communities are built. People need to feel settled, they need to be able to have roots.

by all means encourage people to downsize, offer decent alternatives like bungalows or maisonettes with gardens. We shouldn’t be forcing people. It could also encourage abuse, people signing off sick, not earning to their full capability if they are worried they’d lose their home.

Who do people think should be occupying council properties I wonder?
Because its apparantly not working people who can afford the rent, because they should be paying rent to a private landlord not back into the public purse. And it's not people who don't work, because why should the tax payer be paying for them to be housed. And it's not people with small families, because they should be in a small house. And not people with large families either, because they shouldn't have had more children than they could afford space for. It's not people who are able to manage their finances, because they should save and get a mortgage. But, it's not people who struggle either because they should learn some responsibility rather than expect state support.
Seems to me we might as well leave existing tenants where they are, because I can't think who could possibly meet the criteria to be deserving of replacing them.

Milluons

No I don’t work for HA. As I’ve mentioned I’ve just spent 3 years going through a mutual exchange and all the online forums have been posting every issue you can think of! I’ve seen the videos/photos of some horrific exchanges

theres a lady in tik tok who has documented her journey. She has Sen kids and a disability. Her house was horrific. Think she’s called ‘houseexchangemum’ or similiar

i was very very lucky to exchange to a beautiful house. They have made adaptions but our HA have said I can keep them but I’m responsible for repairs in those things, not them, as they aren’t standard.

I still think - despite all the points put forward on this thread - that we need to decide what council housing is actually for.

It used to be for those who couldn't afford any other housing. In theory, it was to get people started and many families in the past would move on into home ownership as their income increased.

I take the point that it's brutal to 'turn people out of their homes' simply because their income has increased, or their children have left home.

But if we accept that principle we also have to accept that there will never be enough council housing because once taken, it's taken for ever. You'd have to wait for people to die - and then, of course, ensure that no family member could inherit the tenancy. I read on hear sometimes that people hope to pass on their tenancy to their children - which is totally against the whole basis on which the housing was provided.

How do we square the circle? Is council housing a finite resource which should be reserved for those in real need, or a resource which we're prepared as taxpayers to keep on increasing ad infinitum?

@CoffeeCantata

It used to be for those who couldn't afford any other housing.

really? Did it? I’m not sure you are correct there…