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!

Until my HA say I have to move out, I'm staying put paying full rent.

Surely it is unfair against the people rent all their lives in the private sector.

at least if you are in social housing and if your income increases you can start to save for a deposit to buy a house for yourself. Much harder if you are paying market rent in the private sector.

Once income increases this is typically as you are older. By the time enough is saved for a deposit then you are too old for a mortgage!

income and disposable income won’t increase quick enough for a person to instantly move out

Is it brutal to turn people out if social housing is no longer relevant to them? People in private sector rental and home owners have to make economic decisions all the time. I am always slightly amazed that people think certain sections of society are immune to these decisions. It’s a bit like lifting the 2 child benefit cap arguments which I struggle to understand

private sector renters and homeowners have the choice to downsize too….everybody does

Social housing was never for people starting out to move on later. This obsession with home ownership was not the same back then, it's not the aim for everyone and nor should it be. They were intended as homes for every walk of life. Not intended for people using it as a temporary thing or tenants to be used as chess pieces. Communities aren't built like that.

You can only pass on a tenancy once. It doesn't go 'down the line" for generations.

Instead of whinging about SH. Put the spotlight on the private sector. That needs controlling in quite a massive way.

While we're on, people who own their houses, should be forced to sell them when they underoccupy them. They can buy somewhere smaller and sell those houses to families.

If you want to keep people moving then it should apply to all areas and communities won't exist full stop.

Exactly this. Imagine a scenario where people were moved on once their children left home or their circumstances improved. It would be like a revolving door. It would create ghettos because no one would give a shit or be bothered to make a home. Like it or not, agree with it or not the tenancies are for life or until the tenant decides to move on

Back in the 60s 70s the council in my city built a lot of small bungalows, low rent, easy to heat and made communities of older people. Older people moved out of their family sized council houses into them and they were popular. I suppose they ran out of sites or money and it stopped but locally they emptied two 12 storey blocks of flats, they were modernised, accessible bathrooms, a manager living in a flat on site and one flat became a communal area. Again popular and people gave up houses that were too big and freed them up for families.

Seemed good ideas and maybe should happen more. After all lots of homeowners sell up and move into flats for the over 60s so not terrible to offer something similar.

Private rent and mortgages don’t go up just because someone has a pay rise though. I don’t think council rents should go up when someone has a pay rise either. People only want that idea to happen because it would satisfy resentful homeowners and private renters.

It’s horrible for people stuck in private rents. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Private landlords charge double and more what I pay the council for my house. Why should I pay the same “just because”? All that would achieve is making me struggle just because others do. Not right is it?

As for homeowners. They always have SO much to say about council tenants, don’t they?

Do you think people who can’t afford to buy or private rent their family home should never have a permanent home? They and their kids should just keep being moved on? They’re born, live and die in short term lets, always anxious they’ll be turfed out?

I don't think people should be turfed out and we also shuld not forget that housing is a basic human right.

But, I do think that housing provided by the state / council should be fitting to the families or individual circumstances.

There really isn't anything wrong with downsizing once DC have flown the nest. That 3/4 bedroom home was given to house 4-5 people so it should be going to another family that needs the space. The home should not hogged by a 60+ single person that will eventually struggle with the upkeep.

The council can put something into place for that to happen. Like re assessments every 5-10 years. But that requires money and housing stock.

I think in regards to private rentals, the law needs to change and tendencies should be more secure and there should be a cap on rent linked to mortgages or house prices to make things more fair and affordable.

But I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the socialist concept of providing permanent housing by the state versus the free market economy of supply & demand.

The reason why it seems unfair is that there aren’t enough council houses - those that have been sold off weren’t replaced, and still haven’t been.

So there aren’t enough council houses for those who need them, but I don’t think those people who have council tenancies should be kicked out - we should be building more!

The whole thing is set up to allow private landlords to make a killing out of those who need homes. Often this is at the expense of the tax payer as HB is used to pay for crap quality, insecure housing.

Edit - I do get the point re under occupancy once children have left home - it could be possible to put a review date when the children reach 18, and periodically thereafter if they haven’t left home, so that you don’t have one person occupying a 5 bed house perhaps?

But that happens all the time in the private sector rental market and home ownership. My parents downsized when I moved out, my in laws did recently. Lots of people who rent decide to save money by down sizing once their children move out. This is not a phenomenon that just involves social housing.

Nope, I want that idea to happen to raise more money to build housing for those in high need.

If your rent only went up as you earnt more (with a cap at market rent for area) why would that cause you to struggle? If you got a pay rise of for example 3k per year net, due to a promotion, and they then asked you to pay an extra £100 rent a month, you would still be £1800 a year better off? So how would that make you struggle more than now?

And private rents and mortgages do vary based on interest rates and over economic factors, and if my mortgage rates do go up I don't magically have any more money to pay it. But I have to find that money somehow or lose my home. I would love it if some law said 'you can't put up Bushmillbabes mortgage until she gets a pay rise' 🤣

@CantStopMoving It is not a house, it is a home. Homes should never have been used for profit. If we want communities filled with diverse people. We as a society can not turf people out of their homes.

Build more affordable housing and improve the assured rental terms and conditions.

Our country’s population is far too big now for that to be the case. It is lovely to romanticise to a time where there was endless space and plenty of room to build but that no longer stands. You are thinking about the country 50 years ago. Housing is now a scarce good (and will never ever not be that now no matter how many houses they build) so has to be used efficiently, particularly that subsidised by the tax payer

The only way to move….currently…. And downsize/upsize using your tenancy, is by mutual exchange

All HA and council properties are someone’s HOME btw

just in case anyone forgets or tries to argue it!!

As are privately rented homes?

@CantStopMoving If the government know that 8000 households are currently on a housing list awaiting homes. Then 8000 'affordable' homes are needed. Turfing people out of their home will not decrease the 8000 number. The only way to decrease this number is by building more homes.

There is plenty of room to build. A tiny proportion of the UK has been built on. There’s loads of space for more.

https://fullfact.org/economy/has-92-country-not-been-built/

Would they not be bothered for the sole reason of providing a safe and pleasant environment for their children to grow up in, out of pride and care?

We are on our 4th house purchase, living in each previous one for about 3-5 years to do it up and make enough to move up the ladder. We weren't given any money and don't have particularly high paying jobs (nhs) so was only way to get what we finally wanted was to start small, work hard on it and keep moving. We knew we werent staying in each one for long, but that didn't stop us looking after each one, partly to make money, but also to live comfortably.

I don't think anyone is talking about moving people each year, but having reviews every 5-10 years to evaluate need, or at specific points, such as when youngest child turns 18.

People don't care. They still think it's subsidised by the taxpayer. Talk about thick. I wonder if it's because they have so little control they try to poke their noses in to something they don't understand or think they're superior to.

Those on lofty perches should focus on their own gardens.

Didn’t say otherwise 🤷‍♀️

Yes but we don’t have the infrastructure for it all…. Schools, healthcare….and more importantly,the staff to work there!

Nor do we have the land given Blossoms article.
High rises and terraces near infrastructure and transport routes and repurposing brownfield sites is the only way forward