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!

What government doesn't know at this stage is how many of those affordable homes are occupied by renters who can either afford higher private rent or don't need property of the size they occupy.
E.g. example in PP above, family home sufficient for 3 kids, private rent in SE would be 3k per months upwards. Families on waitlist who can't afford it. Meanwhile two pensioners occupy this council home. One bed flat for them would be enough, market rent is 1.5k per month. Their pension might be sufficient to cover this. Why does taxpayer needs to support the family whose housing needs are much more expensive whilst pensioners enjoy their council home which is way too big for them?

I rented privately for over 20 years, moved home 11 times, 9 of them because of rent increase which I couldn't afford. This wasn't nice, but I had no choice. Why council houses occupiers are such protected species?

They are public assets so should be allocated based on need. Lifetime tenancies are not appropriate given the shortage. At the very least there should be a requirement to vacate and move to a smaller Council property once fewer people are living there.

We also need to build more of them.

It’s also wrong that somebody can have rent paid via universal credit (Council or private) yet those who have saved for a mortgage but then become ill or unemployed do not have housing costs covered so are much more vulnerable.

If large amounts of public money are going to be invested in more Council housing then the quid pro quo should be that the discrepancy between how mortgage holders and renters are supported when they fall on hard times should be eliminated. Otherwise there is even less incentive to help people become self-sufficient, and people will continue to be reluctant to give up Council tenancies even if they can afford to buy because it is more risky: currently Council tenants are the only people other than those who own a property outright who can be sure they won’t lose their home and this prevents use of the existing stock for those who actually need it most.

Similarly I think universal credit rules about not allowing people to have savings are counterproductive. This doesn’t teach people to plan for the future or better their situation, it actively prevents it. Nobody receiving universal credit could ever save for a house deposit no matter how slowly they saved because it is prohibited. Some threshold of savings makes sense but it should be perhaps ten times what it is so that people can build financial security rather than being trapped in dependency.

Some people won't be happy until people that leave the house at 6am to commute to London returning at 8pm are equally as poor as people that do sweet FA. Spoiler a lot of them probably already are.

Why don't we all just reduce our hours, sign up to universal credit and enjoy our free school dinners.

Imagine being jealous of some of the most struggling people in society. What a sad life.

But most of that is greenbelt land- not for development. I would made it illegal to develop greenbelt or touch even an inch of farmland

@nearlylovemyusername But when elderly people were given their council house. They were given lifetime tenancies. They have built their life around that knowledge. You can not just change that. David Cameron tried and failed.

Lifetime tenancies have already been changed to 5 year terms with a review at the end.

However there is still a lack of housing and a lack of suitable accommodation for older people to move into. The Government has failed to build affordable sheltered homes for people who will need to rent their entire lives.

You can tinker with the criteria for social housing all you want but the houses still need to be built before you can move people out.

But a lot of them are not struggling. That’s the point! They’re sitting in council houses decades longer than they need them, often with good incomes, blocking the way for the actual people who are struggling but who can’t get a council house and are living in crappy temporary accommodation or paying much higher private rent.

Ummmm I know a professional person very highly paid, with a multi millionaire daddy who's living in a council flat across Westminster bridge on a low rent . They put in all new windows, front door. It's just somewhere to lay her head when working in the city, weekends it's the country estate. She bumps into loads of MPs at the pub at the end of her road during the week.

There's so much abuse with subletting. Grenfell tower the tenants had sub let because it was so lucrative. That was like unraveling a ball of knitting.

There's abuse of the system.

This is shocking and why RTB should immediately be withdrawn.

They also keep banging on about London again as ever on these threads there's an assumption we all live in London so can buy and sell our council house and make a huge profit.

It’s one of many reasons. Robin Cook was pushing for it to be abolished in 1997 and here we still are nearly 30 years later. It’s a scandal.

So you know 1 person who is abusing it, not exactly compelling evidence. Take it from someone who grew up on a council estate in the 90s, the majority of tenants go to work (just in low paid jobs) and pay their rent. My parents rented their home for 15 years before getting on to the property ladder through the RTB scheme.

Now people can argue about whether the RTB was good or bad but thats another topic.

What I will say is the idea of turfing people out of their homes of 30 odd years when they have been paying the rent, just because their kids have grown up is actually quite revolting.

I stand by my original comment. Imagine being a homeowner and begrudging someone in a council house the cheaper rent. It is sad, very sad.

Let me guess, you're very nicely housed yourself and not struggling with homelessness and nowhere to go?

I live in a two up two down inner city terrace, please tell me what I could possibly downsize to? A one bed flat maybe? There is a real shortage of these and all are out of my price range. Maybe think outside your own personal experiences before making sweeping statements

A handful in comparison to those who actually do struggle and live in council housing.

More proof then that some wealthy people are dishonest and entitled

I personally know an immigrant single mother who received a two bed council flat in Chelsea fifteen years ago when her daughter was 5 yo. Market value of this flat is over 1.8m.
Daughter is 20 now, she moved out, mother built reasonably successful business, not in millions, but she's very well set up. She still lives in this flat. How does this make any sense at all?

Smaller council houses or flats. Then families with children can move into the homes with more bedrooms

Well, going by that example it’s not the pensioners fault …..do private landlords rent to pensioners? Guarantors? Big enough invcome? No…didn’t think so. Why are people having families they can’t afford to house

That is odd indeed. I have NEVER know of any social housing landlord/council who has a clause in the tenancy agreement, that says you must move to a smaller property when your child moves out!

Bonkers!

@PanicPanicc I think you should have another look at your tenancy agreement. I just can't see any social housing landlord having this in the tenancy agreement. (Once your child leaves your home you're out!)

I'm not sure, either, YouWilllFindMe!

That's exactly my point - there needs to be a clearer understanding of who council housing IS for. And a follow-through/joined-up thinking about the implications of that (eg, whether it's for life, or to be means-tested at some point, whether it can be passed down to children etc etc). It amazes me that governments don't ever spell this out. I think pretty much everything is a finite resource and we're deluding ourselves if we think it's not.

Clarification would help and IMO is the first step in any policy of building over more green belt.

But - for social housing the green belt isn't always the right place - it needs to be where there is good transport and facilities - shops, medical services, schools etc.

No

Well firstly most council residents won't be living in lovely flats in Chelsea, my social housing, house in Bolton isn't so lovely nor will it ever be worth anything like 1.8 million i doubt anyone is jealous of where I live and many other social housing tenants.
And secondly if she has a life term tenancy she's under no obligation to move

What on earth does her being an 'immigrant single mother' have to do with anything? 🙄

And how on EARTH do you know anything about their finances/what profits they make/their income etc.............? Are you psychic? Or do they give you a rundown every month of all their income and expenditure?

Someone has to be eligible to swap! You can’t just move somewhere smaller

have you tried a mutual exchange?? No….