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!

Because it is first come first served. The alternative is to make hundreds of thousands homeless because their children have grown up. She won't have an asset at the end of it though will she. You'll be pleased to know she will most likely be back to struggling when she retires but still needs to make rent. Meanwhile homeowners should be happily mortgage free by retirement.

As a homeowner myself I know I wouldn't swap! I actually feel sorry for people who have to rent not jealous. Literally get a life people!

I agree with this. I work full time and receive some UC due to having two disabled children. I can't save for a mortgage due to the rules, there's no point. So staying in my HA home with its lifetime tenancy it is!

I think some people have forgotten why council housing was built in the first place.

Post the appalling slaughter WW1 people were promised a land for for heroes yet those at the bottom were expected to go back to private rental slums.

Seems incredible now but governments decided to do something about it.

Council house were intended for ordinary working people to live well.

The problem isn't people living well in council houses.

Sky high private rentals and property prices aren't a good thing yet are hard wired into our governments housing policies, both parties.

Obviously the current swap system isn't fit for purpose. If it was managed properly it would be much more efficient. You keep banging on about how it doesn't work as is, which is precisely why it needs to change.

Maybe the rules need changing to suit the needs of society. It is 'social' housing after all. Therefore to meet the needs of society, people get moved from bigger homes when families have grown to smaller flats, and families move into the bigger homes. A completely different view of society, not just park your ass and stay in social housing that's too big for needs. Rethink needed to ensure families have homes suitable for needs in an aging population.

Totally. Social housing needs to meet the needs of those that need it.

Not correct. It was often more expensive than private rents! I’ve read housing files from the 1950s, when an inspector would visit a family and report on the state of their home, and ensure their income was sufficient to pay the rent. A council house was a step up from slum clearance! We gave up a council flat in the early 70s, the rent was about £5 a week. We move a few hundred miles, and had to rent privately, very poor quality house, but much cheaper.

The housing act of 1977 changed the way councils let homes, giving priority to different categories of housing need and homelessness. So growing up, working and having family in an area gave no one the right to a council home there any more, and the waits got longer. Then Right to Buy reduced the stock, no one was forced to buy, but in my years of working in housing I only met one tenant whose principles stopped him buying his home. It was great for those who could afford to buy especially those living on the nicer estates. Not everyone was so lucky!

So much depends on where people live, some local authorities no longer operate a ‘list’, only registering applicants with a perceived need. Others have a housing register, where anyone can apply, but may never qualify for housing. Some housing associations take direct applications, some advertise via the local authority. It’s not one size fits all across the UK. There is no Right to Buy in Scotland or Wales any more. England should follow suit IMO.

Apologies for the long post.

I guess for me it comes down to the question which is worse/more unfair being asked to find somewhere else once you no longer need it when someone else does or to be told there is no where for you when you really need it while people that don't are in the homes.
For me it's more unfair/worse to have no where to go than to be asked to find somewhere else when you're able to.

No it doesn’t seem cheap to me. Perhaps you are paying market rate? In which case you agree with me.

Alternatively perhaps you live in convent garden?

Our council years ago asked a second generation tenant to move out of a four bedroom council Ouse he lived alone in. A relative contacted the media. The council got a pasting so backed away.

I’m a big on the fence with this big I know in our area that new tenancies are not secure in the way they were and people will be asked to move/downsize if they no longer meet the eligibility criteria for their home. That’s not the case if you are on a secure tenancy.

I know a couple, who are not very nice people which may skew my opinion slightly, who have a household income over £100k. They got their council house when young and managed to be wangle a move to a 3 bed they wouldn’t have usually been eligible for. They could have easily brought years ago but they’re living it up in their very cheap house and just splashing the cash. They kicked their eldest out of the house as soon as he turned 18 (as I said, they’re not nice people) so they have even less need for the size of property now. They could easily afford to buy or rent on the open market and their house could go to someone who needs it, but when you’re only paying £450 a month why would you.

Unfortunately that would be cheap in lots of places. You'd struggle to rent a room for £900 round me.

I always find comments like this interesting. The answer is yes but irrelevant. It is also the same with discussions about immigration when someone says all immigration is amazing because my next door neighbours are from Afghanistan and are lovely

the fact is, any development has a negative effect on the environment. That is a fact. Every tree lost, every bit of grass paved has an effect on the water table, the balance of flora and fauna, wildlife etc. All the recent flooding- mainly due to development of flood plain, stopping them doing their job.

you can’t just keep building and building without consequence with a kick it down the road mentality which is what happens now.

my view was and continues to be the population of the country should be managed around the housing stock and not the housing stock managed around the population. If we have no houses now, social or otherwise we have to close the doors to any newcomers until there is space. The birth rate needs to be managed around housing and not pensions. This will alleviate pressure of social housing help reduce those waiting lists for those in need.

But part of that is ensuring that it is used the most efficiently and for me unfortunately we are no longer in a place where people can call a house a home anymore. Those days have long since passed.

I’m thinking more along the lines of council housing being given to those in need. Some people are no longer in need and earning good salaries but living in a home that would benefit someone with greater need. If those on good salary in a council home pay more in rent that will go towards paying for more homes for those in need. Rent/mortgages often go up with inflation.

What's the incentive for people to improve their financial situation if they're going to get kicked out of their home once they reach a certain income?

You want cheap housing on derelict land or farmers fields. Then Angela Raynor etc have to grow a pair and buy it up at agricultural rates.

Farmers here 16k max an acre. Get planning you're talking 250k a plot. Our local farmer made one and a half million on a bit of stony limestone land he never used because it was so barren.

These threads always go the same way. Some random throws a hand grenade or 2 and the same old arguments come out that go on for pages.

It'll be the same in a few days.

Haven't seen a smoking outside a cafe or beer garden for ages and it's June!

Because they want to get a better property and release it for someone else more in need than themselves. Surely most people have a drive to improve their lot? I started out in a tiny flat for my first property and then I was able to move to a bigger one until I got myself a little house. I find it odd that people being successful would be seen as a negative. It is very very rare for people to get a property at the age of 21 and stay there for 70 years these days.

Except if you've lived there say 10 years and love it, but your income reaches an arbitrary amount, you're suddenly going to be forced out and have to find a lot of extra money for rent or mortgage, and related costs. There might be nothing in the area that you can afford, and you'd be moving away from friends, neighbours or family without wanting to.

If you're on the cusp of getting to that income level, you might just prefer to swerve that promotion or drop a few hours and stay in your family home.

Where I live ( expensive city 2 universities )
my friend was recently given a new build 1 bed flat
she was on the housing register for 2 years living at home single woman
she was in the process of buying a flat / sharedownwrship in a different city as she couldn’t afford to buy in her home city when she was offered a new build flat

The HA bought several 1& 2 bed flats from the development which I think they couldn’t sell - lots of people don’t want a one bed

it’s lovely. All eco friendly style
low energy bills balcony huge open plan living & kitchen area parking space

market price is around 230k

she jumped at the chance and took it

rent ie I think 475 a month inc service charge

her 25 percent of a shared ownership flat was around 900 inc rent / mortgage and service charge

Being an immigrant single mother gave her legitimate right to get support at that time, and this was absolutely the right thing to do 15 years ago.

As to knowing their finances - I know her rates for an hour and can see the bags she's wearing and holidays she's going to. Please don't play this naivity.

I agree with OP, should be means tested, the number of new cars I see parked outside of social housing is crazy.

It should be a helping hand not a lifestyle choice.

These threads come up regular as clockwork. Thankfully MN users aren't in charge! So they can bang on all they like about it not being "fair". It's not changing anytime soon.

I'm in a 4 bed as my HA allows under occupancy (some still do). I'm really only entitled to a 3 bed, but I did an exchange. My house is worth approx 1mill to buy as I'm pretty much cental London. I could never have bought something as nice as this, in such a good location. It was tatty when I moved in but I made it nice over the years.

I have a lifetime tenancy with succession rights. The rent is high compared to SH outside London, but low compared to many newer tenancies. I'm not rich but have enough for a decent life, holidays etc.

Am I going to give it up willingly? Hell no. I feel sorry for people in temp accommodation but it's not my problem to solve. MN users can froth all they want over it. The system is as it is, I'm hanging onto what I have.

At least they’re still living there. The council could ask them to down size. I’ve know of that happening to a few people. Or when the parents died, any adult kids would have to leave the family home.

Then there’s the adult kids who’ve bought their own home, & go on to buy their parents council home. When the parents die they get a 2nd home, & the council’s 1 down.

What about the people who have homes but never live in them?

We could go on forever here.

If you feel that way you’ve made the wrong choice, & it’s not too late to get yourself on the council housing list.

So you've a four bedroom. You've still all the costs of a big house. Wouldn't you consider moving if you ended up alone there. ??