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!

Even in those areas, the sell-off has still contributed to a reduction in available housing for working people on low incomes who find themselves not-quite-deprived-enough to qualify for council housing, and left to vagaries of insecure private rentals.

But you don’t own it. It was never ‘your’ house. Same with anyone who rents it isn’t their house. You are given permission to use it for a period until you are on your feet enough to privately rent or buy. No one has the right to occupy any property

the arbitrary amount would surely be set at a point where you can move out with all the costs etc.

@Anyname25
You absolutely should, and yes it's not your issue at all and you have every right to enjoy what you can get.

Our government though should review the rules of the game and make it temporarily only and needs tested on a regular basis. And there must be no succession rights. And a lot of people will vote for the government which will try to fix it.

I think you'll find if they have a lifetime tenancy, they do have rights, legally. The houses aren't or weren't rented out on the basis that once you're on your feet you leave.

And I'm not talking about whether they own it or have rights anyway, I'm talking about how this policy of kicking people out once they reached a particular income level would discourage people from aiming higher and discourage social mobility.

I’m not talking about now, we have all been talking about how it can be reformed in the future. I completely see things the opposite way to you.

how social housing has previously been used needs to change. They should not be given for life any more. At the point you take on the property the aim is for you not to need it in 5/10 years from now. It isn’t about kicking people out, it is putting them on a par with those who haven’t received social housing and encouraging people to not rely on the state for a second longer than they have to.
State Housing/ benefits are there as a stop gap to help people get on in life and not a lifestyle choice anymore. Rather than discouraging people from earning more, knowing there is a time limit on their time in social housing should encourage them to earn more to be able to get somewhere better.

That won't be long 😆

I think people have it backwards. Shouldn't be punching down on the people who have little and being jealous about social housing.

Should be a reform of housing generally.

Housing shouldn't be thought of as investment and for the hoarding of wealth. Buy to let, second homes, or people or companies that let buildings go to rack and ruin instead of them being used or repurposed. They're all more problematic than people in social housing.

Wondered when this would come up 🙄

@Zov I’ll try to dig out the contract but I’m 100% sure it says it, not only because of the contract but because when viewing/signing they also mentioned it in conversation. It was definitely a thing.

I never asked any of my neighbours about their contracts but to be fair I’m the only person with children (well, at least living with me) in the whole building.

Where are these smaller properties? None where I am….🤷🏼‍♀️ remember as people get older eg my parents, they became ill and I
would sometimes stay over to help two elderly people, one who had a chronic illness and one who needed help to care for them!! It’s really not all cut and dried!

@tuvamoodyson I never said it was, that’s why I said to be reviewed as a case by case situation.

The HA “own” the property but it’s your home for as long as you want it. Your. Home.

Yes! At last. Plus we need to build more social housing but whenever that’s mentioned all the people slagging off lifetime tenancies don’t want it built near them! You can’t have it both ways. It’s just jealousy usually by those too ignorant to bother to understand the system and spend their lives making assumptions.

That's when you know it's summer

Free houses, new cars ,expensive holidays, what am I missing to make it a full house?

Goat we need a goat 🐐 😆

That's not what my tenancy agreement says ,you can't just make rules up becsuse it doesn't work the way you think it should

Flat screen tv?

😂

So you own it? otherwise it is your home yes but not your house.

Houses only become yours when you have full responsibility for owning, insuring, maintaining etc. otherwise you are just living there with permission

Of course she won't these types of people never do. Just take take take

But you said people should only stay there untill they get in their feet

That's not whst my tenancy agreement says no matter whst you think it should say
Even the housing association when they write to me about gas checks etc say we will calling at "YOUR " property

Exactly this.

Justify it yourself all you want.

????