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!

Lots of posters seem to have no idea how social housing works and have decided the rules they have made up in their head are correct.

And we will, you can keep saying it's not our property.

i’m interested as to why some
posters think people with a secure social housing tenancy should seek to leave this as quickly as possible into the overinflated and insecure private rental system.
just to open up the SH property for the next person to settle and then be booted out again once they have ‘sorted themselves out’.
persecuting SH tenants to feel better about how awful the private rental system is in this country is not the answer. in my area the vast majority of private rentals are owned by one wealthy businessman. whilst not quite Rackman he is terrible for not carrying out repairs and generally treating tenants with contempt. i know because i rented one of his properties for a year.
i pay market rate for a far superior house but still less than i rented off him at inflated rate. but i’d pay more just for the security of tenure alone.
i’ve been able to create a garden that meets my children’s needs, install security devices because of the risks from the ex (private landlord refused all permission for enhanced security), decorate my children’s bedrooms
just how they like them, become fully embedded in the community where we all look out for one another and i never lie awake worried if i might wake up to a notice to leave.
many of the mums on this estate have left abusive relationships. we support one another and also know what to look out for should there be a threat of an incident.

as per a previous post i put, someone has just been to collect something i put on a local free site. she asked me out right if the house was ‘council’. i said HA but yes they all are. she said she couldn’t believe how nice it was and had presumed that they must be mainly bought with the odd ‘council house’ chucked alongside them.
to be fair though she said well everyone should have a nice place to live. all this while we loaded my spare paving slabs in the back of her merc where she will recycle them in the garden of the ‘poshest’ lane in our village.
bit by bit i hope i can change perceptions and attitudes.
everyone should have the opportunity for a safe, secure and nice home.

and here ends the party political broadcast from
PDZeus!

Yeah and me. I pay full HA rent of £900 per month. Where are all these free houses? 🙄🤷‍♀️

Exactly but you can’t say that on here.

I know! I am not talking about those with existing tenancies- people are taking about how the system should be reformed.

Don't you think the problem is actually inflated rents and housing prices, not some people being eligible for social rents? 🤔

These are people. That's the long and the short of it really. They've been in the area for years and built a life and friendships there. A support network. You don't know what they've been through, or are going through. You've only got a myopic view of their lives. Everyone deserves a secure place to live.

But it's all connected. We can't look at just one sector of the housing market in isolation. It isn't possible.
Obviously those for whom the system has worked would rather not discuss change... but change is inevitable.

How about starting with the rich and inflated end first though?

If the housing market was sorted out, and private rents were controlled and affordable, logically the demand for social housing would reduce.

How can rents be controlled and made affordable though?

People need to make a certain return on their investment or they won’t invest in properties. So if rents are capped then all private landlords leave the market and councils have to buy all property that is rentable. With what money? They will also have to charge the same rent as private rents as taxpayers won’t tolerate their money subsiding people’s rents on all these new properties .

The government can’t interfere with the housing market- it isn’t feasible in the real world.

They also can’t risk the property market crashing- they can’t risk people losing their mortgaged homes and then coming to them for housing.

And that's true, but sorting out private rents in isolation is impossible. There aren't enough private lets as it is, force prices down and the problem will worsen.
It needs to a combined effort in all sectors - incentives for downsizing and home sharing across the board, and extra taxes collected to be ploughed into properly planned construction.

Exactly. And it's highly unlikely that someone who has qualified for social housing has ever been in a position of great privilege. Most are working class, not on amazing incomes, not in a position to buy a place, divorced/separated from the father of their children, maybe not working and have to depend on benefits etc.

So why some people think as soon as someone gets a job/gets a higher income than their current job, and hops over a certain threshold, (like £35,000 a year,) that they should give up their secure lifetime tenancy with affordable rent, just bloody baffles me.

Someone said not long back that social housing tenants are 'privileged' to have such a 'low rent.'

No, they're not privileged! They are paying a decent amount of rent. Often £450 to £600 a month on average. That's not fucking peanuts. It's just that private let properties are ludicrously high, (often double social housing rent - or more,) so it makes the social housing rents appear 'low.' They're not low, so stop fecking saying that. And stop trying to make people feel like shit, purely for wanting secure long term housing with a reasonable rent. The UK is the ONLY country I know of where people with mortgages look down their nose at people in social housing. In some countries, long term renting is normal!

The 'just move when you earn a fiver a week more' brigade are talking such nonsense. I will try not to be too harsh, but frankly I must say it's because they are clueless and ignorant, and know naff-all about the system (along with being bitter and jealous.)

EVERYONE deserves a secure home where they can stay long-term and make their own, without the fear of being evicted because the landlord wants the house back, and without the fear of the rent doubling! I think it's very sad that some people deeply resent people having a secure family home with an affordable rent and a long term tenancy, because 'booo, they are earning more than 70 quid a day, and I can't get a social housing property, so THEY shouldn't have one! Wah wah wah. 😖Make them leave, pay £700 a month more rent, have no security of tenure, and fuck-all repairs done ever. And if the place is riddled with damp and really tiny, even better. Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!' 😈

And I will say this again, no WAY would the social housing tenant haters give up a secure long term/lifetime tenancy with affordable rent if they had it. LOL! Not in a million years!!!

Honestly, all this arguing and jealousy. The solution is absolutely obvious- just build more council housing so that everyone who wants one can have one.

Yep, exactly like I said earlier, it would be a race to the bottom.

So much wrong with this post. I don't even know where to being.

I know what you said. I simply replied it wasn’t cut and dried.

Explain?

I think councils could provide good options. People on here talking about people being thrown out of their homes but it doesn't have to be like that. A few minutes walk from me is a council estate, it isn't big, lots of houses have been bought but family houses desperately needed. A pair of semis were unoccupied, nice big 1950s properties. Council converted them to make 4 flats for over 60s. They were snapped up and 4 houses freed up. I noticed they've now done the same with another pair of semis. Creative thinking might be an answer.

The fault is that landlords are allowed to charge over inflated prices and not forced to maintain properties

Other countries have this under control with strict rental caps etc

If we'd started some sort of rent control 50 years ago, never implemented right to buy and kept up with building, we'd be fine. But we didn't, and it's really hard to put the genie back in the bottle as we are finding out.

Nobody is saying they’re free, but they are significantly below market rate for rent and should be for people who really need them.

That’s fine…. as long as you’ll be letting lots of people know that they won’t be receiving their pensions or state healthcare in that case.

By the way the “birth rate” doesn’t need to be managed down; it’s already well below replacement level. Sensible countries (i.e. not the UK) are investing tens or hundreds of billions of pounds trying to stabilise it at least, before the exponential effect of this hits their country. Birth rate is not the same as total population number, which is also affected by longevity with rises in the latter having masked the catastrophic effect of a huge fall in the former so far, but not for much longer.

Yeah, and that's why people who really need them get them.

And the very few people who win the lottery or get a massive 7 figure inheritance won't generally stay in their social housing property.

Seriously, this thread is batshit.

They would just need a policy for periodic financial reassessments to determine whether there was a need to renew the tenancy. It’s perfectly feasible.