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!

That's true, they probably wouldn't stay in the property. They'd buy it and let it for an enormous profit. Much better. Very fair.

“First cone first served” is not an efficient way of allocatibg financial support/ public assets, especially when they are in short supply. I believe that was the precise point the poster was making.

"You are given permission to use it for a period until you are on your feet enough to privately rent or buy"

This statement is entirely made up! Just because you want it to be the case, doesn't mean that it is.

Well I don't happen to agree with throwing people out of their homes of 20 years just because their children have grown up. Social housing never used to be in such short supply. If we fixed the issue causing that there would be no reason for this discussion at all.

My grandparents were rehoused after the war on a council estate in Chadwell Heath. Four children, three bedroom house. Very small rooms in a very long terrace, as were all of them. They'd been bombed out in London. Granny a nurse, grandad worked at Ford. They and all their neighbours lived there for decades. They both died there.

They had no chance of a mortgage, grandad injured in the war. It was a community where you knew your neighbours, I had lots of official aunties when we visited.

It was a very happy place to visit as a child.

Huh? I never said that was the situation now, I was specifically talking about how i think it should be used going forwards given that society has changed . You have to read the entire quote thread in order to comment on one particular part of it.

What does that have to do with social housing tenants though? Private sector rents are wildly inflated.

No, it would do the opposite if managed appropriately with corresponding reforms to the welfare system.

Ultimately there’s no rational or moral justification for people to have such legal rights to an asset that is a public asset. Circumstances have changed so the law needs to be changed to remove such a legal right because it’s no longer appropriate to give someone lifelong rights to live in a subsidised home when others need it more and they are in short supply.

I do understand the self-interest motivating many of the responses on the thread but ultimately the position of posters arguing that their legal right to have a lifetime tenancy to a home that may exceed their needs when they could provide a sufficient home for themselves supersedes the right of other families to have a home that meets their needs at all is untenable and won’t continue in the long run.

Do you genuinely believe there are large numbers of lottery millionnaires living in 2-bed flats in Bolton?

Housing will always be in short supply - we will never ever be able to build enough properties, of the right type to cater for the extreme increase in population we keep seeing year on year. It isn’t financially possible for the building firms and physically we would never be able to get the man power and resources to build them. It is easy to say build them but it won’t happen.

I agree. I don't actually think we need to be building on every green space going we need to have less people here. It is basic supply and demand.

You don’t have some inalienable right to use of a public asset just because you’ve been allowed to use it for a long time.

Policies and laws change as society and needs change and in this case there’s a very good argument for changing the law. Many people in social housing do not need to be there and others need it more so it’s very difficult to see any rational or moral argument why the rest of society should facilitate them continuing to overuse a public asset in this manner. I don’t think it’s sustainable or will be sustained, ultumately.

Separately, I stated in my first post on the thread that more social housing should be built, alongside some other reforms, so I agree either way you on that matter. One point does not negate the other, however.

Of course I don't believe that. Which is why I didn't say it...

Under current law. But laws can be changed.

Ahh the council house jealousy!

theyre homes for life. At least they should be! The problem is there’s not enough of them.

they’re not free btw. They’re only ‘free’ if the tenants are on benefits.

Well, it’s not that obvious. Clearly there needs to be more of it than there is, but whatever amount there is also needs to be allocated effectively to make the most effective use of public assets.

And someone has to pay the taxes to build these homes, therefore the public can rightly demand that the public assets are being used in an optimally efficient, sensible and fair manner.

I'm thinking if someone once financially sound is expected to leave their council property they my drop off the work ladder so not to be evicted and live on housing benefits. It would take away ambition.

Well i think I will refer to my tenancy agreement agreement that says I do have right to live in my housing association house, for as long as I wish
Rather thsn some random, ramblings on mumsnet
And secondly it's not a public asset its not like I have taken up residence in the local town hall

Yeah I’m sure it does. But Parliament makes laws and contract terms don’t override the law I’m afraid. Parliament can make laws that apply retrospectively and rescind previously allowed arrangements and contract terms are disallowable and ignored if they aren’t compliant with law, so to suggest that this can’t be changed is simply not the case.

Excellent.

All these posts about building more council houses. All the .Mumsnet nimbys will be outraged at the suggestion.

And of course it’s a public asset! Who do you think owns it and paid for it to be built? Housing associations are slightly different but if it’s a Council property then of course it’s a public asset.

Why are you so bothered? There’s other things that should annoy you way more. Sounds like they work and pay rent - why shouldn’t they enjoy holidays etc.

I agree - But again even if the council wanted to build them they wouldn’t be built at the rate needed. It is physically impossible to get the land, planning permission, financing, materials, labour at the rate needed to keep up with demand. It is never going to be the solution.

People seem to think it is like after the war when there was miles upon miles of empty land ready for development. There was also a mass of labour in the form of demobbed soldiers looking for work. Houses were cheap to put up- very few building regs. Everything was done as cheap as possible. There were no massive planning problems. Housing development is a complete world away from the 1950s.

But that is the price of owning your own home, no?

Exactly this.

I live in a 1 bedroom housing association flat (less call for those, as not suitable for those with kids).

Moved in when I was 19 and now I’m 47. Have always worked full time.

When I first moved in here, I was earning £6k a year. My rent back then was £200 a month and I was earning £400 a month. It was a struggle.

I earn a lot more now, but I have a secure tenancy for life. I have a guaranteed roof over my head. Why on earth should I give up my home of 28 years that I’ve paid rent on all that time, to go live in a private rental that will cost me double and that I could get kicked out of at the drop of a hat, just because the government aren’t building enough homes? That’s not my fault is it?

I honestly get sick of hearing this crap.