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!

Having said that, I’ve seen many, many of your posts here over the years and given your own situation I highly doubt even in a much needed reassessment of needs you’d be at any risk of being asked to vacate given what you have shared about your situation. The issue is not people who are carers of disabled people occupying Council properties, it’s people occupying them who do not actually need to do so.

While I agree with you OP, I don’t think there’s a solution. Councils can’t just turf people onto the street. As someone said, you’ll be so happy when you’re living mortgage free. They will be paying rent for the rest of their lives.
I hate this phrase but life is unfair and it’s just sadly the way it is. Totally normal to be jealous

We also pay full rent on our HA house. Our next door neighbours (same house) pay half of what we do because when they moved in they were deemed as not being able to afford housing, so their rent was lower. 10 years on their rent goes up every year like everyone else’s, but they still only pay half what we pay despite being on a better wage.

I haven't read the thread so just replying to op.

I do think once the kids have left home people should down size. But I don't think people should be kicked out of social housing and made to private rent.

It's very hard to private rent. Its not secure i don't believe someone in secure housing should go private and be at risk of losing their home from year to year or month to month. As people get older things change retirement. Or maybe they are in low paid jobs . That means help from uc for housing element is needed. Most landlords will not take that. The tenant is then be at risk of eviction and becoming homless .

Housing association properties are not public assets.

A lot of them won’t “pay rent for the rest of their lives”. Despite the subsidised housing many won’t have saved enough to fund their retirement so will be expecting that when they retire others who have paid for their own homes to fund their rent via tax, or that the dwindling working aged population should do so (despite one not very economically literate PP stating we should encourage the birth rate to decline further rather than allocate housing stock effectively! Not quite sure who the PP is expecting to work and pay taxes….).

Why not read my posts before writing your messages to me in bold and then you’d have noticed that I specifically stated that the situation is different for HA properties.

Jakers what makes you think she could get a mortgage at her age

Wow you're a peach

She would have to be absolutely bat shit crazy to give up a secure cheap tenancy and go private
nothing to do with self respect no one who had any sense would want to do that

you just have council house envy 😂

Strange, I’ve never seen this mentioned in the Sunday Times Style magazine.

At least it got deleted.

It's not the council house dwellers that's the problem it's the fact the government sold most of them off without building replacements which led the private rental sector & cost of housing to skyrocket. As with lots of problems scapegoats are easily found so the people who actually could resolve the issue don't feel any pressure to do so.

No ,but it gets mentioned a lot on here 😂

But I reckon it could be a style piece in vogue 😂

My "self interest" in believing we should leave lifetime tenancies alone and not means test council housing is that Britain needs ambitious/high earning people to pay taxes to support our public services and our vulnerable. Squashing ambition and encouraging people to be under employed in order to stay in their council house is not going to pay the countries bills.

I don't live in a council house and I'm not a high earner. I could do with a second job to bring in a bit more money for our family but by the time I will lose 40%+ to tax, national insurance and student loan (from what will be about minimum wage) I can't really be bothered so we'll probably just tighten our belts. You don't motivate people to strive by penalising them and taking from them.

As an aside I'm interested if it is the same people arguing that private landlords should not be able to evict people and should have the rent they charge capped that are in the next breath saying that social housing providers should evict people and/or raise their rents.

She’s probably just jealous that someone has something she can’t have access to

I've just googled my grandparents old house on Rightmove. Last sold in 2001 98k. Now two bedrooms third bedroom is a bathroom. Which used to be downstairs with a ferociously noisy water heater. Grandad grew vegetables in the garden on most of it, patch of lawn for granny.

Today a neighbouring terrace just sold for £380k. Description starter home for a couple. My grandparents raised four children after the war in that house.

My grandparents would have a fit that it had been sold off, he was a Scottish staunch socialist. Tony Blair could have and should have stopped this madness.

What stigma ?

But that is in the past. We are where we are now. The issue being discussed is given all that has happened and there is a shortage of supply that will never ever go away, how is the finite resource of social housing to be allocated? Is it a first come first serve basis or one based on need?

there are zero people in the Uk including the prime minister himself who can solve the supply problem of social housing.

No self interest here, I have no skin in this game whatsoever but some of the attitudes on this thread horrify me. It wasn’t just social housing Thatcher took away it seems it was a nation’s humanity.

Call it envy or jealousy if it makes you feel better. The majority of people on the poll agree that the system should be changed to include means testing so that we help those in need.

A friend in Londons son works in government housing. There's discussions of slapping VAT on private landlords. So they'll either sell or pass it onto tenants.

Meanwhile in the north east an American company have bought 58k off plan properties from developers to rent out not sell. We're ripe for the picking in the UK.

Probably all the people who are homeowners vote the most.

If that took away their ambition, it clearly wasn't very robust in the first place! True ambition is intrinsic.
In reality, I don't think anyone would be forced to leave, that would cost far to much in court and eviction fees, but they could be expected to pay a rent reflective of their earnings and the market rent for their area.