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!

I'm so on the fence with his. I grew up in a council house. My parents were offered 'right to buy' and they took on two jobs each to be able to afford it. Many years later, inflation etc, they were able to move to a lovely house in a different area with a small mortgage which was paid off quickly. Their old house was of course now 'private stock'.

The problem is, councils offer such large discounts depending on the length of tenancy, some upto 60%. What could the councils do with that money? They couldn't even build the equivalent of the housing stock they lost. Council house estates stopped being built. Instead we have new build estates with the minimum of 'social housing'. Nothing like it was in the 60's. Never will be again.

I do think that social housing should be means tested like other benefits. Or once a certain income is achieved RTB is offered but not at such huge discounts. If they choose not to take it up, move. Yes, there would be those that would deliberately choose not to better their incomes to hold onto their cheaper rents.

Sounds sensible with the goal of ensuring those that really need them get them and those that are now smaller wealthier families with kids moved on still get a level support that fits

I thought that social housing rent was meant to rise to be the same as private rent? Didnt the previous government raise it? Also the state of some of the council properties is bad as the councils have no money to do anything other than basic repairs to the properties.

Mm. I think strictly speaking, most people do not. Because if most people believed in means testing to help those in need you'd be seeing mass demands to pay higher tax. What most people appear to want is for a small section of the population who are not them, to give up their homes to help people in need. While everyone else sits back and makes no sacrifice at all to assist with the housing crisis. It's very easy to think of people in need when it's someone else who'll be helping them.

You'd have to get access to their income through employers and banks. Which means government change in the law. It would be ferreting deeper into our lives and could be abused.

Homeowners are actually the ones least likely to need the current system to change in many cases. They don't have 'skin the game'. On a personal level it makes no odds to me who lives where and for how long, we own our home and won't need a house to be provided for us by the state. The claim may be made that we are jealous, but that is definitely not true!

On a professional level it matters to me a great deal though, due to working with families living in inappropriate housing and seeing the additional challenges this brings them.

I feel more optimistic than this:

We can build some more houses, particularly council houses (without right to buy) that would be great;

control our net immigration;

price second and empty homes largely out of existence with ever increasing council tax penalties - as has alreafy begun;

Restrict short tem letting (air b n b) by requiring planning permission- getting the tourists back in the hotels and the homeless families back into the houses rather than the other way around. Requiring planning permission for short term lettings has been introduced in some areas I believe.

I don't think the housing situation needs to be this bad in a decade or two if we take moderate action. But it is very shit for people now.

I think there is a disconnect that people think local authorities can't afford to build houses/it's too expensive but private landlords are rich/greedy/raking it in? Either there is money to be made in housing or there isn't? I wonder if there is any potential for Council's to take long mortgages from financial institutions to build houses which they repay with the rent or housing benefit paid. If they are paying housing benefit they might as well end up owning the property.

Again, nobody is suggesting that they are being given to people who don’t need them. The point is that once you get one it is yours indefinitely, even when you no longer need financial assistance.

I do think means testing for this kind of state support is ok tbh - especially when broader needs mean prioritisation is required

Why would they need to get access? Surely the tenant would just provide the necessary documents just as they did when they first moved in, or would for a private tenancy agreement or mortgage? Or when we apply for UC or child benefit? It's hardly unprecedented stuff.

It will be abused is my belief. Once governments get permission to delve into bank accounts where does it stop.

So what income should someone be on, before they are have the rent increased loads? Which btw rent goes up each year anyway.

Mortgages get paid off and, over several years, houses tend to increase significantly in value. When your mortgage is paid off, you will, of course, have normal bills like council tax to pay, but you won't have to pay rent. You have the option to sell your house and move into something smaller. You will have choices. People in council houses don't have those choices.

The real culprit is the selling off of council homes, so that very few people actually get the opportunity to be allocated one. And once you had been allocated a house, would you want to be turfed out just because your financial situation had improved?

If you are struggling I can understand you feeling jealous but perhaps if you think of the future advantages of owning your own home, you will feel better.

Err sorry to break it to you, the main income tax is already means tested effectively, if earn a little you pay none if you earn a lot you pay nearly 50%. The housing equivalent would be that I paid because 20% at some point in my life I would then pay that for ever regardless of how my circumstances improved. I find it staggering that so people passionately believe our limited public housing stock shouldn't be used for those who need it, and instead we put the most needy into hotels etc.

The current situation has the opposite effect. It means people never move for jobs to better their prospects and as I said earlier, rather than using subsidised rent for a few years as a springboard to save for a house of their own are prevented from doing so by risk created by disparate treatment of renters and mortgagees by the welfare system which makes it risky, and also a very low savings limit if claiming universal credit preventing people from saving to buy a home of their own. As I said I think a coherent policy rectifying those issues and building more Council homes and means-testing the use of current Council properties would be the sensible way to reform it and encourage efficient use of the assets and social mobility.

Surely income and assets have to be declared at the point that someone applies? Also when people get benefits the government checks bank accounts and earnings doesn’t it?

Exactly. Just like most people support child benefit for lower earners when they have children but probably wouldn't support that become a lifetime entitlement just because you happen to have had children in the past.

Why would they need to “delve into bank accounts”?

People will simply be asked to provide a financial disclosure as they are for many things now, including mortgages, divorces etc. Then the Council can assess whether given their current circumstances renewing their tenancy for say, another 5 years, is appropriate or not. It’s really not complicated.

Hopefully your kids will benefit from the sale of your house one day . Buying your house was a choice you could have applied for council housing instead but didn’t . If it helps you feel better you’re far better off than those of us renting privately

I agree to an extent. Although some of those families have to live alongside some very unpleasant anti social neighbours, the ones who move from council house to council house due to their behaviours making them difficult to house. Wouldn't be for me to be honest.

I do agree somewhat, I think they are depriving people who are now in the position they were when they needed the help. I don't think it should automatically be for life.

I do think it is their home, just like the rental I live in is my home… for now. People deserve and should have stability. It just shouldn’t be forever if your need reduces when there is not enough housing stock.

This whole argument is based on the faulty premise that social housing tenants have money left over to save. There are some people who will never be able to “better their prospects” because they’re working at the top of their capability in a minimum wage job. And they’re the ones who are fishing down the back of the sofa for coins for the meter at the end of the week.

Agree - and under means testing they would be able to continue to quality for the state support. The issue isn't people who need council housing it is those who consume council housing without needing it because at some point in time the past they did need it. Lots of people's circumstances change for the better over time.

We redistribute wealth through income tax as you have explained.

Why then should higher earners have to pay more for housing? - they have already paid the amount required of them through their income tax.

Why stop at housing? -
should higher income people pay more for food? (they won't get the free school dinners will they),
childcare? (they already do as they lose entitlement to free hours),
the NHS? (they already do as they pay for their prescriptions and dentistry)
If you find a few more areas to make higher earners pay more you can make absolutely sure it's worth no one's while to strive and we can all be on universal credit until the country goes bust.