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!

It would never be finally viable for a developer to make 1 in 6 builds social housing. They just wouldn’t build any houses at all and invest their money elsewhere.

You are asking them to pay more for housing if you are kicking them out of their council house. They'll have to pay more won't they?

Council housing should be for when you are in need of housing. Once you earn enough to pay private rent then you should move on and allow the accommodation to go to the next person that needs it. Benefit system makes people dependent not designed to give people a helping hand and then off you go on your own when your situation has improved.

But what about a family who have several children stuck in a 2 bedroom tiny flat with no garden as no family houses available. In order to find one they have to move to a new area away from the support network they have built- do they not matter?

As a professional in the housing industry ideally there should be a good mix of social, private rental and owned homes. This then offers choice and keeps rent levels and availability stable across the board.

Sadly, all governments have made awful decisions surrounding housing for years. RTB was a silly notion to start with and now they want to hide behind others (house builders, landlords, previous governments, etc.) and point the fingers to all excuse themselves and some people are silly enough to not realise it all begins and ends with government decision making! New legislation coming in is a perfect example, it’s only going to make the situation far far worse, but they clearly learned nothing from the last time they went through a very similar process.

Ultimately government should have either not done RTB or should have replaced every home that was sold to the person is situ with another new property to them. They didn’t.

The only real resolution to this is that those in homes too big with bedrooms they don’t need are downsized to something smaller (which is something home owners would usually do as they age and in both cases would free up money… for council tenants in rent paid and for homeowners releasing asset). Let’s be honest, as people age who really is able bodied enough to be tending to bigger houses and gardens than they need? This then frees up larger housing for families in need. And building lots more social homes, which, in all honesty, should have always been planned and could have always been afforded if they bothered to run government and public services in a business like manner.

That being said, I don’t envy those in council housing, they have no tangible asset, so if they need care later on it doesn’t offer them much choice whereas, as galling as it must be to be penalised for working hard and doing okay for yourself and loosing any assets you’ve built by grinding for all hours to government for care later on in life, at least it buys you options!

As with everything in life, it’s all swings and roundabouts.

In Wales developers are offering houses for social housing. Trouble is that there's a pecking order of takers. Police, fire service and NHS being at the front of the queue.

Our council was instructed this year to offer social housing to the NHS we had a big influx of overseas staff who urgently needed housing.

It's not so simple.

It’s their home FFS.

I think this is an issue with all forms of Social Housing. You are given a home at a reduced rent and Universal Credit and encouraged to look for work or study. You are supported as you should be when you most need it.

But there seems to those who go out and earn huge sums but no one questions the reduced rent and the brand new bathroom going in, paid for by the HA or Council. There are also those who could seek work but don't need to. They can choose to work as few hours as they like with Universal Credit providing the top up.

Well that’s why people have less children these days. The lack of family housing hasn’t just sprung out of nowhere.

It’s the government’s responsibility to fix.

Surely any house owner with a social conscience should sell up their houses as soon as their kids are grown and move into something smaller too?

I guess it's only people who don't have much that have to give way for others.

I suppose only studying social history will give an idea of social housing through the centuries. There were Almshouses centuries ago.

It is such a fascinating subject. If you don't have a degree or time for one, see if there is an Open University Course. It may be in the past, but what is in the past very much affects the future, because it is from the past we learn about what is needed now.

The most relevant history of housing is that built for heros after the Great War.

• The Addison Act:
• The 1919 Housing and Town Planning Act, known as the Addison Act, was a major turning point, making local councils responsible for assessing housing needs and building homes.

After the second world war even more housing was needed, and new towns were born in Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage and Milton Keynes, and slums pulled down in cities and replaced by the disastrous high rise buildings.

Housing is the subject in everyone's minds all the time. It is a very interesting subject and if your teens are looking for career guidance, housing studies can lead to more than just housing for jobs.

I am sure the industry can do with more graduates than can be produced in MPs.

I’ll be honest pretty much most of my friend’s parents and my parents did just that.

are you really trying to compare someone who owns his place, and someone who is receiving help from the state...

come on.

I suspect many such people are probably tax evaders.

They’ll have their comeuppance once AI takes hold with analysing data through properly linked Government systems in a few years’ time. State IT is woeful at the moment in the UK but won’t remain so, and anybody being dishonest I expect will find themselves in criminal proceedings with a large retrospective tax bill plus interest to pay in a few years’ time.

It seems likely they’ll be some nice karma coming for such people, just like it did to many criminals who thought they’d got away with things and hadn’t anticipated DNA analysis would later be developed. A comforting thought.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people who own their house…. well, own it. They’ve bought it.

Council houses do not belong to the tenant occupying them.

For those who are complaining the rent is so low, the rent on my 3 bed council house is £150 more pm than my sisters’ mortgage on a similar sized (but much nicer) house. They were lucky enough to buy their house before the crazy prices people are paying now & will pay off their mortgage before retirement, my rent increases every year & i will be paying it till i die/go into a care home. Therecare advantages/disadvantages to every housing option.

Who do you think is paying more tax because I don't get a second job?

When you're banging on about poor families who need space. Then why not? If you're in a house too big for your needs then that moral obligation, that has been splattered throughout this thread applies.

Wise! I’d be inclined to go with a very remote island, but with farmable land much of which was significantly above sea level.

But a huge amount of people do downsize! It is exceedingly common.i even bought my house off a lady who was down-sizing

Did they sell them for reduced rates to help the poor people? Donate the profit to a housing charity? 😊

I assume council houses are graded in BANDS for Council Tax.

I would think that a four bedroom house would be a higher council tax band than a one or two bedroom home, so presumably those council tenants in larger homes pay more council tax?

They would therefore be paying more in tax, water rates and energy.

SH isn't and has never been linked to benefits.

Although if you lot get your way, it would be

I had a someone on here have a go at me for not living with my DP. Apparently we were contributing to the housing crisis, meaning families are in B&Bs... because we have separate households (DP is in a 2 bed, I am in a 3 bed).
Neither of us are in social housing.

Exactly.

It's the social conscience part.

People bleating about how people in social housing should give up what little security they have for the sake of others, while the more fortunate sit on their wealth. Get the housing market moving, downsize if you don't need it, homeowners.