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!

Course she's jealous! 😆

Also, it's funny how (as I said earlier) @MrsMrsD knows the exact income of said 50 year old couple, as well as all about the cosmetic procedures the woman has had.

Care to explain how this couple are spongers @MrsMrsD when they pay their rent and are on £75,000 a year between them?

All the LOLz. 😆I'll wait!

Really?
Lots of people have to downsize when their children leave home - not sure why Council tenants should be protected (at public cost) from circumstances that everyone else has to deal with.

😆

I know someone who is living in his "family home". A three bedroom housing association house with garden and garage. He is a single man, who has been on benefits for the last 20 years because he was his parents carer and has just switched over tot he state pension.

He constantly moans about how the garden is so much work (he has someone come in to do the grass and pruning). He feels that the association should be more on top of repairs (I understand this) but his sense of entitlement is off the scale.

People have suggested that he swap down for a smaller place that would be easier to manage because he constantly highlights his poor health.

But he wants to stay in his "family home".

My adult sons own their own homes so his comparing himself to them is moot. My sons both work and pay their mortgages, so can buy whatever size home they can afford. A single man on a state pension does not need a three bedroom house.

Who has to downsize when their kids leave home?

I don't know anyone (who owns their home) who HAD to downsize when their children left home. Some who CHOSE to, but no-one HAD to.

Need to try harder Helen ...

The biggest problem is the lack of council housing, not who gets it. Before much of it was sold off, people of all classes could access it, bringing the area up. Also the private landlords had to complete with the rental prices of council properties, which kept their prices down. Now there aren't enough council housing, private landlords compete with eachother instead, driving prices up.

Private houses on my street go for around £1500. It's no where posh at all. Why have you assumed everybody or the majority can afford to pay this?.

No, she's irritated that once people manage to get on the gravy train (deservedly at the time), they can stay there for life regardless of their changing circumstances while other people can't get the help they need

Our counties local housing (yes just one lha in the county) officer visited us today. She was pretty scathing in terms of there being no incentive to downsize. Trying to get us to convince sil and bil to buy us a house as it would ease their burden, if only! Both disabled within 5 weeks of each other and need a downstairs bedroom and bathroom ideally, won't ever happen.

Look at the house swap sites and it's full of folk in 3/4 beds wanting a swap for a 1/2 bed.

Perhaps the person that made the formula of different rents for low rate tax payers/ high rate tax payers/ different benefits could elaborate on it a little to raise rents for those that own a caravan, a car newer than 5 years old, go on holiday or have botox. Perhaps charge an extra £100 rent for a one off botox rising to £100 every month for repeat offenders?

(For the avoidance of doubt sarcasm)

Really? Advocating for efficient use of public assets doesn’t mean I’m “jealous” of those to whom thwy are they are distributed/ lent. Quite the opposite: I want to see the tax I pay used as efficiently as possible to help those most in need of it.

I think I’ll survive in the four bedroom detached property which I own as a lone parent, thanks. Not dying of envy about your Council property as you seem to believe. Rather, having been very poor when younger I want to see the public assets we can afford helping those most in need rather than those who feel entitled because they happened to be born at an earlier date when resources weren’t so scarce.

I've always wondered why they don't just adjust the rent (up to market rate of similar private rentals, to capture the full value of the asset to the council) - but let the tenant stay there under similar conditions of secure tenancy etc.

No-one needs to move, and the council can use the money towards the next person in need.

The thing people object to is the subsidy (both direct and indirect) not the physical occupation of houses

It's batshit isn't it? As I said earlier, (some) people here have this mindset that if your household income is say £750 a month more than a certain other family, and you are in affordable social housing paying £500 a month rent, you should let that family have your house as you have more money - and you go into private let. (At £1400 a month!)

Then what will you have...,? The person who was in private let is now £900 a month better off, and the person who's been forced out is now skint, brassick, broke. With a colossal private let rent of £1400 a month. (And £900 a month WORSE off!)

Is the person who took their social housing property now going to do the decent thing, now they are financially better off, and give it to someone less fortunate, to get them out of private let? And are the people who were forced out going to be able to take someone else's social housing home now that they're poor/broke/brassick?

Why are some people not getting that THIS IS UTTERLY BONKERS!!!

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!! 😱

Oh I do (truly). I don't want to give too many details obvs, but a widow, old house, high CT high energy bills, no private pension, state pension simply not adequate ... downsized to release equity, but broke her heart to leave her home and garden.
I don't think that's all that unusual tbh

thats because they see social housing tenants as chess pieces

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That you think once the owner of an asset has paid for it anybody who feels like it should be able to use it for free?

If you’re leasing something then the owner’s financial arrangements and whether they still have a debt outstanding on the asset or not is completely irrelevant. It is their asset, not yours. You’re paying to borrow it for specific time periods. You are in no way “paying the building cost” of it.

Let me explain. The owner of a house pays off the mortgage over a pre agreed period. Likewise the tenant of a rented property pays off the acquisition cost of the property over a period of years. The difference is the buyer ultimately owns the property while the renter continues paying. It always seems immoral to me.

@zov its bonkers indeed. It just goes to show how lucky some people are that they have no clue about how the council system works 🤣which is kind of a good thing. To spread misinformation like this is quite another!

Yep. ^

They seem to!

In the post-war period lots of council housing was something to be valued, something you had to apply for and your application was pushed to the top if you were say an ex-Serviceman or you worked in a useful job for society like policeman, construction engineer etc. It might have been for the working classes but for the "decent" hard-working sort, people who wanted to create a community.

It completely infuriates me to see inner London social flats occupied by the NON-working class...

Banging on? I’m explaining for the arrogant ones at he back who think they know it all … yes I keep repeating it, yes,some people are thick and don’t have a clue

hope that’s ok with you 😊

The only time the haters care about those in temp accomadation is when they can use them as a stick to beat social housing tenants with.

And if the people who give up their social housing home for those 'in need' and who are 'poorer' (and go into private let,) then THEY will be the ones 'in need' and 'poorer.'

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT GETTING THIS?!

People are so full of hate and vitriol for social housing tenants, and so bitter and sour, that they can't see sense, and they can't see the bigger picture. (Or they are refusing to accept any viewpoint that doesn't bash people in social housing who have a bit of surplus income every month, and have a fairly comfortable life!)

As has been said throughout this thread, anyone who voluntarily gives up affordable social housing with a lifetime secure tenancy is utterly bonkers. No-one in their right mind is going to do this! No matter how you haters bang on about how 'someone they know' is on £53,986 a year, and has a caravan, 2 cars, a trampoline, a trumpet, and a fucking goat!