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!

@Zov your examples make sense, but they also illustrate the point: there is a massive difference between private rental rates and social rates, which feeds this resentment when some people win the lottery.

Would you support any kind of tiering of rents UP TO private market rent rates (but still keeping other conditions of secure tenancy etc)? So that the person who is £250 better off is simply asked to pay a bit more rather than move out. (Not necessarily £250 more)

You don't seem to get that no everyone is the same. Some people would move out and struggle but they would be protected by means testing, some people would move out and be. The majority of people in this country don't live in social housing - it isn't the case that once you've lived in social housing you are doomed financially for ever.

No you aren’t ’given it until you are on your feet’ how dd….you are given a secure tenancy for security

up to the individual how they use it…. They can stay out for years or move around the country with it…

But but but but but This thread is full of ppl saying SH should only be for the most desperate

MAKE YOUR FUCKING MINDS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moving house is one of the the top 5 stressors in life.

Different people have different views......

Sorry? We were talking about swaps/exchanges. You've repeatedly explained how difficult it was for you to arrange one. It was proposed that the council could get involved in arranging said swaps to smoothen the process. I'm really not sure why that's such an objectionable idea to you? It would have made it easier for you.

Oh goody this thread will be at 1000 in no time 😆

Yeah it's not rocket science is it?

I didn't say people in social housing were 'doomed financially forever.'

Although they WILL be if the haters have their way, and everyone is booted out if they earn over £35,000 a year. Because many people will just make sure they earn below that. As I said, 'race to the bottom!'

Don't worry there will be a few more next week.

My adult kid's still live at home, neither can afford private rent.

Awwww, I'm gonna miss it, and all the bantz! 😂

And a partridge in a pear tree!

Sadly, with the dearth of social housing available, and the soaring cost of private rentals it can seem that the allocation of council housing is unfair. This has been exacerbated by the ‘right to buy’ scheme which allowed tenants to buy their council homes without replenishment of stock by local councils. It is unfair that there are those who have become ‘priority cases’ by simply meeting certain criteria while others languish on social housing lists for years, or are offered totally unsuitable properties. In an ideal world there would be a single housing list, with each applicant assessed on a case by case basis. This would be labour intensive and unpopular no doubt, but by changing rental agreements to fixed terms, and moving tenants around to free up properties would at least give others on the waiting list hope that a suitable home would become available. Would this be acceptable in today’s society? I have no idea. Certainly voluntary schemes asking tenants to downsize to help others have withered on the vine. I certainly can’t think of any other solution. Good luck.

😆

I will be waiting 😀

@TwinklyMintHelper

In an ideal world there would be a single housing list, with each applicant assessed on a case by case basis. This would be labour intensive and unpopular no doubt, but by changing rental agreements to fixed terms, and moving tenants around to free up properties would at least give others on the waiting list hope that a suitable home would become available.

Would this be acceptable in today’s society?

No. It's a ludicrous idea.

See my post from 21.12 this evening. (Previous page.) I am not repeating myself again!

Like i said................chess pieces

I don't see how moving tenants around like chess pieces would help?
You do realise that when you move into a council house, it does not even have wall paper or carpets? You have to pay for them yourself.
Some places are in utter shambles and it is up to the new tenant to get it up to scratch. Think mouldy walls and actual holes in the ceiling.
Imagine having a phone call and being told you have to strip it all back, move, and build it all up again.
At least people in private rentals don't have to do that. But then they can't even have blu-tak on the wall.

It recently hit its peak.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35181438/cupboard-council-flat-heroin-needles/

You are missing the point though. In the private sector people do sell up and downsize to release properties. It isn’t due to the kindness of their hearts, as they get the money, but when people own a property and no longer can maintain such a large space it naturally makes sense to release it and move to a smaller property. The market keeps churning, albeit slowly. When it comes to council housing a person gets a house that suits their needs when they are younger but since they aren’t responsible for maintainance and the costs of owning a property there is almost zero incentive for them to move. The house is therefore never freed up. A family who needs a 4 bed house therefore is forced to stay in a smaller property not suited to their needs.

the only solution, as people keep saying, is the build more but as I have outlined previously that is never ever every going to happen at the rate needed. Nothing the government will be able to do about it.

The houses being built don’t even cover the level of yearly immigration and if we invite foreign labour to build more houses, as someone pointed out to Angela raynor, we’d simply be building houses to house the people building them.

In london there is only available space to build 1/2 beds now so realistically more family houses would never be built anyway even if the government threw tonnes of money at the problem. so what is the solution for the family for 4 desperate for a council house and all the councils 4 bed properties are being taken up by couples whose families have long since moved out?

.Coming in handy this gif tonight...

Ha tenancies are nothing to do with money…. So means testing is pointless

they are about security. A secure home….wherever you want …it’s the SECURE TENANCY you are given not the house….you use it like a passport to move where you want to go, and when

nothing to do with earnings,wages or benefits

Incentives for downsizing would be a good idea across the board though. More mobility should be encouraged in every sector.