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!

If private rentals had limits on the rent, you wouldn't have so many people requiring social housing as they'd be able to afford private rentals.

It would also allow people not to have to spend so much of their income on rent, and then be able to afford their own property.

I don't understand what you're saying about needing a housing management system and your customers with UC, ESA PIP etc... I didn't realise someone on £90k could claim UC or ESA.

Kicking people out when they reach a certain income just means you discourage them from improving their income.

And say you kicked them out or forced them into smaller properties when their kids turn 18, you'd effectively be stopping their kids from attending uni or having any kind of fall-back position, creating more of a gap and reducing social mobility.

Yes, this. They don’t own the house so can’t expect to be able to stay in it for life! No one who’s renting expects to stay there forever.
The council should have every right to move people along so that families can occupy the bigger houses.

My council house is still 35% of my take home pay as a single parent. Yes its in a decent area where 95% of the homes are not council, and its a nice size, but i have no garden and no access to parking. I pay full rent, which was only £50 per monthcheaper than the substanially bigger private rent i lived in prior to this. My rent has increased an average of £50 a month per year every year too. The council house also came without flooring, oven, hob, and window dressing which every private rental i have had were included. The upside, the only upside as far as i can see, is my secured life time tenancy. Im not giving that up. Not ever.

Market rate rents have been driven up by greedy landlords who raise rents to boost their profits.ans cover mortgages, not because the homes are worth more. Using the inflated private rental market to justify higher rents in social housing, is completely wrong. Social housing exists to give people a secure tenancy, not to compete with overpriced private rents. It’s unfair and unjust to force council tenants to pay market rates when the system was meant to protect them from exactly that.

It’s a tricky one.
i try and remind myself that I’ll have a paid off house that will be a chunky inheritance for my children.
But I do definitely get what you’re saying, my friend and her husband have a council house and earn over £100k. They have a lifetime tenancy. Their rent for a 3 bed is £700pm.
My brother and his wife are on £50k between them and are paying £1300pm for their 3 bed (which is the going rate round this area). It’s crippling them 😢 and they’re looking to move up north because of it.
So they’re being priced out of the area and having to move away from friends and family but if the council tried to take my friend’s council place it wouldn’t be seen as fair as they’d have to relocate etc…..

But council house people don’t have to make that choice

I had to live in Council housing in 1999 for a short period six months while I saved up a deposit to buy a house
Honestly, it was the worst experience.
Piss in the lift all the time
Music playing at all hours of the night and day my baby didn’t really sleep through the night until we moved because of the disturbance
You wouldn’t dare say a word about it otherwise you’d probably get shit through the letterbox
Or worse attacked
You couldn’t have anything nice delivered to the house because if anybody seen a TV brought up your door would’ve been kicked through and it stolen.
I don’t think it’s anything to envy

I also agree (in principle) but I expect most people will be keen to tell us we're right wing or something.

Unfortunately it's one of the symptoms of the broken housing market though.

Council Housing was supposed to be secure housing for life.
I can see where you're coming from OP, but it would remove the last secure option for low income renters if this were to happen, and further trap them in poverty as they wouldn't take better jobs or pay rises out of fear of losing a decent home and tenancy.

Council housing isn't available to most people now days - these should be factored into when starting a family. Realistically, there no where to go for these people.

But protect THEM why? Why should they get protection above anyone else once they have reached a certain threshold of assets?
What you about protecting them makes sense if ‘them’ is a group of vulnerable people. But once people have risen above that threshold then it’s not up to the council ie the taxpayer to protect them anymore.

How would this work realistically where have tenants to go if there is no suitable housing for them?

Of course it's a ridiculous system.

Nothing wrong with rentals, but the subsidised low rents should be for temporary help, and emergency workers - we need teachers and police and nurses. Either we pay them a decent wage, or it goes with the job they get affordable housing.

For everyone else, the rent should go up and match market rates.

Under Waldegrave’s housing act, Council properties became the domain of housing associations; some of these associations were run by the local authority; some taken over by other associations. So, 28% of capital receipts went straight to the government, meaning not enough money to build new stock. Housing associations took some pretty large swathes so the LA lost control of said properties. Again, no funds to replace stocks.
Council and Association rents are controlled, they are also responsible for means testing for rents, so a couple earning more will often pay more.
Moving people out often causes more problems, you are moving people who have grown old together, disrupting communities and causing problems with people’s social links.

Just out of interest, how much is your mortgage?

If council housing was free or very cheap, I would agree with you. It would still be horrible for families to have to leave homes they'd had for years but it would be the right thing to do to support the most vulnerable. But the council houses aren't usually even cheap, let alone free so I disagree with you.

These numbers are plucked from the air as I have literally no idea how much housing benefit is but let's say, for example, a family gets £1000 a month in housing benefit. If a council property is £1000 a month and a private rental is £1200 then the £200 difference is not, imo, worth keeping on getting people to move out of their homes every few years in order to keep moving 'needier' people in.

I think council housing is a great idea, but I don’t think you should get a property for life. I think that once people’s children have grown up and moved out they should have to downsize to a smaller property and free up the family houses for those with small children.

You seem to think council tenants should be entities to more than everyone else. More security. Less pressure to move. More rights.

even if they have risen to the point of being very comfortably off.

it’s weird.

There's a nearby council estate being refurbished by council at the moment. Estimated cost in 2023 for works was over £8.6 million. About 1/4 of it sold to tenants who now face large bills but the rest all paid for by local council. It was neglected for many years. I was shocked at the cost.

The rents aren’t subsidised.

But it creates a two tier system. why help one group and not help another that’s just as worthy?

without eradicating private rentals altogether, they need to level the playing field for those that can afford it. I will never think it’s right for on group to subsidise another that doesn’t require it. Emergency housing - absolutely. Cheaper house for life - why is this the model?! Also from a social mobility perspective it is entirely backward. moving into a council house should not be aspirational - that makes me really sad.

I really don’t think ‘greedy’ landlords are to blame here, it’s a chronic lack of housing (private, council and owned). It’s also of space utilisation (older persons living in larger housing for example).

A look at the history of rent control shows that after rent control was introduced rental properties went from 9 out of 10 properties in 1915 to 1 in 10 properties by 1991.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06747/SN06747.pdf

Quote:
Rent control in the UK was first prompted by housing shortages during WW I. The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915 introduced rent control whereby rents were restricted to their August 1914 level.

The Act was designed to prevent landlords from profiteering during the war years when demand for housing exceeded supply. Though originally intended as a temporary measure, rent controls continued to apply to certain dwellings until January 1989.

Efforts were made to stimulate the private rented sector by restricting rent control through the Rent Act 1957, which allowed previously controlled rents to be based instead on gross property values. The Rent Act 1965 introduced regulated tenancies with ‘fair rents’ set by independent rent officers and, ultimately, the Housing Act 1988 deregulated rents on new private sector lettings after 15 January 1989.

The application of rent controls coincided with a decline in the private rented sector. The sector had made up nine-tenths of the housing stock in 1915 but had reduced to onetenth by 1991.

Rent control has been widely identified as a factor in this decline; it is argued that there is a direct correlation between reduced rental returns and reduced investment in the sector. However, several other causes behind the sector’s decline over the period have been identified, including: • the availability of alternative forms of investment other than rental property; and • factors making it easier for people to own their own property such as rising realterms incomes, and the increased availability of mortgages.

No. The council rent IS the market rate. Private rental comes with a landlords premium (that is often tied up by the tax payer through UC to live the landlords pockets).

i am lucky nigh to live in a country where the civil still own lots of housing stock and they also build plenty of new builds and affordable housing. But even so, the demand has quadrupled. Twenty years ago you could get a civil house within 6-8 weeks if you were not picky, note it’s closer to a year.

It would still be horrible for families to have to leave homes they'd had for years

but that's life when you rent - and sometimes when you buy too.
Why should tenants have a lifelong right to a rental property?