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!

To take home that £250 pounds more the person has probably had to earn around £350. (because they have contributed tax and national insurance and already used their personal allowance. They will have had to earn more than that if they have a student loan to pay or are a higher rate tax payer).

If they are on minimum wage that would take them 20 hours of working.

If you take £100 of their increased income by increasing their rent they are then left in the position that they have worked 20 hours for £150.

This would be a huge disincentive to be driven to earn more. The person has already paid their contribution to society for earning more by paying their tax and national insurance on their increased income.

😄

I think this is a brilliant idea. One of the biggest reasons I won't downsize to a flat is fear of neighbour noise. I've suffered it in the past and it pushed me to breaking point. Where I live now is very peaceful but If I knew i could move somewhere at 60 where my neighbours were of the same age. I'd be much more interested. Likewise the expense/hassle of moving. Getting help with that would make it a much more appealing option.

Another issue I've found is rent disparity. I've been a SH tenant for decades so my rent is still relatively low, as there's a limit on increases. Those wanting to upsize generally have young DC and much newer and more expensive tenancies. My rent for a 4 bed is £800 a month. Recently saw a nice 1 bed in my area on a swap site, £1350 per month!!! I couldn't actually afford that.

I think that's part of the problem. People think of a rental and think ready to move in pad. Even if the landlords have sticks up their arses and won't allow decorating. SH is a shell. Literally fixtures and fittings and sometimes not even that. You have to fork out for literally everything.

It's a big difference for a fully furnished place compared to SH. They're total opposites. So if people moved into private, they would have to get rid of literally everything. Because you can't even leave carpets behind.

It doesn't make any sense.

@butteredradish4 · Today 18:26

Call it envy or jealousy if it makes you feel better. The majority of people on the poll agree that the system should be changed to include means testing so that we help those in need.

There's still nearly 1000 people though, (at this point) out of just under 2200 who think it's NOT a good idea to force people to move out of their social housing home, if they earn over a certain amount/go over an income threshold. That's a lot who disagree with the OP. Not a small minority.

As I have said REPEATEDLY, if social housing is 'means tested' people will just make sure they earn below the income threshold, so they don't lose their home. It's counter productive, as I and some others have said, because it will result in people earning less, and paying less tax, and claiming more benefits.

This.
My parents have decorated their home to a high standard. They have decking and a lovely greenhouse in the garden, and lots of established plants.
When they have to move (they probably wont, so it will be due to death), me and my siblings will have 2 weeks to strip the whole lot back. Everything. Back to nothing.

Yep and magnolia walls. Even if the carpets are in good condition it doesn't matter. They need ripping up and thrown away. The people moving in have to start from scratch. At least a greenhouse can be recycled. Not sure about decking though.

Some councils means test as a way to see if someone is eligible for SH.
Where I live, a single person wont even get on the list if they earn over £30k and/or have over £16k in savings.
My DP is one of those cases, so is left to pay nearly half of his take home pay on private rent. He is on £31k and his rent is nearly £1kpm.
But that is when people apply... it is not done periodically during someone's tenancy, and neither should it be.

yeah its funny how the haters arent saying that SH homes should all be fully pre furnished too
Yep they are all about the equality

But so have lots of people in the private sector. I don’t understand why it’s relevant as something special to social housing tenants vs other people.

the fact it gets binned is odd but that is a council rule that can be changed

Probably doesn't occur to them. The 'needy' should know their place, sleep on the floor and be grateful for the house.

Pretty much what @Winter2020 said @OneAmberFinch whilst 'tiering' rents and making people pay more if their income is more may seem like a reasonable idea on the surface, as that poster said, it could also result in people just not bothering to earn more. So I'm not sure that's a good idea.

It's (a bit) like working an extra day a week if you have a child (and earning an extra £85) but then having to pay an extra £60 for childcare, and an extra £5 for travel, and an extra £20 tax/NI/pension etc, IYSWIM. If people are no better off for earning more, then they very likely won't bother to try to earn more.

People in private rents do not have to strip the house back to fixtures and fittings before giving the keys back.

But why is that relevant - sorry I’m missing the point.

You are.

Thought we were all about making SH more on a par with private rental
Ah but you only mean the rent dont you.

Yep, some people sure like to tailor their views and points to their own agenda!

Sorry are you under the impression that most houses come fully furnished? They don't FYI.
Perhaps get on rifhtmove and have a look at what an average family can afford. I know you've never lived in private sector, so perhaps you aren't actually aware of what it's like.

Sorry but I don’t understand why it is relevant to the discussion though. In private rentals you basically do the same bar removing the carpet.

With regard to downsizing….

do people not realise that a family in a b and b or temp accommodation would never benefit from someone downsizing.? They would not get the place you are downsizing from.

Private let homes generally do come fully furnished and carpeted. And with curtains and blinds, and white goods too. Social housing (as a few posters have said,) has NOTHING in it. No carpets, no curtains, no furniture, no white goods, sometimes no wallpaper etc, and it can cost LOADS to get it liveable.

Do keep up!

Anyway everyone, it's been a wild ride this thread has. Loved all the banter

Have a great weekend!

Compared with the fact that NO SH comes fully furnished