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!

Two-tier types of tenancy cannot be fair: One person, with low income during the period s/he is applying for help, will be given a house for the rest of his/her life, all at a greatly subsidised rent, and despite the fact s/he might become rich, after moving in. Another person, with the same income, will get a private tenancy, with a rent many times higher, and no life-long tenancy.

A fair system would start at the beginning, asking "What must government do, to ensure all citizens have a roof?" Limit the number of citizens, to a reasonably sustainable, affordable, feedable and houseable level, would be the first part of the answer. Next, ask if anything stops any one of the citizens from going to live in a home suited to his/her own needs, to an extent requiring government intervention. (Governments don't provide clothing, and food, which are even more essential than shelter.) If the reason some citizens cannot find housing is to do with price, then imbalance, of ever-increasing demand and finite supply, is the first and main thing to correct.

The day Housing Benefit began, should have been the day council tenancies were made fair and equal. In other words, the financially viable reasonable local rents should have been charged, making council houses a source of income for other vital council services, not a subsidised drain. The terms of tenancy should also have been made equal, in other words, the occupants should be able to be asked to leave, if the landlord needs to sell or renovate, or if the activities of occupants are detrimental to the property and/or to the neighbours.

If the home-seeker has a temporary difficulty of an income too low for the rent, then s/he, like all the nation's tenants, are able to apply for Housing Benefit.

However, they are not able to keep getting public-purse money the moment they have enough money to pay full rent. (Becoming a union boss, or M.P., for example) They also must not keep applying for Housing Benefit for a child, when the child has left. They also must not keep applying for Housing Benefit as a single person, when a partner has moved in with them, and should reasonably be expected to pay a share of the rent.

What would be the fairest approach is that all adults are provided with accommodation at 18 if they desire it. If they choose to buy or opt for a different form of rent then that would be fine. But clearly this would never work.

the right to buy decimated the council housing (and housing association) stock. Few local councils are investing in new stock because of the cost or because they no longer manage stock.

tenancies have been updated so they are not lifetime and the right to buy has been amended so that it isn’t as cheap as it once was.

also culturally the aspirations in this country is to own your own home, however in much or Europe with better rental laws and protections the approach is very different.

council homes absolutely should be available to those who need them but at the moment that has to be who need them most given the shortage.

Te issue is rents are not proportionate . I don’t have a issue with people staying all their life’s but rent should be decided on what they earn so if they no longer rely on benefits the rent should increase accordingly. This way people would at least downsize when kids leave the house .

My son was paying £600 for a room in a four bed flat share!

This!! And when they die they own no property to pass down either. The private housing market is what is a joke. If mortgages were easier to obtain for first time buyers then more people would vacate their council places in favour of greener grass.

Why aren’t you attacking the people that continually hand third, fourth, fifth mortgages out for rental properties ? These people are having their mortgages paid in full by their hard working tenants and reaping the benefits in full. Be angry at all the council properties that were sold off cheap making the market for council properties so thin and waiting lists so long.

People on the same or lower bracket than you aren’t your enemy. My wee gran lived for over 60 years in her council house. Cared for it, decorated it, gardened it. Died in it. What exactly would you suggest would be her time limit to get turfed out? Once she turned 70? They could never have dreamed of affording private housing.

Most people’s rent and mortgages go up every few years a lot more than those in council housing. Council housing is meant for those struggling or in need.

No you don’t evict people
From their homes but you coukd
mean test their salary over a certain threshold and adjust the rent. That extra rent then goes onto improvements to their existing housing stock.

Oh come on, at least try and make it believable.

So many of these threads over the years and I'm yet to see a single original thought on any of them.

Council housing is a type of benefit as its needs based at point of application, and pretty much all benefits other than DLA and PIP are means tested. So yes, there should be eligibility criteria and these should be re evaluated at intervals. The baseline should be market rent, with discounts based around income thresholds.

That's true. Mortgages and private rents increase lots regardless.

This is a really awful argument because private renters also pay rent forever. I don't know if OP is a home owner who will be able to pay off her mortgage while still young and live 'the high life', but it's definitely not the case for all people not in council housing.

The system is unfair and whilst council tenants do pay rent it is heavily subsided and housing associations to a lesser extent. It is nothing but the luck of the draw & benefitting from historic decisions. No millionaire should be in subsided housing and we constantly hear of union barons and people sitting in the House of Lords who have council properties (and their own privately owned). There has been decades of poor scrutiny and management of who is given social housing and what they subsequently do with it. Claimants and used multiple applications in different boroughs and been awarded more than one property which they let out.

Well a mortgage doesn't always increase, at a certain point it will be paid off.
Private rents do increase, usually.

Doesn’t really address the points of OPs Q though. Also given how high interest rates are, many peoples mortgages are leaving them with a poor quality of life and even those that have paid off their mortgages will have to pay for ongoing repairs. So really those council tenants in similarly paid work are still better off especially as also throughout their lives they will have have significantly cheaper social housing rates then their private counterparts. @Helpmechooseausername Additionally many are able to cling into their homes way past when kids have left and they could afford to move but just don’t want to and in this way are able to live in eg some parts of London like Westminster that even many doctors and nurses, teachers can’t afford to. I’ve always thought it to be unfair that as it’s meant to be a safety net until you can get back on your feet and compete in the private market - not stay as long as you like even when you’ve got spare bedrooms and there’s families with young kids in hostels and b&bs been waiting for years!

Im in a council flat been in it for years.
Both my children have lft home.
Should i be kicked out.

Is it? Was that the design, or is was it not
meant for everyone? Because actually, anyone can get a council house. They prioritise certain cases first because there is a shortage but they are specifically meant to be secure housing for anyone.

We can absolutely cap private sector rents. Maybe at the level they're at now, before we hand over even more public money to this particular bottomless pit. If that means property owners decide to sell, there are deals to be done - eg lots of developments now have blocks earmarked as being for large scale investors to rent out - sure they'd be up for increasing and diversifying their portfolios with properties similarly ringfenced as being occupied by renters only.

A few years down the line from the cap, there would be a fair fund of public money available to buy any other properties that come up. Then those would generate rental income for public bodies, and so on.

You would absolutely hate my nephew OP
he split up with his girlfriend around 18months ago and they owned house is being sold

he moved in with his Nan who has a large 2 bed lovely Victorian style council house in a very desirable area His Nan is very happy to have the company as she is elderly and on her own

Nan has just added him to the tenancy a few months ago after a year of living there and it’s perfectly legal to do

he is paying the council tax and rent which comes to just over 600 a month for both

he’s very happy as at 32 he’s got a lovely house and a secure joint tenancy for life
when his Nan passes away he can carry on living in the house

he earns around 45k which will go up and he will also eventually have the money from his house sale

his sister is really angry as she could have moved in with her nan but didn’t want to at the time so it’s caused a few arguments

do I blame him - nope not at all
it’s the system that’s messed up

Of course it’s unfair. The subsidies need to stop. All rents should be at full market rate, then there will be a good incentive to downsize when children leave, and it will remove the huge relocation penalty if people get a better job offer elsewhere.

I think its because the housing market is so overwhelmed, that people in need NOW are not getting the support.

My parents are in social housing, all their kids are grown and they are still living in a lovely, 4 bed house. Is that fair? no

The family who earn a good income and are still living in a council house with cheap rent, is that fair? no.

In an ideal world there would be many more council houses and also flats and they would be available to all sorts of people on modest incomes, not just the poorest. However, given the lack of housing at the moment, I agree that, at least in areas where there is more demand than housing, they should be means-tested and if you become well off you should move elsewhere.

That is terrible,

That's what iv been saying for years, in every council estate each row of houses should have a 1 bed , so if someone in that area finds themselves left in a 3bed house they can be put on list for one of the 1 beds in that area and free up the 3 bed for a family.

Absolutely not. The whole point of being given a council property is it is secure and will not ever be taken off you without very good reason.

It's a tough one as ideally of course they should be able to stay as long as they want. But unfortunately there aren't enough homes for people that really need them and the way it works now I do think there should be a system that ensures what stock there is is distributed fairly as unfortunately we don't live in an ideal country.