To think social housing should be means-tested annually like benefits?

[EqualLedgerJay]

Situations change, why should lifetime tenancies exist if income rises? AIBU to think fairness cuts both ways?

So your income goes up and then what? You’re given notice of a month, a year? Then you have to either instantly find a house deposit to buy, or move into a similar property privately rented for twice the price? Surely that would prevent anyone from bettering themselves with a job as they would lose their secure housing

It would be a deterrent to earning more if you had to leave your home. Especially
if you had children settled in local schools. You are also are more likely to invest in an area if you have strong links.

Also I dont think lifetime tenancies are as common now, although why they wouldnt be renewed I dont know.

Another benefits bashing thread.....fa la la la, la la la la

I live in a council house. My partner and I both work. Why should we give up our tenancy to have the insecurity of private renting?

Honestly they're really taking the piss now aren't they?!

What would be fairer would be fixing rents at an affordable level in line with social housing, but alas that’s not going to happen. The whole point of social housing is that there are rentable options available to people who can’t get a mortgage. It’s not their fault that there isn’t enough social housing available. I wish I could rent at a social housing level instead of the ridiculous rate I pay for sure, but I don’t begrudge people who are in that position despite that.

Makes zero sense.

People will simply make sure they never earn more than the the threshold ( collectively costing us all more), plus there is shortage of the affordable housing that would be needed for everyone earning close to the social housing threshold.

Surely the answer is for the local council to provide more social housing, there should be a buying scheme the encouraged the council to buy local housing, any housing benefit paid would then back to the council.

Or maybe there needs to be rent calling in place.

Or, we could just give everyone lifetime tenancies, if you're interested in just leveling the playing field.

Have you tried to rent privately recently? It took my DP months after he was served a Sec21 to secure a place. 30+ people viewing each property.
Why push people into that on a yearly basis just for doing a bit better in life?
Secure housing is a basic need.

I’m not talking about sudden eviction or punishing people for improving their circumstances. I mean a gradual, transparent system. For example, clear income thresholds, long transition periods, options like increased rent contributions, downsizing incentives or time-limited tenancies once income is well above need.

Right now the system has no meaningful mechanism for change at all, even when households are earning far beyond eligibility. That’s what I’m questioning, not whether people should be destabilised overnight.

Why should you be any different to the majority of people who have the insecurity of private renting? Whether you agree with it or not, I don’t get the argument that it’s unfair for people in subsidised housing to not have the insecurity that everyone else has

Posters lap it up though. We'll have people talking about other people "being given" council houses in a bit, no doubt.

We already have the "subsidised housing" one. Bingo card ready!

There should be enough social housing for this not to need to be discussed, and fewer exploitive landlords. So ‘no’ is the answer to your question.

You can’t just boot someone out of their home Willy Nilly, one of the benefits of social housing over private is that the tenancies are secure - and it’s a fundamental need so fewer people would work if they thought they could lose secure accommodation.

I agree OP.

🙄yeah great idea

I completely understand why you wouldn’t want the insecurity of private renting - the private rental market is genuinely broken. My question isn’t about individual blame, it’s about whether a system designed for need should remain entirely static when circumstances change, especially given how many people are waiting for social housing with no options at all. I’m not suggesting people should be pushed out overnight or forced into poverty-level insecurity but whether there should be some mechanism for review, contribution or transition once households are well above eligibility. At the moment, there’s effectively no pathway through the system, which creates long-term blockages. That’s the tension I’m questioning.

No, it’s not fair. People who live in social housing have security that those of us who pay mortgages or private do not…

@Peoplemakemedespair surely it would be better that all people don't have the insecurity rather than making all people have the insecurity.

But it would be madness to move out of a lifetime tenancy just because there's not enough social housing to go round.

I've been in social housing since the 90s. If I'd had a mortgage it'd be paid off by now, so it's swings and roundabouts.

What do you mean fairness cuts both ways?

And how exactly would you propose this could happen

Then get on the social housing list then.

Yes and that’s exactly why this is such a difficult issue. The private rental market is clearly in crisis and no one should be pushed into instability or homelessness.

But secure housing being a basic need is precisely why the question of allocation matters. When social housing is effectively permanent regardless of income, it means households in urgent need can’t access it at all.

I’m not suggesting yearly evictions or forcing people out for “doing better”. I’m questioning whether a system with no review, no tapering and no transitional pathways is fair when demand so massively outweighs supply. The real problem is that we’ve allowed the private rental sector to become so dysfunctional that social housing is treated as the only safe option, which leaves everyone stuck.