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?

How very dare you you should have a gold fish in a bowl and be grateful!

You should not have to. You pay your rent and abide by the rules.
It is typical MN for people to make rules up and insist others live by them.

While simultaneously looking down on anyone who lives in one

You get (or should get) what you pay for and as a council tenant paying full rent, I pay enough to live here and would expect a lot better if I was paying twice the price to a private landlord.

Also, where would I go? There is literally no two bedroom private rent properties available here for under £1200 and none accept pets.

New starts were down by about the same percentage 23-24 as well, so it’s been on a definite downward trajectory for some time. There’s a stunning statistic that London is on track for less than 5,000 new homes this year, when the annual target is c 90,000.

Today’s starts would have achieved planning during the boom of 20-23.

Lovely property inheritances from parents are hardly ever mentioned when talking about todays tough housing market.

Maybe instead of eviction the could mean test the rent payment annually so if your circumstances improve you pay more, rather than go for eviction

That's good. We don't want thousands of 'Jerry built' hovels cluttering up everywhere.

“So your income goes up and then what?”

You pay market rate.

So you are suggesting a huge incentive to not get promoted or improve your income in any way, to avoid losing your home. Great plan, that will really work. Most other European countries don't even pursue home ownership like we do. Renting is normal, and much better value and council housing is plentiful, cheaper and better quality than here. That's what happens when countries are run properly. Quality of life for ordinary people doesn't matter here.

I believe it would be better to assess the housing need every 3-5 years and if the home is no longer appropriate then the tenant should be offered something more suitable for them.

I also think selling the houses at a discount should stop. We are in a housing crisis and we need all the social housing we can get!

So where do you expect people to live given there’s a chronic housing shortage?

Not my problem.

What is market rate? Inflated private rent costs?
Social housing rent rates are what everyone should be paying, private or SH.
BTW, when I last rented (privately) I was paying less than SH rate.

Because we probably couldn't get a mortgage, not that we've ever tried. Plus, at some point within the next 10 years I'll likely inherit my parents' house.

We like not having to worry about repairs or a new boiler etc.

Plus we have built brick koi ponds in the garden.

And quite simply we don't want to move.

Quite. Where would we live if we were made redundant? Nobody cares about working people who pay market rates and have mortgages even though most of them are far from well off.

So if they were assessed and it was deemed they were overcrowded (due to having children) would they get a bigger place straight away?
Because that does not happen even now.

Save up? Are you high? Where do you imagine they will find the money to save up? Might work for some people but what if you can't just magically buy somewhere after 20 years? Where do they go then...?

This is my view.
You can stay of course but rent should be adjusted if your income increases over a period of time (I’d say last 24m then tested every year)

more social housing obviously needs to be built and with imo with different rent thresholds according to income so both ‘ low ‘ and ‘ middle ‘ incomes benefit.

There does seem to be some parts of the system that don't make sense, SILs relatives have had a council house for years, their children have grown up and moved out (deposits funded by parents to buy houses) the couple work in managerial and senior managerial roles for tfl so earn very very well. I'm not saying turf them out but if they paid market rent to stay it would fund more social housing for those who really need it

As a private renter I wouldn't wish the insecurity on anyone!

My parents have a lovely house worth almost a million and I may inherit a share of it or I may not. My parents may both need care homes and as a mum to 4, 2 of which are disabled I couldn’t possibly look after my parents in their home nor have room for them here and I don’t see my brother having time as he runs a business and has a family too.
My own Gran wanted to leave her house to her children and was adamant she would not go into a home but social services overrode that decision and she was forced to sell her home for fees.
You can’t guarantee your parents house will be yours one day because it might not work out that way even though my mum went round twice a day and did her shopping and cooking and washed and dressed her and kept on top of the housework she still got forced into a home by the authorities. So never bank on your inheritance.

Getting secure housing can be life changing.

My sister has been a very low earner all her life. She's an artist who subsidises her artwork with other jobs. She only earned enough to live in a (privately rented) very damp flat that she managed to get mates rates on via a friend of a friend. The landlord was nobody's friend. Black mould everywhere, nothing done about it. Regular boiler breakdowns. Threats of being evicted when she complained. Yes, people have rights but when you are ground down like she was the fight often isn't there.
She was constantly unwell which impacted her ability to work and she was often on zero hours contracts as well. So she had instability with her job, health and living situation.
He finally evicted her, and she managed to get a one bed council bungalow because she was over 45. It has changed everything. She has a warm, decent home, she feels healthier so has taken on more work which enabled her to buy a bike. Now she can get to and from more jobs more easily, she feels miles better mentally and physically, she's not facing middle age living in a dump in a city hours away from her friends and support network (before the offer of the council bungalow, she was seriously considering moving to the cheapest place in the UK as that was all she could afford which was not only miles away but somewhere she had never even visited.). I cannot tell you the difference this has made and I'm so happy for her. She still has to pay her rent - I've often seen on here the misconception that people get them for free. And she will be paying that rent until she is no longer able to do so. No nest egg, no property investment, no nice little earner if she wants to sell up and move somewhere cheaper.

I grew up on council estates surrounded by working people. Council housing was for teachers, nurses, youth workers, builders, police and fire officers. And yes, those who were struggling. People created communities, put down roots, established networks. Only one person in my class at school lived in a home their parents owned. And this was in NW London. The problems started because council stock got sold off for a song and were never replaced. And now you have swathes of former council homes rented out by private landlords making a mint and your key workers can no longer afford to live near where they work.

I found this on the government website. It's very interesting (enraging tbh):
Between 1946 and 1980, an average of 126,000 council homes were built every year. Last year, just 6,827 were built. In the early 1990s, social rent made up over 75 per cent of all new affordable housing supply; last year it made up just 11 per cent Social housing delivery has dropped to an average of around 35,000 a year in the last decade, with the majority of these let at more expensive affordable rent levels

Of course those that can pay more should. There’s never a lack of voices saying those who can pay more tax should… those in bigger houses should pay more council tax blah blah blah.
Im not suggesting they should pay more than private renters, but they certainly shouldn’t benefit from any subsidies.

I can’t actually belive that the rent isn’t recalculated ? Really it should be average market rate in this instance?