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?

The government don’t build it. Private companies do.

I was stuck renting privately for years in bad quality properties which landlords only cared about making a profit. Saved like mad and managed to buy a family home with garden. At one point complained about bad standard of the rental which was making my youngest daughter constantly unwell and was served an eviction notice saying landlord could not afford to repair and we ended up homeless in my mums spare room. Was told local authority would not be able to house us as had made ourselves intentionally homeless (left on deadline of eviction notice) as could not face court ordered eviction and was told working no disabilities so no help would be offered.

Problem is lack of social housing. I don’t think tenancies should be lifelong with single people occupying family sized homes whilst families stuck in unsuitable accommodation. If was based on income people would play system like those who will only work minimum hours to avoid losing any benefits.

How is paying rent for 40 years piss taking? And from whom is the piss being taken? And social housing rents aren’t subsidised.

Of course it’s subsidised. Because the return on investment does not represent value for money to the taxpayer. Put simply, if rental receipts were the primary objective then the financial returns would be far greater. Instead, rents are SUBSIDISED to help those in need. That is why a market rate should apply to those occupying the property who are not in need of the subsidy.

It’s because of the housing shortage. The scarcer something is the more inflated the price

Maybe people living in London dont want to give up their social housing
But I csn guarantee nobody on my my estate in a very deprived area of Bolton is on £100k its really not a nice area nobody would choose to live here.

Its in many areas. Mid Suffolk is just one example. It is not set nationally by the government at all, only the annual increase is capped and if it is on mid market or market rent as opposed to social rent it is obviously relative.

This should explain it clearly:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/costs_of_renting/rents_and_rent_increases/rent_levels_in_private_registered_providers_of_social_housing

Some social renters. The ones that can afford to. Not low income families.

This is simply incorrect and as much as you want to tie yourself up, you won’t change facts.

social housing does not belong to the player, or exist to give the tax payer a return.

Shouting subsidised doesn’t make you any more convincing. Social housing was never intended to make a profit, it’s supposed to break even.

Exactly. There is barely any local authority owned housing left. The majority is owned by registered social landlords- and has been for an extremely long time.

Plus tenants can apply to swap with others for larger or smaller properties

Yep all the social housing in Bolton was sold to a housing association 20 odd years ago its not council housing anymore and hasent bern for years.

Yep, 40s years of paying rent from their wages. The house is a 30s one and probably paid off long before my parents were living in it.

Social housing was intended to help those in need of it. That is the point being challenged.

I don’t know anyone that would argue someone earning £100k needs the property. Many people who do increase their earning potential go on to leave the estates and illegally sub let. I grew up in one, I saw it more than once on our small estate.

And I purposefully lamented the word subsidised because that was the word the pp took issue with and I was clarifying my point. Nobody is shouting.

Pay to stay was scrapped in 2017. The policy mechanism exists in that landlords may charge a higher rent if they wish to identify high income tenants but practically, this is very rare.
There is a small tenure called rent to market aimed to deal with these tenants but it has only tenants in the low thousands- nationally- on it.

I really think it would be rare that people on 100k etc are in social housing( unless in S E) Where I live( not S.E) 40ish houses I think 3 are'owned' ( by that I mean have mortgage) and the rest Council. I think the majority( approx 6 not working) work.The households I know....work in chicken factory..leaving at 2am and returning at 3pm ish. Also Nurses,in retail,carers etc. ( all paying tax and N.I) and prob on UC because wages so shite have to be topped up to keep shareholders hapoy/ and to make profit)I am an ex nurse then worked for a charity . Have had mortgage,privately rented,served section 21 etc. Now poor health. It is not black and white re this issue. People may think they are comfortable and will not be affected by job loss,ill health etc but no one knows what will happen.I have been truly disheartened with threads over the last few weeks...having a go at people on benefits,in social housing etc etc. There will always be someone that someone knows taking the piss..but I think the majority don't. The narrative from 'the top' seems to be to punch down and it seems to be working. Meanwhile they can get on with tbeir acquistion of more more more...good distraction.

CH is an appreciating asset on local authority books, it can be sold and new properties built, a great pity that this was never done.

Also, there is a wider benefit of putting money into peoples pockets that then gets spent in the local economy, keeping shops etc open.

Once you means test the tenant, you instantly remove the incentive to improve ones lot.

Whats hilarious is those saying social housing should be means tested, are exactly the same posters who bitch on about the 62% tax rates those on between 100k and 125k have when they lose CB and free childcare.....

Using upper case letters is the online equivalent of shouting. And social housing was built to house families who need secure accommodation, not paupers.

How is it subsidised? By who?

My social house is owned by an HA, and I pay my own rent. I'd love to know who should be subsidising it because they owe me a fortune.

Also, around 2/3 of social housing is now housing association-owned, aka owned by private, not-for-profit companies. The government and taxpayers have as much right to dictate how they run their business as they do to tell Tesco how it should manage their business.

Those who are proposing to change it, do you intend to decorate and maintain the properties as per private lettings? Because that is one of the biggest reasons HA are able to let and maintain their properties at a lower cost than private lettings.

And will you reimburse people who spent ££££ on their homes because they expected to live there forever?

Again how many tenants do you think there are who are on £100k?
Yes maybe in London but ignoring london across the whole of the UK social housing tends to be in undesirable areas which nobody would choose to live in given a choice

theyre not an appreciating asset. Very few providers and no councils (as far as I am aware) shelll out for annual valuations to adjust NBV as per FRS102.

that really would be a waste of taxpayers money if councils were doing that 😂

Not in London. Sink estates live cheek by jowl with £10million places.

They are subsidised because, in the case of council housing, if the council are maximising the return they could get on their asset, they are changing the rest of us higher council tax to make up for it.

In the mid 80's our local council transferred all their properties to a charity that then became a private company and have since not built anymore.

It's only through private development that social housing is still being built, if a developer wants more than 12 properties they have to build a percentage of LO housing.

At the moment in two separate, what were villages but now resemble towns developers have submitted more plans for 950 and 350 properties to be built, yet no extra infrastructure has been built to cope with the already hundreds of properties built over the last 10 years.

I mean if the frothers really want to cream their knickers I could tell them about all the organised criminals living in social housing, fuck people earning £100k, worry about them 🤣🤣