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?

Most dont talk about their own housing.g situation, and every post I've read where the poster is living in social housing support others having the same.

Not sure what youve been reading.

Yes demand outstrips supply. The answer is increase the supply of social housing, not make more people homeless.

I’m not pretending I have a fully formed policy solution no shit

I assume they are a Daily Mail reader from those first few words.

This sums it up

I’m going to guess, as both my parents were working class and unskilled, they met the criteria of the early 1960s. Google rambled a bit but there was some criteria regarding need.

A lot councils/HA give 5 year fixed tenancies now instead of lifetime, partially for this reason

Saying 'in my experience' doesn’t mean I work in housing any more than saying 'in my experience, not everyone drives' means I’m a driving instructor!

How completely unreasonable for me to express an opinion in AIBU. A topic whose entire purpose is to encourage people to express opinions. If I was you I would get straight on to MN moderators and let know you have discovered a heinous crime - people are posting opinions on a thread in a discussion forum.

Do let me know how you get on.

No, just not a hypocrite.

I have not seen any hypocrisy on here

Renting is looked down upon in the UK, whether private or social housing. Other countries, for example America, view renting as pretty normal for many people, and most have long term secure tenancies. We shouldn’t have a separation of private and council tenants. Increased house building could ultimately provide rentals, run by the government or banks, for all who cannot or don’t want to be house owners. The rent should be the same across the board.

I get were you are coming from op. I haven’t different opinions for different circumstances.
Circumstance A) A friend of mine was given a lifelong tenancy social house 8 years ago. She was single with a two and four year old.
Her rent is around 60% cheaper than my private rental.
Over the last 8 years she has met her now fiancée who works as a social worker.
She retrained and is now a nurse. They could afford private rental but why would she do that to herself. If the relationship broke down she could very easily find herself back at sqaure one.
And like others have said if social housing come with the idea… You only get to keep it if you stay in a certain situation nobody would bother to better there situation.
Circumstance B) My husbands mum and dad live in a 3 bedroom social house in a beautiful part of the country, private rent were they are
for a similar property would be £2000+ per month. They pay £305 per month.
They were given this house in 1978 because they had low paying jobs and 3 children.
It has been just the two of them for 25 odd years.
They have been asked to downsize to a one bedroom but they won’t (need the spare rooms for grandkids and a
garden for the cats apparently)
Like I said they’ve been asked but refuse to, I can get why and I wouldn’t want to either in there shoes but it shouldn’t be allowed.
Of course the real solution would be that they built more
affordable housing and made it easier for people to buy without massive deposits that are impossible to safe for no matter how hard you work if you are stuck in private renting like me and my husband.

I’ve been a tenant in the same house for 7 years now and in that time my rent has doubled. Agree with you about the instability - my last home I was happy in I had to leave with 2 months notice as my landlord sold it. This one is wonderful and we are happy here but the rent is quickly becoming unaffordable; from £700pcm to £1400 in 7 years is just ridiculous. I think there needs to be better regulation in the rental sector / market and fairer rent caps based on LA rates

Having a mortgage does not mean you 'own' your home. You might after 25+ years if nothing adverse happens .Of course you can paint it and make changes,hang pictures and have pets! Unlike many many private rentals.

Honestly, ignore some on here. They’re notorious for pile ons for subjects such as these. It’s awful really. You are entitled to your view on a public forum as much as they are without being personally vilified.

I’ve worked in housing for more than 30 years and grew up with Thatcher. I remember my grandad in his warm, safe, happy council house shouting at her on the TV. It was a mining community with a fair amount of disability. No love for Thatcher there. Maggie sold them off to buy votes, not to save the working poor from scary chavs like in your scenario.

Social problems around my granddad’s estate came from closing the mines and abandoning the people, not from too much social housing.

When I think of the shit hole that I got allocated by the council when I was a single parent if I’ve got a five grand pay rise I would’ve been out of there never mind earning 110,000
I’d have left so fast you’ve seen skidmarks on the shitty lift from my feet as opposed to the other type

She lived until she was 98. She retired at 60. So yes, she could have lived in a retirement bungalow for 38 years. It was a full property - bedroom, bathroom, lounge and kitchen and a small private garden. Not a retirement home, there werent any carers. So only really a retirement property in the sense that the benefactor who built them wrote into covenant that was to be used by pensioners, so anyone over 55 for women and 60 for men at that point. She didn't need a large 3 bedroom house, she struggled to keep it and didn't need that much space. To her credit, she did decline the right to buy when offered.

In Jersey if you live in a state house and your older DC leave home you have to inform the state and they reallocate you a house with less bedrooms.

I think selling them off was one thing but allowing them to be sold on after that with no cap on the price was madness. They should have only allowed them to be sold on to people under a certain income and at the price it was bought for for plus inflation( and any costs in improvement like extensions or new bathrooms) and not to buy to let landlords. Same for renting them out after people had bought them…ok to rent but at social housing rents to lower income families. None of that was secured at all as far as I know.

Wont work here. Where I live, there are hundreds of single people living in B&Bs and hotels because there is not enough SH for single people that are technically homeless, let alone people downsizing.

It wasn't an 'investment vehicle' for me at all. I would have preferred to sell when I left but couldn't due to leasehold issues, and I lost money on it - if you read my post. It was rented out at below market value and prospective tenants made aware that I would be selling when able, with stipulation they they would be given at least 3 months notice of leaving. And they definitely weren't good tenants!

I proposed thresholds rather than loosing property, with a sliding scale maxing out at market rent for area. Therefore generating more funds to build more social housing. But yes there should be reviews of the tenancies based on occupation levels and maintenance. It's all very well to say 'but Doris loves her 5 bedroom home to herself, it's not fair to make her move'. But then is that fair to the family of 7 living in a 2 bedroom property, of which 2 children are disabled and need overnight carers, so other 5 family members sleep in lounge, they desperately need that 5 bed property. It's all very well to say 'well that's not Doris's fault, the government should use their magic money tree to build more properties'. But we have to deal with the situation as it is, rather than what we would in an ideal world like it to be. I see so many horrific situations through my job, which could be made so much better with appropriate housing, which maybe biases my view somewhat that housing should be allocated based on 'I need' rather than 'I'm entitled to' or 'I like'.

Because we should be levelling up, not levelling down. Tenants should all have secure tenancies and affordable rents.

Every time I read about another housebuilder deciding they can't afford to build 'affordable' housing on a development I wonder why on earth were need unaffordable ones.

That's simply not true. People are encouraged to downsize (in Jersey) if they can (and want to,) but it's not true that you have to inform the state and they will allocate you somewhere with less bedrooms.

Where on earth did you get this from?!

I recognise your point but it disincentivises people to increase their salary and improve their situation.

The good news for you is if the person/family wants to move house (size up or down) their income is reassessed and they are unlikely to qualify if their income has increased by too much.

The whole point of life time tenancies was that people could stay in one area and build communities whereas transitional tenancies mean that people don't put down roots, meaning nobody cares about the community and housing area.

The way things are going for the next generation we may well be back at the beginning. Young families having no where to put down roots due to being unable to buy, few social housing options and having to privately rent in insecure and expensive tenancies.

Unless a family is earning enough to buy, get a mortgage and afford building upkeep - rather than privately rent - then they shouldn't be made to leave a secure tenancy. It simply means another family that may need to be rehoused again very quickly if they can't afford private rental prices.

Social housing isn't subsidised, it is non profit. It is fairly priced again minimum wage and the earnings of working class families. We subsidise far more private rental families through housing benefit, who then give the rent money to landlords who are profit based. We need far more fairly priced housing options for everyone, but especially young families.