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?

It isn’t constantly means tested. So if you qualify when you move in, your income isn’t checked again. You could in theory move in as a homeless single parent and 20 years later be earning a high wage. You are not obliged to move out.

social housing is supposed to be a steady home. It’s long proven that social housing with a mix of people - workers, earners, professions- is the best outcome for everyone

Affordable rent is 80% of market, social rent is generally far less than this (it’s completely area dependant obviously)

It isn't means tested at all in my area. If you want to apply for social housing, you can.

In many areas anyone can apply (in many areas there is an income limit though)

in most areas you won’t get social housing on a high income. You will just going the register and stay there forever. It’s a just a technicality

They have a ‘sur loyer’ if you in are in council property and your current income goes over what the was the maximum income amount for being eligible for that rent was when you first got it. Reviewed yearly.
House / flat prices very much depend on where you live. I doubt you’d get much for your money to buy in Paris Bordeaux Lyon Marseille people will pay more like 33 percent of earnings for rent , maybe more with a ‘garant’. Agree that their all the tenanxy agreements protect the tenant better than in the uk.

My area has a banding system and income doesn't come in to it at all but if you are considered suitably housed including having a mortgage then you will be on the lowest priority band.

I think it would disrupt communities and create whole areas where everyone is either in poverty or not far above it. It would also disrupt children's education if families were unable to find private rented accommodation within a reasonable distance of their current school.

OP

I live in a HA property, I have been here about 20 years.

It has wide doorways to accommodate a wheelchair, the plug sockets are higher than usual and the light switches are lower so both can be used by a wheelchair user.

I have a challenge for you.

Find me a private rental that has the same. Just one, anywhere in the country.

This.

Tsk! They don’t mean people like you they don’t know anything about social housing they mean, you know, the bad ones! The feckless ones! Some of their best friends are disabled

Social housing should not be seen as “benefits”, but simply a nationalised landlord with better protections for tenants than the private market affords.

It should be available to all, available in copious amounts, not sold off to private owners, and it needs to be cutting edge high efficiency / low energy / low carbon build quality.

We should be throwing these up in every town and city in the country.

It doesn't make sense to shove more people into insecure housing. Should be looking at another way of doing things For example in Spain my friends rented house ( private rent) The lease was guaranteed for 5 years, not rent jumps and paid for inspection every 6 mtjs / year. The landlord was also responsible for the white goods. When the washing machine broke the landlord arranged for another to be delivered and installed within a couple of days. Definitely a more secure way of renting

Do you realize when social housing was built en masse after the war people had to prove that they were in work and able to pay the rent? It wasn't like it is today

And it's NOT subsided. It's merely charging rent at cost rather than tacking on huge profits . Id say the people getting housing benefit that get use to pay private landlords rent is more of a subsidy . Especially as many of these people would not need benefits top ups id in social housing

Yep.

The only reason why I'm in SH is because my son is disabled. The house is adapted for his wheelchair including wide doorways, wet room, stair lift and a hoist in his bedroom.

Not at all available with private rentals.

Fixed term tenancies should suffice. People shouldn't be penalised for improving their finances. Along with other clever but effective housing strategies.

So what’s the alternative? Everyone just blindly agrees to everything benefits related and never raises a single question about the rationale or consequences?

Agreed - the rent should be means tested.

It is means tested if you’ve got no money you get help towards the rent. If you have got money, you don’t get help towards the rent.

The answer is more LA owned housing that is exclusively for the use of non-working people on benefits & they need to give them the smallest house that will serve their needs — eg a family of four should get a 2 bed & they should get zero say in where they live provided it meets any disability needs.

Private rental subsidies (which is essentially what housing benefit for working people is) should only ever be provided to working people.

Exactly

Most people are in and out of work and in and out of benefits.

i think im really unusual in that I haven’t been unemployed. Most people I know have had periods of unemployment. They don’t qualify for benefits but that’s a moot point. It’s normal to have periods of unemployment, particularly in recession.

Hmm building ghettos then? Or just moving everyone to the shittiest parts. ?

What about areas of mass unemployment ie when a huge local employer shuts down? Where does everyone go?

I am close to an area of generational unemployment from a manufacturer closing down in the 90s. They were aerospace engineers. It’s didn’t stop with the miners in the 70s.

now that you’ve explained it’s stupid, I’m delighted and agree entirely with you - you should bring those debating skills to local government, imagine the changes you could bring about with such a coherent, well thought out approach.

Yes, and imagine yours! Tax’s and benefits are means tested so social housing should be!
I mean it has nothing in common with those things but despite the fact I know nothing about social housing, I’m egotistical enough to blast in with my inexperienced opinion.

Maybe you could try GB news, they love non experts pontificating.

No, they mean people like sashh and other vulnerable people or children should be prioritised for social housing over those who are capable of paying private rent but got there first or who inherited from their parents.

So the disabled and their carers should have access to prestige brand cars, but in the same breath they should be forced to pay market rents when they are already struggling. The two child cap should be lifted for children in poverty, but apparently it is fine for them to be in cramped, unsuitable private or social housing.

There is an urgent short and medium term problem.

But it is those who think there should be some sort of reasonable reform who are problem...