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?

I don’t qualify.

I wonder how many times the word "subsidised" is going to be used.

I'm going to say 37.

And 6 uses of of "tax payer" as well.

no I don’t agree with it being linked to income. The answer there is more social housing imo

im in the fence about single people left in 3/4 bed houses though when there are families in temporary accommodation. If there is senior housing available so the person doesn’t have to leave their village/town then I’d be more inclined to support that

How do HA tennents have more security than someone with a mortgage?

Then why say it is unfair? You don't qualify, it is that simple. Fairness does not come into it.

So as its so much better you are preparing to swap right?

I don't have a proposal really. The post to me sounded like they wanted everyone to feel insecure like they do. I think there needs to be a huge change across housing obviously. But having everyone feeling insecure is not the right change.

So where would you propose people in social housing whose income has gone up but don't have money for a deposit for house buying/private tenancies (very difficult to find since the legislation around private letting has tightened up) move to?

Or do you just plan to make them homeless?

You haven't thought this through, have you @EqualLedgerJay?

No, it would be hard on children especially to make them move home.

But there should be yearly inspections and those who don't maintain property well, or those who don't pay rent should lose their council housing. This wouold be classed under 'making yourself intentionally homeless' so council would no longer have a duty to house.

And maybe a scale of rents so those who earn more pay a bit more. Not enough to cancel out increased earnings as that may disincentivise people to aim higher, but a proportion.

So why am I forced to rent privately then? That’s not a fair system, is it?

There is a shortage of 1 bed places for those seniors to go into. They are not seen as a priority to move as they are already housed. It is not their fault though. It is a simple lack of suitable housing.

This was tried and tested very recently with the reintroduction of fixed term tenancies, which most registered social landlords have moved away from.

The administration that goes into reassessing every tenant every year and then at the end of the fixed term tenancy is bonkers (thus costing money!) and just because someone’s income has increased, doesn’t mean they can or should have to privately rent. Surely if we are going to move away from the stigma of all social housing tenants being unemployed, we should be actively encouraging people who live in social housing to better their circumstances.

Let’s not even get into property issues which arise if people think that they are only there for a few years, they are less likely to invest into it… because they might get the boot after 5 years?! And who could blame them…

Any measure which actively discourages people from wanting to improve their lives, income and circumstance is ridiculous.

Some ppl on this thread really need to read Middle Ground by Joe Carpenter.

Then drop your income or become disabled.

I mean fairness to current tenants and fairness to people in serious need who are unable to access social housing at all because supply is so limited. A system can feel fair to those already inside it while still being unfair at a population level. If incomes rise substantially and housing circumstances change but there is no review or pathway onward, it means others with acute need remain stuck in temporary accommodation or unstable private rentals indefinitely. I’m not arguing that people should be punished for improving their circumstances, I’m questioning whether a system with no reassessment at all is fair when demand vastly outstrips supply.

@OmNomShiva

any thoughts?

I don't think you've really thought about how the changes should work. It's easy to say our current system is broken. It's easy to say 'oh I don't mean....xyz'. It's FAR more difficult to say how it could be done.. Specifically.

Council housing needs to be restored to what it was, affordable, secure homes for ordinary people. Everyone should have access to a secure home.

Are you for real?

No, obviously not. No one is talking about making people homeless.

Review doesn’t have to mean “notice to quit”. It could mean longer transition periods, stepped rent increases closer to market rates, incentives or support to move into intermediate housing or pathways that only trigger at a genuinely higher income level, not marginal improvements.

At the moment, the system is largely binary: either you’re in secure social housing indefinitely or you’re excluded entirely. I’m questioning whether some middle ground makes sense when demand is extreme, not proposing annual evictions. If the conclusion is that there is no viable onward route for anyone, then the real issue is a lack of alternative housing, not that asking the question is unreasonable.

The reason you don’t qualify is there isn’t enough of it. If there was enough, way more people would qualify.

You need to be advocating for more affordable housing for everyone, not suggesting that more people should be forced into precarious conditions because you don’t think it’s fair that you are in a worse position so you want everyone else to be pulled even lower. That’s a shitty attitude.

It’s not fair because of landlord greed. That’s the point.

I think a system whereby if your wages go into being a higher rate tax payer your given a year to either move or pay market rate would be fair. I don’t think leases for life works anymore when so many people have no housing.

You are the one wailing about the unfairness of you not qualifying for council housing. It has criteria. You don't meet them.

And how would you implement that? How long would they have had to have the pay rise for? How long will it take to save a house deposit with that rise? How long is their eviction notice? There should be more social housing not less tenants.

Ridiculous, working class people need stable communities not temporary housing.