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?

Yes you do have to chase things up, most people with MH problems aren't able to do this. It's not an equal starting line, people who know the system know very well how to play the game. Because of this I'd say it's not the most vulnerable people who are housed first (I'm very much in support of this).
One month to get a house with specialist adaptions? This is very rare. I'm in a lot of groups and the waiting list for a specialist OT assessment can be 12 months. It can be another 12 months before that is approved by the LA.

Teesside. I'm with Thirteen Group, although when you apply, you don't apply to Thirteen directly. There is a choice-based letting scheme that encompasses Thirteen Group, Compass Housing, Endeavor, various other small, local HAs, private LLs who meet the terms, and LA-owned properties. You apply to the scheme and are offered whichever house best suits your needs. I just happened to end up with Thirteen Group.

No, this would not work.

I live in an ex council estate. Approx 50% are owned, 40% stupid bloody useless crappy housing association and a handful private rent. I don't want a constant turnover of neighbours who earn too much and have to move on. The sensible families who stay are the ones who keep their places looking tidy and are generally decent neigbours

There should absolutely be more support for people who struggle to chase things up etc I agree.

It was due to the circumstances at the time and with support from those who know the system well. It had to be quick and thankfully, it was able to happen including OT assessments and other various evidence.

I can see the merit in means-testing, but I’m far more in favour of fixed-term tenancy agreements. Certainty gives people stability, and it also creates a natural review point without ripping security away from those who genuinely need it. A fixed term allows those whose circumstances improve to save for a deposit or prepare to move into private rental, or transition into other social homes that better match their needs, whether larger or smaller.

Like I mentioned earlier with some creative, joined-up policies to help people stay in / near their communities or access more affordable private rents, fixed term tenancies could make a real difference in lifting people out of poverty. They offer both security and mobility, instead of locking households into arrangements that are no longer suitable or approportionate for them or the wider demand for housing.

Old people die.
So what is the actual difference whether their council house goes back into circulation now or in 5 or 10 years time?
There will always be people wanting social housing. As soon as the old person dies and their house is vacated, someone will be ready to move in. So forcing old people to move doesn't "solve" anything. There's still only one home to be given back and re let. It's just the timing that changes.

As for increasing rent for higher earners. Have you seen some SH rents lately? I'm on a swapper site as I have half an eye on downsizing at some point. But I don't think I'll be able to afford to! My house is just over £200 per week (due to the fact I've been a tenant for a long time). I'm seeing a lot of new build flats priced at £300-£350 per week! That is the SH rent. I can't actually afford that. I would not class £1400 a month for a 2 bed flat as a "cheap" rent. So how much higher do you want to go?

Just 2 weeks!?

Several years ago, I was desperately trying to leave an abusive, alcoholic ex who owned the property I was living in. The police were involved but couldn't do anything, given that he owned the property. Despite the fact that my 8-year-old daughter and I had no family or friends to go to, and I was on a low income, I was put into Band C, which obviously isn't sufficient to be housed.

At the same time, I saw a friend deliberately default on rent to get SH and become technically homeless (despite multiple family members living in the close vicinity who would have willingly helped out and her having received about £60k that year from inheritances that could have been spent on securing a home for her and her children). She also said she was depressed and suicidal. Within a few weeks, she was placed into a beautiful property in a lovely area with gardens front and back, paying a rent of £425 per month. I ended up paying £700 a month for a tiny apartment in a really rough area. But once I had my own place, I was placed even further down the priority for SH - Band D.

SH is not an option for the vast majority where I live, unless you play the system and get onto Band A or B by actually becoming homeless with children and grossly exaggerating mental health issues.

Social housing is tax payer funded and/ or subsidised not a charity.

We have to deal with reality whilst we are working our way toward the best case solution.

Ah now that is the thing. People want to downsize but find that today’s smaller properties have actually higher rents . It’s understandable to not want to change in that case. This could be sorted out so fairly easily if someone put their mind to it.

It's not as simple as just going to your GP im in a two bed housing association, with two boys my youngest is severely autistic goes to a special school has lots of professionals involved all agree our housing isn't suitable and we need an extra bedroom plus some adaptions but its not going to happen quickly .

Posts like this make me want to log off of mumsnet. Vile.

absolutely 💯🫡👏🏽YANBU

I never said it was. But it’s seen as a charitable sort of thing, right ?

Social housing is for the poor
Social housing is for the disabled
Social housing is for the elderly

The point I made was that I want social housing to be for anybody. It would simply mean you have a nationalised landlord, high building standards, non-profit rent (eg at cost), and options for subsidising rent for those who need financial assistance.

That would end any stigma associated with social housing, end exploitation by private landlords, end precarity for renters, and improve social cohesion by making social housing a real mix of people.

Yep.

The only reason why it happened within a month for us is because my son was in hospital and they refused to discharge him until he had somewhere suitable to go.

If you get a pay rise does your mortgage go up?

Why do you think social housing is tax payer funded, can you expand on this?

So many people keep posting this and not explaining where they got this idea from and how they think the public purse funds social housing?

A social housing-bashing thread being enjoyed by those who are glad they don’t have to live in local authority housing (or whatever it’s called these days) for the simple reason it makes them feel superior. I very much doubt they give any thought to the subject until they see a thread like this and decide to pile on.

I didn't say you'll automatically get a house, and especially if you need adaptions. But if you are somewhere where it is points based all these points add up. People who know the system know where every single point can be brought from, and they often fabricate things to get the points.

It's a tricky one.

In an ideal world nobody would be forced to move for obvious reasons (children settled in schools, house moves are stressful etc). So that would mean that whoever was in the SH was entitled to stay unless they were ready to move.

However we have this strange situation where the council are 'obliged' to house certain amounts of people but don't have actually the houses to do so. This seems utter madness to me. I mean if we are going to make our councils responsible for housing people then they need to actually have houses to do this. If they don't have houses, then they should not be obligated to house people.
We have this insane situation where most of them were sold off (and I think the idea was the everybody would then have a roof over their head and be responsible for themselves). It was actually a pretty decent idea.

Of course this was blown out of the water by letting another 10m into the country since the nineties (so not enough houses now) and btl (so landlords snapping them up and then renting them out). So we are where we are now.

The answer surely has to be to decide what the policy is for SH for the future.

What I do know is that having thousands of people in hotels/temporary accomodations is crazy. Ignoring the instability of this, the cost to the taxpayer of these huge hotel bills is mad.

So for me the goverment should either build a bunch more and house everyone who they are obliged to house without using hotels etc
Or they should say actually we are not going to be providing this anymore at all (housing) and so we are selling them all off and then you are all responsible for yourself.

It's sort of like the NHS isn't it. It is responsible for giving free healthcare to everyone but because of changes to population numbers and age groups it just doesn't work anymore. So we have a half baked health service where lots aren't getting their needs met but their isn't an alternative either (like a proper private system with A&E or an improved NHS with people contributing)

The longer we keep people in temporary accomodation the longer we are all impacted. I mean the council used to use their money to repair things, replace things, upgrade things. Grass was cut more, bins were emptied more and whatever else the council does. Now they are spending the money on SEN kids, Old People care and temporary houses. While this goes on we all will pay more tax and have a more unkempt country with poorer services.

Unfortunately each individual person will look out for themselves. That is just how humans operate.

So when the person in their own home suggests some in SH should give it up as there are more vunerable people needing them, the OP is a 'monster', 'spiteful' etc
I am guessing if we could get the opinions of the people in temporary housing who are deemed to have a greater need than some of those currently housed in SH already, then they would tell us that they think the people 'hogging' the SH when the don't need them anymore are 'monsters', 'selfish', 'spiteful'

Council housing and housing associations are both funded by the taxpayer. Councils don’t build or maintain homes with pocket money from the tooth fairy, and housing associations aren’t running on donation from the Easter Bunny. Council housing is paid for through rents, government grants, housing subsidies and borrowing backed by the public purse. Housing associations also rely on taxpayer-backed funding through development grants, regulated rent models and government guarantees. Whichever type of social housing you’re talking about, the money ultimately comes from taxpayer.

And yes some in social housing are tax payers, but the vast majority are not

Please let me know how you get on with SH if you remove the tax payers from the mix...

👏

This is not tax payer funding.

Development grants, as you’ll know, are scant (and they shouldn’t be)

tax payers are not funding housing associations through regulated housing models- housing associations are delivering social housing to this model. I’m not sure what government guarantees you mean, but the government have certainly allowed housing associations to go bankrupt and the regulator has the power to force merger of any organisation that is failing before then.

the main way tax payer money gets into social housing- as with any landlord- is though the housing element of benefits paid as rent.

Once upon a time...

Exactly HOW is it taxpayer funded?

It’s actually shocking, yes. The bile and envy on this thread is off the scale. There are some dangerous individuals out there for sure x