Page 22 | To think social housing should be means-tested annually like benefits?

EqualLedgerJay · 2025-12-07T17:25:29+00:00

Situations change, why should lifetime tenancies exist if income rises? AIBU to think fairness cuts both ways?

MissyMooPoo2 · 08/12/2025 11:35

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:24

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

Show quote history

'dangerous'???

Dangerous to whom, exactly?

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:37

No envy from me. I own my house.
But through my volunteering I regularly see people in desperate need of housing and I see how unfair the system is at present .

verybighouseinthecountry · 08/12/2025 11:42

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:37

No envy from me. I own my house.
But through my volunteering I regularly see people in desperate need of housing and I see how unfair the system is at present .

Same here, the most vulnerable don't usually get it because they don't know how. It's very sad.

MissyMooPoo2 · 08/12/2025 11:44

verybighouseinthecountry · 08/12/2025 11:42

Same here, the most vulnerable don't usually get it because they don't know how. It's very sad.

Show quote history

It seems to a case of those who shout loudest getting what they want (regardless of actual need).

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:45

MissyMooPoo2 · 08/12/2025 11:35

'dangerous'???

Dangerous to whom, exactly?

Show quote history

Dangerous attitudes to a certain section of society and we all know (or we should do) what that can lead to. HTH

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 11:46

Thechaseison71 · 08/12/2025 11:23

Exactly HOW is it taxpayer funded?

Show quote history

Even if we abolished housing benefit tomorrow, social housing would still need tax payers.

Can social housing be built without contributions from tax payers?

I wait...

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:47

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:45

Dangerous attitudes to a certain section of society and we all know (or we should do) what that can lead to. HTH

Show quote history

Sorry but the Nazi thing is boring and doesn’t work anymore.

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:48

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:37

No envy from me. I own my house.
But through my volunteering I regularly see people in desperate need of housing and I see how unfair the system is at present .

So someone that has been living in their house and made it a home over many years should piss off out so someone else can reap the benefits of all the improvements they’ve made etc? Get a grip

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 11:49

verybighouseinthecountry · 08/12/2025 11:42

Same here, the most vulnerable don't usually get it because they don't know how. It's very sad.

Show quote history

Surely part of the issue then is making sure vulnerable people who don't know how to sort through the SH system are supported to do so?

It isn't the next persons fault who is able to either understand the SH system and gather the evidence required or is capable of seeking support from others.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for learning to understand the SH system, seeking the support I needed and gathering the evidence that was required.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:49

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:48

So someone that has been living in their house and made it a home over many years should piss off out so someone else can reap the benefits of all the improvements they’ve made etc? Get a grip

Show quote history

Yes because it’s not their home.

Do you think people who default on their mortgage shouldn’t be repossessed?

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:51

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:48

So someone that has been living in their house and made it a home over many years should piss off out so someone else can reap the benefits of all the improvements they’ve made etc? Get a grip

Show quote history

If people go round spending a lot of money on a house they don't own that's on them

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 11:51

IWantToBeADaddysGirl · 08/12/2025 10:59

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'

It is, like many of the problems in this country, a government created one (successive government, not just one). It needs both short and long term joined up solutions.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:52

The only solution is for the government to buy large, disused buildings and convert them into a series of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

Social housing should not be a 3 bedroom house with garage and large plot when this is out of reach for even average earners.

Flame me, I don’t care!

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:53

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:47

Sorry but the Nazi thing is boring and doesn’t work anymore.

Show quote history

The Nazis were many things but I wouldn’t class them as boring.

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:54

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:52

The only solution is for the government to buy large, disused buildings and convert them into a series of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

Social housing should not be a 3 bedroom house with garage and large plot when this is out of reach for even average earners.

Flame me, I don’t care!

So long as it wasn’t near you eh

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:55

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:51

If people go round spending a lot of money on a house they don't own that's on them

Show quote history

It’s their home. I’m not engaging with you again. You’re not quite right

dontmalbeconme · 08/12/2025 11:56

I'd prefer the rents were set at market rate and housing benefit applied as it is in the private rented sector. (There could be some paper exercise to cancel rent receipts out v HB spend, rather than actually shifting the money). This would mean people could keep their security, but there would be no financial advantage to social housing. This would bring about 2 positives-raising funds where better off tenants chose to stay in social housing, and freeing up properties for people who need them if better off tenants decide to go into private rented/buy their own property instead once the financial advantage was removed.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:57

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 11:55

It’s their home. I’m not engaging with you again. You’re not quite right

Show quote history

It’s not their home, by fact.

It’s a house they live in, but it doesn’t belong to them.

Would you encourage a renter to spend £££ on their rented property then argue they should be able to keep it?

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 11:57

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:52

The only solution is for the government to buy large, disused buildings and convert them into a series of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

Social housing should not be a 3 bedroom house with garage and large plot when this is out of reach for even average earners.

Flame me, I don’t care!

You are more than welcome to my good sized 3 bedroom SH house with front and back gardens but the only reason why I have that house is due to my son's disability so your child needs to be disabled.

Fancy it?

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:57

dontmalbeconme · 08/12/2025 11:56

I'd prefer the rents were set at market rate and housing benefit applied as it is in the private rented sector. (There could be some paper exercise to cancel rent receipts out v HB spend, rather than actually shifting the money). This would mean people could keep their security, but there would be no financial advantage to social housing. This would bring about 2 positives-raising funds where better off tenants chose to stay in social housing, and freeing up properties for people who need them if better off tenants decide to go into private rented/buy their own property instead once the financial advantage was removed.

Genius! Yes I would support this.

oneinataxioneinacar · 08/12/2025 11:57

dontmalbeconme · 08/12/2025 11:56

I'd prefer the rents were set at market rate and housing benefit applied as it is in the private rented sector. (There could be some paper exercise to cancel rent receipts out v HB spend, rather than actually shifting the money). This would mean people could keep their security, but there would be no financial advantage to social housing. This would bring about 2 positives-raising funds where better off tenants chose to stay in social housing, and freeing up properties for people who need them if better off tenants decide to go into private rented/buy their own property instead once the financial advantage was removed.

This sounds like a balanced approach

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:58

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 11:57

You are more than welcome to my good sized 3 bedroom SH house with front and back gardens but the only reason why I have that house is due to my son's disability so your child needs to be disabled.

Fancy it?

Show quote history

Physical disability needs should of course be an exception. But if there’s no disability, a 2 bedroom flat will do.

x2boys · 08/12/2025 11:58

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:52

The only solution is for the government to buy large, disused buildings and convert them into a series of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

Social housing should not be a 3 bedroom house with garage and large plot when this is out of reach for even average earners.

Flame me, I don’t care!

Well sometimes it is
Maybe you would like all social housing tenants to live in tiny apartments, like communist Russia
God forbid they should have a bit of outdoor space 🙄

x2boys · 08/12/2025 11:59

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:58

Physical disability needs should of course be an exception. But if there’s no disability, a 2 bedroom flat will do.

Show quote history

Only physicsl disabilities, other disabilities dont count ?

angelos02 · 08/12/2025 12:00

x2boys · 08/12/2025 11:59

Only physicsl disabilities, other disabilities dont count ?

Show quote history

Like what?