Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

EqualLedgerJay · 07/12/2025 17:25

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Catpiece · 08/12/2025 12:00

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:57

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?

You don’t appear to understand the difference between a house and a home. Twisted logic

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:01

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 11:57

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?

It is their Home
They may not own it but its their Home Fact!

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:01

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:01

It is their Home
They may not own it but its their Home Fact!

Your last sentence is completely at odds with itself.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:02

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 12:00

You don’t appear to understand the difference between a house and a home. Twisted logic

Ok, so by that logic, should renters never be asked to leave and houses never repossessed if the mortgages aren’t paid?

Mumofsend · 08/12/2025 12:02

We have a 3 bed house due to my child's disabilities. I wouldn't give our life long tenancy up. It is their security well into adulthood too.

Catpiece · 08/12/2025 12:02

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:02

Ok, so by that logic, should renters never be asked to leave and houses never repossessed if the mortgages aren’t paid?

I can’t argue with the insane. I’m out

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:03

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:01

Your last sentence is completely at odds with itself.

Well as you seem to understand the difference between a house and a home i can't take you seriously.

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:03

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:02

Ok, so by that logic, should renters never be asked to leave and houses never repossessed if the mortgages aren’t paid?

If you don't pay your rent in SH, you are asked to leave. That isn't any different.

We aren't talking about removing people from SH because they aren't paying their rent.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:05

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:03

If you don't pay your rent in SH, you are asked to leave. That isn't any different.

We aren't talking about removing people from SH because they aren't paying their rent.

My point is other people have to leave their homes all the time through no fault of their own. Homes they’ve paid market rates for, saved for, lived in for years. Despite paying more their positions are far more tenuous. They’re more likely to have to leave than a SH tenant. Nobody gives a fuck.

Yet with social housing it’s ‘OMG ITS THEIR HOME’.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:06

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:03

Well as you seem to understand the difference between a house and a home i can't take you seriously.

What is the difference?

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:08

angelos02 · 08/12/2025 12:00

Like what?

Well i have a severely autistic child ,he can't share a bedroom as hes so disruptive, so we need a third bedroom ,we are also hsving an OT assessment for a,wet room as hes obsessed with water and caused several major floods ,and a stable door so when hes trying to scratcha bite me I can put some distance between us whilst also being able to see him.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:10

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:08

Well i have a severely autistic child ,he can't share a bedroom as hes so disruptive, so we need a third bedroom ,we are also hsving an OT assessment for a,wet room as hes obsessed with water and caused several major floods ,and a stable door so when hes trying to scratcha bite me I can put some distance between us whilst also being able to see him.

I did say I think disability should be exempt, of course it should.

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:10

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:10

I did say I think disability should be exempt, of course it should.

You said physical disability.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:12

x2boys · 08/12/2025 12:10

You said physical disability.

I should’ve said severe disability in general (aka, wheelchair user; severe learning difficulties; that sort of thing).

I see posts in our local fb group discussing an older child being diagnosed with ADHD at 10 and ‘can we now get an extra bedroom as they can’t share with a younger sibling’. I don’t mean that.

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:15

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:05

My point is other people have to leave their homes all the time through no fault of their own. Homes they’ve paid market rates for, saved for, lived in for years. Despite paying more their positions are far more tenuous. They’re more likely to have to leave than a SH tenant. Nobody gives a fuck.

Yet with social housing it’s ‘OMG ITS THEIR HOME’.

Edited

Because it's the only way you can gain secure housing if you never have any hope of affording to buy a house.

and regarding disabilities, it's the only way disabled people who need adaptations etc can be suitably housed at all.

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:21

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:15

Because it's the only way you can gain secure housing if you never have any hope of affording to buy a house.

and regarding disabilities, it's the only way disabled people who need adaptations etc can be suitably housed at all.

I have zero problem with people with profound disabilities having suitable and adapted homes. In fact I actively want this because who wouldn’t?

But where there is no disability at play, social housing tenants should accept their position is as unstable as anyone else’s. No elderly couple needs a 3 bedroom house.

I know it sounds brutal but we’ve made a series of choices over the years that have inevitably lead to this.

RB68 · 08/12/2025 12:23

It kind of is as if your income rises so does your rent

Crazybigtoe · 08/12/2025 12:24

I agree there should absolutely be a review of this- and the process around it.

All other benefits are just for people to get on their feet- but with housing you get to keep the benefit even if you are already on your feet. I wonder how many of those currently in social housing would, given their circumstances today, qualify for the same home they are in right now?

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:24

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:21

I have zero problem with people with profound disabilities having suitable and adapted homes. In fact I actively want this because who wouldn’t?

But where there is no disability at play, social housing tenants should accept their position is as unstable as anyone else’s. No elderly couple needs a 3 bedroom house.

I know it sounds brutal but we’ve made a series of choices over the years that have inevitably lead to this.

The issue with that though is where do they go? I think if it was that simple, it would be in place already but in many areas, there are simply not enough 2 bedroom SH flats.

It all comes down to needing more SH properties as always.

PeonyPatch · 08/12/2025 12:28

Hedgehogbrown · 08/12/2025 09:41

Instead of going after people fortunate enough to have a council house, let's crash the housing market, and improve renters rights so that private landlords can't buy up property as an easy money making scheme while they sit on their arse doing nothing.

And what would that mean for us on the property ladder that had to scrape together a deposit !

Minjou · 08/12/2025 12:28

Crazybigtoe · 08/12/2025 12:24

I agree there should absolutely be a review of this- and the process around it.

All other benefits are just for people to get on their feet- but with housing you get to keep the benefit even if you are already on your feet. I wonder how many of those currently in social housing would, given their circumstances today, qualify for the same home they are in right now?

So you think it would work well if you give people a home for just long enough to get enough money to privately rent. So they do that, move out....and the landlord wants to sell and they can't find anywhere else they can afford. Rents climb higher then wage rises, they now can't afford private rent. Or they lose a job or they have a kid or they get sick ..and they qualify for social housing again. What do they do while they wait for a house? And then do they start the cycle again?

And you have estates of temporary housing, with the only long term residents being the disabled, the chronically work shy, the people who will choose not to do better so they don't have to leave, and th cheats working cash in hand while claiming benefits.

Great system.

PeonyPatch · 08/12/2025 12:31

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 12:05

My point is other people have to leave their homes all the time through no fault of their own. Homes they’ve paid market rates for, saved for, lived in for years. Despite paying more their positions are far more tenuous. They’re more likely to have to leave than a SH tenant. Nobody gives a fuck.

Yet with social housing it’s ‘OMG ITS THEIR HOME’.

Edited

This is what I mean. It’s not fair in terms of security. Though everyone deserves a secure and stable home. I hate the attitude that because you’re on the property ladder you’re safe and secure, absolutely not. I could become ill, disabled etc and lose my home. We’ve barely any equity as just got onto the ladder. I would say people who are rich / own home outright or in social housing are the most secure.

Frequency · 08/12/2025 12:32

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

You have no choice, unless you want to live with bare walls and floorboards.

When I moved into my house, there was no floor in the kitchen, living room, and 2 out of 3 bedrooms. There were no wall coverings in the living room, kitchen, or bathroom. There were no skirting boards in the living room or any of the bedrooms. Several floorboards needed to be replaced, but this was classed as cosmetic because they were not rotten; they were just too uneven to properly fit a floor covering, ditto the kitchen plastering, which needed to be done, the wall was bad enough that only a thick vinyl wallpaper would have covered it and who the fuck wants wallpaper in their kitchen but it was deemed to be cosmetic as it was not cracked just badly done by previous tenants. There were no window coverings, curtain poles, or white goods, as there are private lettings and no lightbulbs except the fluorescent tube light in the kitchen. Oddly, there was also no grass, only the HA knows why they saw fit to dig up the back garden.

I was given a £200 Wilko's voucher to pay for all of this. Now, bearing in mind I was moving from private rented where maintaining decor was not my responsibility, so I had no equipment such as paint brushes, rollers, trays, etc, or paste tables and paste brushes, hammers, step ladders, plastering float, trowel, mixing bucket, etc, please explain how I could have made the house habitable without spending a large sum of my own money?

We did do it as cheaply as possible, and a lot of it is now being redone to a higher standard now that we are in a better financial position, but when we first moved in at least £1500 if not more, was needed to make the house habitable, plus the cost of white goods. All in all, it cost me at least £3000, before rent in advance, to move here.

I assume if HA housing becomes temporary, the cost of this will be shouldered by the HA or the taxpayers demanding this, and the effect this will have on affordable rents has been taken into consideration?

baroqueandblue · 08/12/2025 12:32

EqualLedgerJay · 07/12/2025 17:43

Yes and that’s exactly why this is such a difficult issue. The private rental market is clearly in crisis and no one should be pushed into instability or homelessness.

But secure housing being a basic need is precisely why the question of allocation matters. When social housing is effectively permanent regardless of income, it means households in urgent need can’t access it at all.

I’m not suggesting yearly evictions or forcing people out for “doing better”. I’m questioning whether a system with no review, no tapering and no transitional pathways is fair when demand so massively outweighs supply. The real problem is that we’ve allowed the private rental sector to become so dysfunctional that social housing is treated as the only safe option, which leaves everyone stuck.

"The private rental market is clearly in crisis..."

Pity that's not the priority in your argument. Instead you go for the soft target. And that says it all about the inequality in this pitiable society now.

Kirbert2 · 08/12/2025 12:33

Crazybigtoe · 08/12/2025 12:24

I agree there should absolutely be a review of this- and the process around it.

All other benefits are just for people to get on their feet- but with housing you get to keep the benefit even if you are already on your feet. I wonder how many of those currently in social housing would, given their circumstances today, qualify for the same home they are in right now?

That will depend on the areas LA.

My LA couldn't care less how much or how little you earn, it is all about housing need. They have no income requirements, you can even own a house and join the banding system. You'd just be at the bottom of the banding!

So for the vast majority in my LA, their need would be less but only because they were suitably housed in the first place thanks to SH.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.