Page 26 | 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?

JenniferBooth · 08/12/2025 14:27

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 10:07

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.

Show quote history

Another thread i was on where ppl were wanging on about subsidized SH went quiet when i posted this.
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-tenants-forced-to-pay-for-their-richer-neighbours-gyms

The tenants forced to pay for their richer neighbours’ gyms | The Observer

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-tenants-forced-to-pay-for-their-richer-neighbours-gyms

Frequency · 08/12/2025 14:29

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 14:25

There’s no room for more housing. We are hideously overcrowded. If you mean by converting existing buildings in all for it.

Show quote history

And yet there is plenty of space for massive, new-build estates that are unaffordable for most locals.

There's also enough space to allow vast swathes of London to remain empty while foreign billionaires use the British housing market as a low-tax, high-return parking spot for their money.

Barnbrack · 08/12/2025 14:29

EqualLedgerJay · 07/12/2025 17:40

I completely understand why you wouldn’t want the insecurity of private renting - the private rental market is genuinely broken. My question isn’t about individual blame, it’s about whether a system designed for need should remain entirely static when circumstances change, especially given how many people are waiting for social housing with no options at all. I’m not suggesting people should be pushed out overnight or forced into poverty-level insecurity but whether there should be some mechanism for review, contribution or transition once households are well above eligibility. At the moment, there’s effectively no pathway through the system, which creates long-term blockages. That’s the tension I’m questioning.

Show quote history

The system was never 'designed for need' it was a mutually beneficial agreement where the council earned rent and provided housing. Then thatcher sold off all the housing stock for short terms inancial gain, leading to the explosion in the private rental market.

MrsTerryPratchett · 08/12/2025 14:33

Frequency · 08/12/2025 14:29

And yet there is plenty of space for massive, new-build estates that are unaffordable for most locals.

There's also enough space to allow vast swathes of London to remain empty while foreign billionaires use the British housing market as a low-tax, high-return parking spot for their money.

Show quote history

This. If there are homeless people and people in temporary housing, we need more housing. And not shitty new-build estates of cardboard crap at a high price to make developers rich.

If we’re going to annually test anyone, let it be the zombie flat owners in Saudi and Beijing. Make them prove they are living there full time. Or they surrender their asset.

JenniferBooth · 08/12/2025 14:35

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'

Really???? I live with my DH in a one bedroom SH flat He is seventy five and disabled. Its two storey and we live on the top floor. We really need a bungalow but i dont blame the ppl already living in SH bungalows. That would be stupid and nasty. Your final paragraph says a lot about you.

Bushmillsbabe · 08/12/2025 14:37

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:26

I think most people in favour of SH are fine with less BTL landlords. Lots have been pushed out in the last 10years. The market does need to stabilise but long term it’s the best thing IMO.

Show quote history

I don't disagree with you. But a BTL intentional landlords with multiple properties is very different to 'accidental landlords' who rent their property short term due to a specific need (in my case I had to move for work and couldn't sell my flat due to leasehold issues - would have much preferred to just sell).

However, given this government is neck deep in debt and is unlikely to be able to afford to build enough social housing for all that need, and not everyone wants to or can afford to buy, where will people live if private rentals dissapear? As you say, many have been pushed out as it doesn't make much money anymore, and the consequence has been rents being driven up, and dodgy landlords thriving off desperate people. The number of registered landlords is down yes, but the number of unregistered 'beds in sheds' has more than doubled in the London borough where DH works in housing. And that's only the ones which come to their attention due to health and safety, pest control issues etc. And many of these people would never be eligible for social housing anyway due to immigration status, length or residency anyway.

Make it harder to do something legally, people will just end up doing it illegally. Whether thats drugs, abortions, or housing. All that happens is dodgy people thrive and the vunerable become even more so, and at greater risk of harm when forced outside of an at least semi regulated system by price or lack of availability or ineligibility.

I am very pro social housing for those in need, I spend a good chunk of time trying to get my patients further up wait lists. But there will never be enough, especially in built up areas in London.

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:38

MrsTerryPratchett · 08/12/2025 14:33

This. If there are homeless people and people in temporary housing, we need more housing. And not shitty new-build estates of cardboard crap at a high price to make developers rich.

If we’re going to annually test anyone, let it be the zombie flat owners in Saudi and Beijing. Make them prove they are living there full time. Or they surrender their asset.

Show quote history

This is what’s so disappointing about this thread. These posters are so far removed from the reality of property that they have no idea about all of these.

Developers selling entire blocks in London at a trade show in Beijing. This is the go to way to sell new developments in large British cities.

Thousands of properties never even reaching the market to be purchased by British people. Why isn’t that a scandal?

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:40

Bushmillsbabe · 08/12/2025 14:37

I don't disagree with you. But a BTL intentional landlords with multiple properties is very different to 'accidental landlords' who rent their property short term due to a specific need (in my case I had to move for work and couldn't sell my flat due to leasehold issues - would have much preferred to just sell).

However, given this government is neck deep in debt and is unlikely to be able to afford to build enough social housing for all that need, and not everyone wants to or can afford to buy, where will people live if private rentals dissapear? As you say, many have been pushed out as it doesn't make much money anymore, and the consequence has been rents being driven up, and dodgy landlords thriving off desperate people. The number of registered landlords is down yes, but the number of unregistered 'beds in sheds' has more than doubled in the London borough where DH works in housing. And that's only the ones which come to their attention due to health and safety, pest control issues etc. And many of these people would never be eligible for social housing anyway due to immigration status, length or residency anyway.

Make it harder to do something legally, people will just end up doing it illegally. Whether thats drugs, abortions, or housing. All that happens is dodgy people thrive and the vunerable become even more so, and at greater risk of harm when forced outside of an at least semi regulated system by price or lack of availability or ineligibility.

I am very pro social housing for those in need, I spend a good chunk of time trying to get my patients further up wait lists. But there will never be enough, especially in built up areas in London.

Edited

Show quote history

The government doesn't build social housing.

housing associations cross subsidise by selling market sale to fund social housing

section 106 obligations means developers have to deliver a % of social housing on each development

housing associations (and more recently councils) borrow money from banks and investors and use it to build social housing.

OmNomShiva · 08/12/2025 14:42

Frequency · 08/12/2025 14:29

And yet there is plenty of space for massive, new-build estates that are unaffordable for most locals.

There's also enough space to allow vast swathes of London to remain empty while foreign billionaires use the British housing market as a low-tax, high-return parking spot for their money.

Show quote history

There’s plenty of room. And we should build denser.

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

JenniferBooth · 08/12/2025 14:45

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

On previous threads tenants have been told that they should make way for single parents in temp accomodation. I still havent had an answer to this question.
Why do tenants in SH owe the single parent and their kids more than the kids OWN FATHER

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 14:45

Thechaseison71 · 08/12/2025 14:04

And the social housing that was built 60 plus years ago. Long paid off and council gather rent each week which is far more than they pay out on maintenance on these properties. For about 20 years barely no property built at all. .

Show quote history

Here we go! Backt o the magical thinking again. I'll wake up the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny...

Just because a few council houses were ‘paid off’ 60 years ago, the entire social housing system apparently now runs on fresh air, goodwill and a sprinkle of easter eggs and tooth fairy dust. Never mind the taxpayer grants, subsidies, borrowing guarantees, Housing Benefit, maintenance, safety upgrades and the small detail that councils stopped building for two decades because they had no funding. Those 1960s bricks are doing a lot of heavy lifting. They are no just holding up the roofs, the are clearly paying the additional bills all by themselves. No only that they are going to fund all of the SH this country needs, all by themselves...

Gotta love the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny for standing down tax payers and being SH givers that keep on giving...

Bushmillsbabe · 08/12/2025 14:46

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:40

The government doesn't build social housing.

housing associations cross subsidise by selling market sale to fund social housing

section 106 obligations means developers have to deliver a % of social housing on each development

housing associations (and more recently councils) borrow money from banks and investors and use it to build social housing.

Show quote history

Or developers pay a fee to avoid their obligations, which councils take as budgets so stretched.

The fact remains thete isn't enough to meet need, there is unlikely to ever be enough to meet need. Some people aren't eligible or priority, and they need somewhere to live whilst waiting. Some need to move frequently due to their work so social housing doesn't work for them. There will always be demand for private rentals.

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:50

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 14:45

Here we go! Backt o the magical thinking again. I'll wake up the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny...

Just because a few council houses were ‘paid off’ 60 years ago, the entire social housing system apparently now runs on fresh air, goodwill and a sprinkle of easter eggs and tooth fairy dust. Never mind the taxpayer grants, subsidies, borrowing guarantees, Housing Benefit, maintenance, safety upgrades and the small detail that councils stopped building for two decades because they had no funding. Those 1960s bricks are doing a lot of heavy lifting. They are no just holding up the roofs, the are clearly paying the additional bills all by themselves. No only that they are going to fund all of the SH this country needs, all by themselves...

Gotta love the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny for standing down tax payers and being SH givers that keep on giving...

Show quote history

As has been frequently said, the vast majority of social housing for the last 20 years has been delivered by housing associations. Councils stopped building, and to a large extent managing, their housing stock decades ago.

JenniferBooth · 08/12/2025 14:52

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

Show quote history

Well well well Some ppl on here DO have short memories. What the fuck do you think the anti lockdown protests were about. They included ppl who didnt qualify for furlough so couldnt pay their mortgage, So this no one gives a fuck is bullshit They still protested despite being called granny killers. By some on this very thread im willing to bet.

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 14:54

Bushmillsbabe · 08/12/2025 14:46

Or developers pay a fee to avoid their obligations, which councils take as budgets so stretched.

The fact remains thete isn't enough to meet need, there is unlikely to ever be enough to meet need. Some people aren't eligible or priority, and they need somewhere to live whilst waiting. Some need to move frequently due to their work so social housing doesn't work for them. There will always be demand for private rentals.

Show quote history

It’s such a good point- there will never be enough social housing to meet needs, because the need for it is limitless.

this is why banks are quite eager to lend money to social housing providers. There is no end to the demand, little risk to the revenue.

as is fairly well documented, the main reason so little social housing has been built is planning bureaucracy, and land prices.

it wasn’t so long ago housing associations were holding too much cash, to the point it was uneconomical, because they simply couldn’t spent it on building houses, the opportunities were so few.

Seymour5 · 08/12/2025 14:59

Barnbrack · 08/12/2025 14:29

The system was never 'designed for need' it was a mutually beneficial agreement where the council earned rent and provided housing. Then thatcher sold off all the housing stock for short terms inancial gain, leading to the explosion in the private rental market.

Show quote history

They were mainly for working people in the early days.

Re Thatcher selling them off. No one forced tenants to buy. I knew one tenant, an active trade unionist, who could have bought his, but it was against his principles. Not many like him when there’s a bargain on offer. I was a housing officer in 1997 when the Blair government got in. Lots of us in the sector expected Labour to withdraw tenants’ Right to Buy, but they didn’t.

I thought we should sell off the ‘hard to let’ properties on the open market, with no rent coming in they still needed to be maintained. The Northern council I worked for had quite a lot of empties in the late 90s. Some were demolished, then demand started to rise again, and still we sell them to tenants.

AutumnAllTheWay · 08/12/2025 14:59

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 13:56

Why can’t they pay market rates or buy their own house? If their earnings increased as seems to be not-unheard-of then what’s stopping them?

I think things should be equal.

Nobody should be saving £££ on rent at the expense of the taxpayer when they earn £50k.

I’m sick and tired of being told to ‘question the system’. There is no conspiracy. There are no shady puppeteers conspiring for peak capitalism. What we have is a set of shitty global events and the downfall of the West, alongside uncontrolled mass immigration to a tiny country and one which has sold off most of its housing. ‘Questioning the system’ solves none of that. Either we are all in it together or nobody is.

Letting people hang on to their social housing ‘because it’s their home’ is a nonsense.

Show quote history

Because some people are less intelligent than others? Because some come from poor, broken families with no support/ guidance whatsoever? Are illiterate? Work the many minimum wage jobs society needs? Get a better job/ wage increase too late to sve for a deposit?

You say that you think it should be fair, but life isnt fair.

There are a thousand reasons people will never be able to buy their own properties.

Why do you begrudge them a safez affordable place to live?

Bambamhoohoo · 08/12/2025 15:02

Seymour5 · 08/12/2025 14:59

They were mainly for working people in the early days.

Re Thatcher selling them off. No one forced tenants to buy. I knew one tenant, an active trade unionist, who could have bought his, but it was against his principles. Not many like him when there’s a bargain on offer. I was a housing officer in 1997 when the Blair government got in. Lots of us in the sector expected Labour to withdraw tenants’ Right to Buy, but they didn’t.

I thought we should sell off the ‘hard to let’ properties on the open market, with no rent coming in they still needed to be maintained. The Northern council I worked for had quite a lot of empties in the late 90s. Some were demolished, then demand started to rise again, and still we sell them to tenants.

Show quote history

My gran didn’t buy her house under RTb neither did my great aunties and uncles. They were all terrified of the responsibility of repairs and maintenance. I think that was quite common back then amongst people who had never dreamed of home ownership.

Frequency · 08/12/2025 15:09

I think a lot could be solved if developers were forced to cater to local markets instead of maximising profits and selling to overseas investors or BTL LL from London who don't know the first thing about the local area.

For example, where my sister lives, they're practically building a whole new town on the edge of her town. The local average household income is £27,000 p/a. The lowest price for an "affordable" home on this estate is £185,000. The average price is closer to £300,000. Those homes clearly have not been built for the local market.

Thechaseison71 · 08/12/2025 15:12

HoneyParsnipSoup · 08/12/2025 14:25

There’s no room for more housing. We are hideously overcrowded. If you mean by converting existing buildings in all for it.

Show quote history

Well there certainly seems enough room for build very expensive houses to buy

Thechaseison71 · 08/12/2025 15:15

NorthXNorthWest · 08/12/2025 14:45

Here we go! Backt o the magical thinking again. I'll wake up the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny...

Just because a few council houses were ‘paid off’ 60 years ago, the entire social housing system apparently now runs on fresh air, goodwill and a sprinkle of easter eggs and tooth fairy dust. Never mind the taxpayer grants, subsidies, borrowing guarantees, Housing Benefit, maintenance, safety upgrades and the small detail that councils stopped building for two decades because they had no funding. Those 1960s bricks are doing a lot of heavy lifting. They are no just holding up the roofs, the are clearly paying the additional bills all by themselves. No only that they are going to fund all of the SH this country needs, all by themselves...

Gotta love the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny for standing down tax payers and being SH givers that keep on giving...

Show quote history

A few? Majority of council houses were built in the 50s to 70s .And I should imagine more housing benefit goes to private landlords as rent more expensive

Winteriscoming80 · 08/12/2025 15:18

Well we did the right thing,we lived in a new build HA property,we were at that time on a low income,you had to earn under 32k to actually rent it,dh re trained,earned a lot more so we gave up our tenency so someone less fortunate could have a home.

MrsTerryPratchett · 08/12/2025 15:24

Winteriscoming80 · 08/12/2025 15:18

Well we did the right thing,we lived in a new build HA property,we were at that time on a low income,you had to earn under 32k to actually rent it,dh re trained,earned a lot more so we gave up our tenency so someone less fortunate could have a home.

so someone less fortunate could have a home.

That makes it sound like the reason you moved was someone else. Did you go from HA to expensive private rented, in the same area, with the same facilities, for more money simply so someone else could have a more reasonable home?

Because I doubt it.

JenniferBooth · 08/12/2025 15:36

ShinyWorthKeeping · 08/12/2025 13:08

I was a preschool teacher for 5 years until a new manager came in and bullied me out, she quit during my notice so I retracted it and carried on working.

I fell unexpectedly pregnant a few weeks later, my work refused to pay me any maternity pay as I hadn't been there long enough yet

So my partner and I ended up in an upstairs council flat.

An incident during my c section caused me to develop DQD in one arm rendering it pretty much useless from elbow down. It was assumed to be carpal tunnel for the first 6 months as the pain and lack of mobility came on over those 6 months.

I fell pregnant with my youngest about 4 weeks before my DQD diagnosis.

I am not allowed to leave my pushchair downstairs and even if I was i can't safely carry 2 under 2 down/up the concrete stairs so essentially I am trapped unless my partner has a day off work or someone can come and help me.

My youngest was born with Tracheomalacia, she's had covid and bronchiolitis all before a month old (now 3 months old) and because the flat has no extractor fans/ no garden to dry laundry and shitty windows we have a ton of mold.

We've begged and pleaded to move, we've been on the list for ages, we've quoted Awaabs law but the best we get is a man who gives us a "special spray" to help get rid of it. It's ruined 2 pairs of curtains and a double buggy (and probably all of our lungs)

The fairness certainly isn't cutting my way and I know my case isn't isolated, a woman next door can't leave her flat as she now needs a mobility scooter but has been told she needs to carry it up the stairs after each use or she will be fined.

Etc etc etc...

I got laughed at on here when i posted that our HA threatened DH with taking his mobility scooter and destroying it, and fining us to cover the cost of taking it. It was stored under the stairs. There was no need for this attitude, Its a block of four flats. He could have easily knocked on the doors, found us and discussed it with us in an adult manner so we could come to some sort of compromise. This was the run up to Christmas twenty seventeen so felt even more spiteful. We tried to discuss it with them but they refused to budge so i took to social media. In the middle of December they went into damage control and the HO sent someone round here unanounced to discuss it as they should have done in the first place. Upshot was DH now has a storage shed with a charger which he happily pays for. DHs scooter batteries are lead acid not lithium. I still have video and photographic evidence of what happened which i am keeping. Im willing to bet that they are not as enthusiastic about insisting on e scooters being banned.

Winteriscoming80 · 08/12/2025 15:47

MrsTerryPratchett · 08/12/2025 15:24

so someone less fortunate could have a home.

That makes it sound like the reason you moved was someone else. Did you go from HA to expensive private rented, in the same area, with the same facilities, for more money simply so someone else could have a more reasonable home?

Because I doubt it.

Show quote history

Only on mumsnet do you get flamed for doing a good thing 😂

don’t be ridiculous,
we bought a property in the area where my dh is from.