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?

We could of stayed in the property and saved £500 a month!

But you didn't do a good thing... You bought a house. I mean, that's a good thing for you, but you didn't do it out the goodness of your heart for the poor unfortunate souls on the social housing waiting list 🤣

I think it's incredibly unfair that there are families waiting years for an adequately-sized house whilst a member of my family enjoys her 3 bed housing association semi now all her children have grown, flown the nest, and bought their own properties.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that the current set-up seems pretty unfair and inefficient.

MN..................its your fault if you spend money doing up your SH house.
Also MN...............SH tenants turn the property into a shit tip

The scooter was kept under the stairs too and the battery taken out each time but that's not good enough, she is very vocal on SM about it but nothings been done.

Before I had my youngest we also enquired about renting a shed or garage for the pushchair as I wasn't able to carry my other baby and a pushchair up and down at the same time but we're told a flat no.

I'm sorry you had to go through all this too.

Sorry by tricks I mean faking illnesses/situations or very heavily embellishing circumstances. Eg I worked in a DV organisation and they said that some women will fabricate a DV situation to get into a refuge, in order to massively increase their housing points. You get extra pints for DV, extra for being in a refuge, extra for sharing, extra because there's a flight of stairs and no lift , extra because of the MH issues caused due to sharing. As a result, many refuges will only accept a referral if a DV incident has happened within the last week.

Ah the grand Labour Master plan that will solve all our problems...

The devil is in the detail of the shiny '1.5 million new homes ’ which includes SH and 'affordable' homes. Affordable for who, at five to eight times more that the average local salary?

They’re bull dozing greenfield sites with no real planning, no roads, no schools, no GP capacity, while better located and serviced brownfield sites sit ignored - it costs money to develop those. And the green space they boast about providing is usually nothing more than a token patch of grass wedged between matchbox houses which don't usually have sufficient parking - we wont talk about build quality... As for SH commitment... How many times has a developer reduced the number it will deliver once planning has been approved?

Everyone talks about Maggie selling off the family silver, but what do you call flogging the green belt and concreting farmland while pretending these homes are affordable? That’s not selling the silver, it selling the whole damn house! People need to wake up and smell the roses.

They’re paving over farmland and setting us up to depend even more on overseas food. If you cannot feed yourself a country you have to accept the price someone is willing to offer you = Food price inflation

It's one big ponzi scheme and Labour are hoping no one reads the small print until its too late.

If is important to you that tax payers have nothing to do with SH, that ok.

I will live in the real world.

I mean a buggy just has to be carried upstairs, it’s what all private renters do. Most private housing is unsuitable for modern living but we have no choice but to opt for what we can afford. I moved in August from a 2 up 2 down, no garage, small courtyard, zero storage, narrow hallway. This is with 2 small children and the resulting prams/buggies. I recall another Mumsnetter with 3 DC in a privately owned small 2 bed flat, no external storage.

We’re not living the high life by any means but I get the impression anyone who claims benefits or lives in social housing things everyone else is rich and lives in accommodation completely suited to their needs.

That second statement is being said by people in social housing...

All it proves is that time and time again those in power are terrible at negotiating deals and everyone else suffers for it. Its the same with the PFI projects.

No that’s right. You bought an asset

In an earlier comment I said I only have use in one arm so I can't do this.

I haven't always been in this situation as explained earlier so im not someone who thinks everyone else is rich etc.

I’ve been in various social housing since the mid 70’s. I have never claimed benefits, I have always worked, although now retired, and I pay full rent of £900 per month. No top-ups here. 🙄

If I had to rent privately, in this area, I would need to claim top up benefits, so who would gain? 🤷‍♀️

£900 for what type of accommodation and where?

Absolutely. 🙄🙄🙄😂

Two bed flat in a good area in London/NW Kent area.

Thank you, if that poster had taken the time to read my other comments she might not have spoken to me so rudely and condescendingly.

I don't think anyone in SH has said the tenants are wrecking the properties. I've said that the houses are shells when you move in, but that is not the fault of past tenants, that's down to the common HA policy of ripping out all flooring, wallpapers, soft furnishings, curtain poles, etc, even if they've just been replaced.

My HA is better than some about this, as they will leave things they deem to be "in good condition," but that is subjective and seems to mean they'll leave it if the person doing the report on what needs doing likes it. The carpet left in my bedroom was not in good condition at all. It was threadbare in some places, but the vinyl they ripped out of the kitchen was fine when we viewed the property; it was dated and scuffed in places, but given that I already had the expense of flooring out the rest of the house, it would have sufficed. The wallpaper and fireplace they ripped out of the living room were also fine, dated, old-fashioned, and slightly worn, but a whole lot better than bare, half-skimmed walls. God only knows what they thought was wrong with the grass in the back garden, or why that warranted being ripped out.

I can't honestly see how this would work in practice. Someone who lives in social housing could earn enough in any random year to take them over the threshold,but then the following year their income could drop,or they could lose their job for a variety of reasons,through no fault of their own. Then what happens?

The tories did try this, it was called pay to stay, it was scrapped quite quickly after it was introduced because it wasn’t worth the hassle and there was no cooperation to implement it.

But why couldn't they used that money to buy properties which were already built I wonder?

Land prices have to be factored into the cost though, HA's have to be able compete with private developers, which surely they could do easily if they are holding so much cash as you say they are?

They do use it to buy second hand properties but that isn’t a very big or robust market.
we have a housing shortage. There really aren’t that many to buy.

a few years ago buying pubs and converting/ demolishing them was popular- now all the pubs are gone so it’s mainly stopped 😂

when people live in properties they think they’ll last forever, that they’ll always make money. That they always have value.

When they’re business assets you look at them differently- who wants to buy a load of end of life assets? they are likely to need retrofitting to meet compliance standards, need new components, they’re often complex buildings etc….

Some do. Thirteen Group buys and renovates old houses, and they also build new affordable homes that are actually affordable to locals.