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?

Pay a bit more what?
I know many people in social housing get the housing element of UC but many council tenants aren't entitled to UC and pay full rent including me. I pay £565 as that is the full rent. If I offered to pay extra it would just sit on my account and put me in credit.

In order to pay a "bit more" a tenant's UC entitlement would change and the tenant would then pay a bit more. This would happen if they earned more money and would be automatic.

I don't think you've really thought about how the changes should work. It's easy to say our current system is broken. It's easy to say 'oh I don't mean....xyz'. It's FAR more difficult to say how it could be done.. Specifically.

Most peoole probably would move if their. circumstances changed significantly ,
I live in social housing, the area is not great its not somewhere I would choose to live but its a secure home .

No. Absoloutly not. We need stable, cohesive communities, not people never ever being able to feel they can put down roots. It’s a short sighted government eho puts such a policy into play (nope, I’m not a social housing tenant) but I havd lived most of my adult life never knowing if I’m going to have to move within the next six months.

YABU. What an utterly idiotic proposal. Apart from anything else the administrative burden would be huge and the cost collosal.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. But as everything in life circumstances can and do change.
People might get a better job with more money coming in. But then the firm goes bust, children come along etc.
What happened then.
I think more smaller 1 or 2 bedroom houses/flats and even bungalows should be built.
Then hopefully someone who is living on their own in a 3 bedroom would be move to a smaller and cheaper property.

You are very rude. It is not a fair system.

So working tenants should take MORE time off work to wait in for yet another check/survey. Im sure that will go down well with their employers. There is a case in the book i mentioned above where a single parent had to keep taking time off work to allow cantractors in that never turned up. She lost money and couldnt keep up and the fucking HA who caused the problem in the first place then evicted her. How about we have a law that says the HA cant evict you if they caused the problem/caused you to lose your employment. We could call it Lindseys Law after the single parent ive just mentioned.

I’m pretty sure if you found yourself going from £22k a year to £150k you'd want to move anyway, but it would still take time to get the necessary monies together. (Not you specifically).

So what would you change about it?

I’m not pretending I have a fully formed policy solution - this is an AIBU, not government consultation. My point is about principle: when income changes significantly and permanently, it’s reasonable to review housing support in some form, not automatically remove it and not overnight.

The exact mechanics (time thresholds, income bands, stepped rents, transition periods) are things local authorities and policymakers would have to design properly. But “it’s complicated” doesn’t mean the question itself is invalid.

And I agree there should be more social housing, that’s part of the problem. Demand massively outstrips supply, which is exactly why the current all-or-nothing approach feels increasingly strained.

Social housing isn’t just about financial need. Fact is, if you need accessible housing as a disabled person, there simply isn’t the availability in private rental stock. And so you end up having to apply for social housing to avoid becoming a prisoner in your home like I did last year.

God knows we tried to find a private rental solution. But in the end we were hugely grateful to find a housing association bungalow that isn’t perfect, but at least means I am not actively battling my home every day.

I keep an eye on the private rental market still because as I say, the house doesn’t fully meet my needs, and there is nothing out there within a 50 mile radius. Private landlords don’t give a fuck about wheelchair access.

I hope to become well enough to earn out of whatever arbitrary income level you would like to see imposed, but then I would never be able to find anywhere accessible and would lose my home for nothing. The ultimate goal is obviously to one day be able to buy somewhere and adapt it properly to what I need, but that’s not an overnight thing.

Why should anyone do anything? Social housing is supposed to be for those in need. If you’re not in need why should you have it? It isn’t your house.

No, of course not.

People in SH will simply ensure they don't cross whatever income threshold you want to impose. It'll mean further ghettoisation and prevent people who'd otherwise be working and contributing from doing so.

oh yes I wholeheartedly agree people who live in council houses shouldn’t have ambitions to earn a good wage who do they think they are

or should only work in roles where there is no room to improve their finances, preferably cleaning jobs,

all this self improvement in life isn’t for them

Thats my point i would be delighted to move and if there was a massive rise in my income that's what I would do but it would have so significant to make it worth while.

It’s not a fair system. Correct. So why does that mean that everybody should suffer because you are? Before Thatcher sold all the housing off, most renters lived in social housing. Blame her and the greedy twats that bought them cheap and rented them out and built portfolios from there

Of course you are being completely unreasonable.

@EqualLedgerJay I know a couple who got their 2 bed council house 20 years ago when theynhad 1 salary on minimum wage. They now earn £110k a year between them yet pay a tiny rent.

I wouldn't expect them to give up their secure tenancy but they should be paying rent that is in line with the private sector. That way the additional money can be used to purchase additional social housing stock.

Why should they get to ‘self improve’ at the expense of others?

Our home is owned, by us. It’s our home. Our 2 small children and dog live with us. My kids school is 2 minutes on foot down the road. We are surrounded by the kids friends and local community.

If we defaulted our payments, it would simply be repossessed. It wouldn’t matter that we love our home, that our ‘support network’ is here. And nobody on here would care.

Yet when it’s the elderly or people in social housing, suddenly it’s ‘OMG it’s their home you monster’ and it goes beyond a monetary issue and into one of morality and human rights.

Housing continuity is critical for people maintaining employment and school success.

I get the impression that once UC drops away, social housing rents don’t tend to rise as fast as the private sector. Perhaps one change could be to link rents to a percentage of income up to some cap. That way people who are doing well would not face disincentives to move into the private housing market if their social housing was not truly meeting their needs.

She’s not here to blame. We have to deal with what we have now. All this ‘blame Thatcher/billionaires’ is so boring now.

How much is your income supposed to go up by @EqualLedgerJay ?

Because in the 90s you didn't need to be "in need". You could just add your name to the housing list and collect points.

Even now, in many areas you get points for being a working household. People think SH is run and intended solely for the poorest and most vulnerable, but actually that's not necessarily the case.