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?

It has allowed you to raise your family within secure housing. As a society that's an excellent long-term investment to make.

And what happens if someone loses their job?

Would their rent go back down because they now have less money? Or would they still be charged at the higher rate?

HB? 😂

I work full time. Don’t get any benefits of any sort. If I fall behind with my rent I will be issued with a Section 21 and may be given the opportunity to pay extra each month, to pay off the arrears. If I don’t stick to this agreement however, it’s off to court I go to be evicted.

Lots of families can't afford private rent. When me and DH were both working full-time we still couldn't afford private rent. Now I'm on carers allowance we have even less chance of renting privately.
And because the people at the top don't have a clue how much it costs to live on a normal wage they would probably say if you earn x amount you can't have a council house. So families would have to rent 1 bed flats and children would live in poverty, is that what we really want?
Perhaps your idea would work if private landlords weren't so greedy and charged affordable rent (which some do but most don't).

Less time than it takes to pay off a mortgage.

No. I think secure tenancies should be for life. My grandparents generation benefited from large, well-built homes with gardens; it’s positive for society as a whole for people to feel secure in their homes. If they’re situation improves financially, then good luck to them - realistically, most would move to become home owners if they came into sufficient cash.

Back in the 90’s when I got my HA flat, I had to attend an interview with the Housing Officer and prove I could afford to pay the rent, before they would agree to put me on the housing list.

I'm pretty sure the government recouped this money several times over when they started selling the properties off, so no, they are not subsidised because once upon a time the government gave councils some money to build them.

There are government grants available to councils and HAs, via affordable homes schemes and various green initiatives and home improvement schemes, so you could argue they are subsidised in that way, but many of those grants and schemes are also available to developers, private LLs, and homeowners but no-one tries to argue that those people should have to pay more for their homes when they benefit.

Council and HA tenants pay for all costs relating to their property, and in some cases, their rent subsidizes new homes built by HAs.

I agree! I have a disability, which makes me even more prone to housing instability. I wish it were an option for everyone.

I have friends in their 40s with families who can barely cover their private rent with no chance of getting a deposit together unless someone dies and leaves them an inheritance.

Why should SH be a stepping stone to private rent? Why should paying off someone else's mortgage be considered something you work towards?

Why give PIP when it can go towards the same thing?

PIP Is nothing to with social housing.

But the principle stands. Why should benefits go toward paying off a persons mortgage, be it a landlord or private individual?

No, it does not. You clearly have no idea what PIP is or what it is for.

Posters on here have literally said they put PIP and DLA toward savings, use it to pay mortgage etc - if you’re saying using public money to pay off mortgages is immoral, why isn’t it immoral here?

That is not what DLA/PIP is for though. But if the money they get is surplus, then they can save it. There are no rules on how you have to spend it.

The SH benefit should be time limited, so a max of 2 years to start earning enough money to private rent like everyone else does. It will just be a safety net in extreme circumstances when the alternative is being homeless.

Ridiculous. You have no idea how privileged you are for such an ignorant thought to be able to form in your head.

And if people never earn enough money? Or if they earn enough money for year then the following year they don't? What happens then.? Why is private rental something to aspire to ( unless you are a landlord)

What social housing benefit?

No such benefit exists as far as I am aware. I'm to be proven wrong, however. My SH needs loads of work done, and I'm currently not entitled to any benefits or top-ups.

Not everyone has a career or the prospect to earn more, and just as well otherwise no one would be doing the jobs that are vital for society to function.

I don't think having almost half your income go on rent that pays for someone else's mortgage is really something to aspire to. Neither is moving into a property where you are not even allowed to put pictures on the wall.

If you want private renting to be the norm, then tighten up the rules around it, and put a cap on the rents. But that wont happen. The rules are already being tightened up and landlords are selling up, putting pressure on what housing there is available and more demand for SH.

I think there should be a limit, I know well-off people who choose to remain in their council house when they could buy. Is that fair? no.

I think if you have a good combined income (like 100k a year) then you should give up your council house. Or, they should have to pay a higher rent. I don't know why they don't already do this, actually. Social housing is for those in need.

What happens if you live in an area where there is little to no difference between SH and private rental prices?

I paid the same rent in my private rental as I do for my SH rental.

Have you read all the posts explaining to you how it’s not subsidised?

Should there be, according to your logic?