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?

The only reason I'm in SH is because my disabled son couldn't physically fit into the private rental we were in before he suddenly became disabled. Private rentals aren't adapted for wheelchair users.

If we were turfed out after 5 years, my disabled child would be out in the streets because only SH have adapted properties suitable for wheelchair users.

I’m sure any changes will only affect new agreements. You will be fine.

The next disabled child wouldn't be though.

I'd imagine that those with disabilities would be one of the excluded groups should anything change. Especially with no alternatives as seeing wheelchair users living in the streets obviously wouldn't go down very well.

I am confused as to how evicting people, even disabled, after 5 years in SH will save the tax payer any money. It makes no sense.

Can you clarify? What's the 40%

Enough said

I hope that is not a private rental wall. He will lose his deposit 😄

Yes, you’re probably right.

It's ok it's the brick wall at work 😂

I agree with you @RadialEffergy
There are a lot of posters in denial on this thread.

It frees up the property for someone else who needs 5 years to get on their feet whilst encouraging people to pay their own way at the end of 5 years. Over the course of 20 years each property would have housed 4 people/families rather than building 3 additional properties. Much fairer to the net tax payer, the tax burden is at world war levels for the top 10%. The situation is extremely serious for the future of the U.K. once brain and wealth drain gathers momentum, it’s is very difficult to recover.

Not everyone can get on their feet though. Not everyone is capable of well paid work, and some people are disabled and will never be able to improve their circumstances.
It would make no sense to force them on the street.
It is easy to talk abut how it will affect your pocket when you wont be the one that is profoundly affected and homeless.

But this will never happen so....

So instead people are paying out much higher levels of housing benefit for a private rental? Yeah obviously makes sense NOT. Especially if they didn't need housing benefit at social housing rates

I think it’s in everyone’s best interest that those who can work should work.

I don’t believe vulnerable groups should be targeted here e.g. disabled.

However, those single occupants who are taking up a family sized home need to be moved into a smaller property to free it up to those who need the space.

I do believe it ought to be means-tested - if you are earning above a threshold whereby you would no longer qualify for it then notice needs to be given for you to find somewhere else to live. The argument of security isn’t fair on those who really need the property or those of us who were forced to go into private rentals or mortgages. There simply isn’t enough social housing and it needs to go to those who truly need it.

In hospitals, the equivalent would be referred to as bed blockers.

There is a shortage of smaller properties in most areas. There is nowhere for the single person in a family home to go.

…..and it’s also easy to keep expecting other people to put their hand in their pocket for increasing amounts whilst virtue signalling on social media about being caring. But, really when you think about it is there anything to really crow about in acting in such a way? It’s like taking 2 homeless people into a restaurant and forcing some random to buy them lunch so you can tell your friends you help the homeless, it’s actually just quite narcissistic and selfish in my opinion. I

and especially if they or their child are wheelchair users and can't physically fit into a private rental.

Well, obviously aim for it as best as possible. No system is perfect unfortunately but I do think this needs to be factored in to people’s plans - a lot of people choose to downsize in older age or when circumstances change, it’s quite common.

I do also think the government needs to build more social and affordable housing. No government has really met the target need for this.

That is a really strange take on things. Maybe stay off the wine.

you just don’t understand what social housing is for. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

I think your last point is the best way to deal with this. Not turf people out of their homes. We just need more homes to begin with.

I don’t agree. I don’t think it’s a strange take.

I don’t include disabled/injured/unwell in this. But families and individuals who can work need to support themselves.

I’d also like the government to look at properties that are not in use. I really think housing should be one of their number one priorities.

It makes no sense to include those who are disabled though, especially if they need an adapted property and they are only available through SH if you can't afford to buy a house and then also pay for adaptations.

My son will still be disabled in 5 years and will still need an adapted property, I will also still be unable to work as I'm his carer. Nothing will have changed in 5 years and I would be far from the only one where everything would still be the same.

pp IS including disabled people though.