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?

Social housing tenants over 60 already get priority from many local authorities to downsize into a one or two bedroomed age banded flat or bungalow. But you’re right, we need more!

I don’t think people should be forced to move if their income increases. I do think Right to Buy should be withdrawn in England. Scotland and Wales have already stopped it.

Well it’s true, isn’t it? Social housing was taken away from ordinary people. So instead of trying to punch down on people who are in social housing, keep making the case for affordable housing for the masses.

Punching down and making people feel insecure has wider negative effects on society and it’s just spiteful.

Duplicate post.

My parents bought their council house in the very early days. It was something to be really excited about but of course tenants didn’t realise the impact years later when new housing wasn’t being built. Am I right in thinking that all these years later and with hindsight, you can still buy your council house today? If so that is crazy.

Where I live, a couple both on NMW would not be eligible for council housing (cut off is £40k). Same if they have savings over £16k.

How much would it cost to means test every occupant of social housing every year? This is really not thought through...

That’s exactly the sort of detail I’m not trying to pin down here. My point is about whether some form of review makes sense when income changes significantly and permanently, not about fixing an arbitrary figure in a forum thread.

The specifics would obviously depend on policy design, local markets and protections. This is a discussion about principle, not thresholds.

Ok well let’s not means test anything at all. It amazes me how this is always trotted out like we don’t already have a shitload of benefits that are means tested.

My parents got social housing the early 1960s. I wonder what the criteria was then?

You dont have to be in need to qualify for social housing
Different area ,s have different criteria
Honestly some posters on here want social housing tenants to be on the bones of their arse.

Peoples situations improve and then what - they are kicked out of their homes and children have to move schools?

YABU

Race to the bottom as usual.

Affordable rents and house prices is what you should be going on about. Or massive wage increases. That's what the problem is. Social housing rates are reasonable, and thats what we as a society should be aiming for. Why the incessant need to try and take the little away from normal people that they may have that makes life bearable?

The threshold, btw, would have to be alot higher than you would like. Weve recently got a lovely 3 bed house after many, many years of struggling with private rent. And we have a fairly decent income in comparison with minimum wage jobs.

We may even finally be able to afford a cheap holiday at some point now. Guess you begrudge us that op?

That's probably for new applicants due to lack of social housing. They wouldn't kick out existing tenants for those reasons.

Definitely not. I think people should be encouraged to live in the correct sized property for their needs, eg a single person in a 3 bed should move to a one bed. Also, more social housing needs to be built.

Well a working household and 2 x FT aren't the same thing. Lots of people are single, for example. Or you might be one FT and one PT.

But really that goes to the point- there is a looooot of variation in the local rules for social housing. Can't generalise based on one area.

expensive of others who are the others ?

when you take on a mortgage it’s always a risk but one that for the majority pays off and surely you have insurance it’s costly but it’s a must, you also have the option of renting your property or selling if you fall on hard

many will claim it’s unfair you or I have been able to buy when so many are now in a situation where they can not as prices are so high, wages have stagnated over years and lenders are being extremely cautious

How would you impose ‘massive wage increases’ without increasing inflation etc? Just curious.

How does it pay off?

Obviously not doable is it?

I dont have the answers, but I know attacking social housing tenants is not where the answer lies.

That would be interesting to know.
My parents are in a council house and have been in some form of council housing since my mum was 19 (she is late 60s now, but still works so pays the rent herself). I remember when she was pregnant with my youngest DB... we went and viewed several houses. You had a choice then (80s).
Now it is bids, or being offered one and not being allowed to turn it down.

If income changed that significantly I’m sure the tenants would be making plans to buy their own home, but that will still take time to save for a deposit and get a mortgage agreed on their new salary. Not many people in the top 10% would choose to live on a council estate.

Yes, it is. There is huge demand for SH where I live.
But would OP have someone who is in SH then exceeds the criteria be made to leave? You would have to quit work or drop your hours to stay there. That makes no sense.

Have you honestly not realised yet that people will just make sure they stay within whatever criteria you want to impose at your review? This is quite the white elephant you're constructing here. I dread to think what it would cost!

Things that would help:
Increase housing supply and building more social housing (council and housing association) and truly affordable housing - more available housing would reduce demand and should bring down prices.

Re-introducing rent controls/fair rent for private rentals, so renting is affordable for all. (Being a private landlord wouldn't be such an attractive investment option - what do we want houses in the UK to be - homes for people or investments for those with wealth?)

Don't forget that those in social housing will keep paying rent as long as they live there, so although they may have the benefit of a secure or assured tenancy they will continue to pay rent until they die/move out. No luxury of the paid-off mortgage and reduced outgoings.

They built loads after the Second world war though and loads of high rise flats ,"streets in the sky "
I know nobody wants to live in a high rise now but I was reading an article about peoole being moved from inner city slums to new flats and they were delighted at the time.