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?

Why do you think private renting is a step up?
Think about it if you said everyone earning over on arbitrary amount has to give up their home and move into private rent ,where the landlord could sell at any time snd you can't decorate etc ,nobody would be bothered to earn over the set amount.

I completely disagree. I rented privately until 37yo so I know the difficulties. But I also know that a race to the bottom doesn’t help anyone. More housing needs to be built, with a higher minimum percentage of affordable and social housing. Where planning permission has been granted developers need to be given a minimum time to start (and complete) work to stop the wholly unethical practice of pushing up prices by sitting on usable land.

Oh, and we absolutely should get rid of right to buy. It’s insane we still have that policy in England.

It is not so much about not wanting to pay for private rent.
You can't even put a poster on the wall in many private rents. You have no choice but to live in magnolia, and be subject to an inspection every 3 months where you get a report back about how your own books were stacked on your own coffee table (happened to my DP).
You are at the mercy of no fault and revenge evictions (I know this is set to change).
And you pay more for this "privilege".

I know private renting has its place. Some people rent a second place away from their main residence due to temporary work, or they simply want more rooms than SH would let them have. But no one in their right mind will earn more money, then want to pay out more in rent... just as some sort of moral duty.

I think the option of increased rent contributions has a lot of merit, especially if that money was set aside by the council for creating more social housing.

Social housing shouldn't just be for people jn ‘low’ incomes.

However I do think that it should be housing fit for the circumstances eg old person should move to smaller place and give the 4 bed to a family.

I think some people on Mumsnet think social housing is free

Haven’t RTFT because I work in housing and everyone thinks their uneducated reckons are going to enlighten people in the actual field.

But just a few reasons lifetime tenancies are better;

Stable communities
A mix of ages
A mix of incomes, demographics and challenges
People feel at home so they treat their home well
Community
Not making housing workers jobs involve evicting people for no good reason (morale)
People get a little more money, they’re out, they struggle, they come back. Why bother?

And that was 2 minutes of thinking. The main thing though is your cavalier attitude to people’s lives, moving them around like chess pieces, rather than thinking of them as living people who have homes. You need some empathy training.

I think that means testing the price of the rent would be fair, so rent should raise in line with household income and average housing costs in the area. Social housing is to enable a lower cost housing option where it is needed, once that lower cost is not needed then the cost should increase and the extra can then be put towards the cost of creating more social housing for those in need and maintaining the stock that already exists,

You're being unpleasant. Step away from the Daily Mail

Many working households in private rent / mortgages can barely keep their head above water with the cost of everything (despite working hard)

I imagine many would if they could
But if there are no one beds available what can they do?

Why does it have to be a race to the bottom though? Why do we have to make the social housing "standard" as shit or shittier as the the lowest possible rung on the latter.

Instead of arguing that social housing should be as bad or worse than private, why not argue that private housing should be held to a higher standard and improved security for those who have to live in it?

Great post

Tried it, didn't work. Stopped.

Govt attempted it, so my HA was issuing 5 year/6 year tenancies but its simply not a possibility. The alternative housing options are far too unreliable.

The alternative, might be setting rents amounts to household income levels on par with private renting costs. Would generate income for HAs to build more homes but as an employee of a HA I can tell you that 1) it would be a logistical nightmare and 2) it would just incentivise people not to improve their economic standing.

Council housing isn't subsidised. Private renting is just ridiculously expensive.

Or people can use the lower rent to have more disposable income (good for the economy). Or they could use the savings as a deposit to buy a house - giving them security in old age AND freeing up the social housing for the next family.

Oh God not this again.
So we get evicted and have to uproot our children to go enrich a private landlord somewhere. Brilliant.

Many people qualify, but there is not enough to meet demand. I work with families with children with life threatening disabilities carrying them up several flights of stairs whilst they wait for an accessible property. They are not working as caring 24/7 caring for their complex needs child. Where i work average wait time once accepted as eligible is 3 years for a 2 bedroom, 5 years for a 3 bed and 10+ years for 4bedroom.

Exactly! We're saying the same thing.

But instead of dragging those in social housing down, why not think how to makes sure everyone has the same? Ie affordable rents

no. you're talking about turning council estates into transitory pathways / low aspiration wells where anyone who "improves their lot" moves out. same for any inner estate schools. no families where families are doing ok to help financially support school activities. no mix of situations and jobs because anyone who earns over X has to immediately move

Maybe rent should be linked to income, with a maximum amount comparable with the private rental market.

Why aren't you trying to better yourselves by trying to buy something if you're both working? There are schemes where you can part-purchase a property if you're not earning much. Better than throwing rent money down the drain.

If the welfare state is to protect the most vulnerable social housing should be on a fixed term tenancy basis. That way the most vulnerable will have a chance of getting social housing.

Exactly. Mixed aspiration estates have better outcomes for everyone.

if you want to see why idea this doesn’t work read up on the north London sink estates in the 90s. Entire estates where children had no examples of someone going out to work.

I think that SH should be for finite amounts of time.

If you want a 20year lease then you pay at a higher price than if you want a 3 or 5 year lease

When your lease is up you can’t get another SH lease for a staggered amount of time. Eg 1 year for every 5 of your previous tenancy

I do know people who have businesses and are earning well and who own other properties but won’t give up their council house and have it worked out which of their children are going to take over the property.

I think having a very discounted rent for a few years could concentrate the mind to save and buy somewhere to live.
Longer term leases are higher but again because of when they will have to move they have years to save up whilst living in a still relatively discounted property

I think the nanny state doesn’t actually help anyone