To think housing in this country is fundamentally broken?

[BrokenHousingLogic]

Whether you rent privately, rent socially or own, it feels like the system isn’t really working for anyone.

• Rents are high and insecure
• Buying is out of reach for many
• Social housing is under strain
• Landlords and tenants feel pitted against each other
• Local authorities seem overwhelmed

It often feels like people are arguing with each other instead of addressing the fact that the whole structure is failing.

AIBU to think this goes beyond individual choices and points to a system-wide problem?

So you think the housing market is fine and dandy as it is, that the rocketing prices and wage stagnation and changing employment landscape and speed of it all are irrelevant, and that people haven't already thought of your "solutions" before discovering that the numbers don't add up?

I'd love to know which Utopia you're living in where it's that simple 🙄

I said it is expensive for everyone. That means all people find it expensive.

So my self employed DH shuts his business. Makes 10 people redundant. Gets an employed job elsewhere for half the salary.
we take the teenagers out of school and away from their friends. Away from any support network we have and they have

To save £500-£700 a month in rent.

orrr we find a house share for four people??!

give your head a wobble

The scenario you describe is something that could have happened at any point in the last 40 years. Very difficult but not just a 2025 problem. The difference being that previously people had to sort out their own problems with no government help. Why, because there was no other option.

Housing works very well for plenty of people. Those who are very nicely housed in homes they bought and paid for decades ago.
These very same people object furiously and vigorously to any planning applications for new homes (or indeed other building works) anywhere near them and make it their life's work to get building stopped.
These people are doing very well and are very happy with things as they are.

The difference being that previously people had to sort out their own problems with no government help. Why, because there was no other option.

When was this? There was certainly a lot more social housing in the past

What I don't get though is how there's such a housing shortage problem, but at the same time there's empty properties even in highly popular areas. Several empty properties for decades in my wider neighborhood, and it's very sought after area. It's in a city in the East Midlands, for context and frame of reference, but very sought after nonetheless!

The homes that are needed are the "floor"
Rental accommodation for those who will NEVER earn enough to buy.

Until Councils are allowed to build homes for permanent rent
the issue will remain.

Hi, welcome to Planet Earth…. Now go read some social housing history….its fascinating, you will learn loads.

Firstly, there are around 1 Million empty homes in the UK, of which around 250,000 have been empty over 6 months. (According to Crisis - housing charity)

Secondly, there is actually plenty of housing, but people are wanting to live in specific areas rather move to where there is affordable housing.

Thirdly, they need to look at scaling social rent. Anyone with social housing already has a huge advantage of having a secure tenancy, so once they are earning higher salaries, they should have rents that are higher. The additional money should then be used to buy more social housing.

Fourthly, no one should be permitted to buy their social house, or not unless the councils have a scheme to replace any "lost" housing stock.

Finally, they need to think about WHO gets the social housing. I think priorities should be given to families where one or both parents work on minimum wage. For those wanting a house because they are pregnant and no way of supporting themselves, we need to have "mother and baby" housing units where they have a room and bathroom, a shared kitchen and living area, then on-site childcare and support so they can get themselves established in employment or finish their education.

agree. everyone always talks about flats as the cheaper option but there really is often not that much difference! Maybe more so in bigger cities where landspace is at a premium so there just isn't enough room for lots of small houses, but in much of the country a 2 bed victorian terraced house is cheaper than a flat by the time you take into account maintenance fees etc.

Also agree that the two beds are not that much cheaper than 3 beds.
I've fairly recently moved in with my partner - he was previously in a 3 bed and me in a 2 bed. My sister and multiple friends were similar before meeting their partners and my neighbours on both sides were also single women!

It is ridiculous really that between 2 of us we had 5 bedrooms while others were overcrowded but on the other hand if we could afford it why not? I work from home so had the spare room as an office which I found really good from a MH perspective, and wouldn't give that up easily. DP used to rent out on of his spare rooms M-F, so worked out better financially than a smaller property.

One of the prospective buyers for my old house was a housing association - I sold it to someone else because they offered a little bit more but my estate agent had sold several smaller properties to them which really surprised me because while I understand most HA's/Councils have huge waiting lists the houses were over £200,000 - surely there must be cheaper ways of getting accommodation?

@themerchentofvenusShelter is a pressure group and therefore unreliable. Plus second “empty” homes are frequently where there are no jobs. People want and need jobs and homes. Are we suggesting taking away property from owners then? CPOs? We don’t tend to do that here.

I do think better off tenants should be given motive from housing authority homes. They are rich enough to buy but won’t so clog up the homes. Means testing would be sensible to ensure housing resources go to who needs it. People also inherit money but don’t move. HAs should be clear about how long tenants can have a property if they have a very good job and decent savings.

Of course you don't take property away from owners, but what you can do is make empty homes VERY expensive so that local authorities can make money from them to buy new housing stock, especially in areas where housing is in demand.

The biggest problem is properties that have been empty for over 6 months. The owners should be MADE to either sell or let them out or pay an extortionate fee to the local authority to keep them empty.

Jobs vs homes is catch 22. If they MADE jobs available in areas e.g companies based themselves in the North West/North East rather than London/South East, and we had better high speed trains, the demand for housing in London/South East would drop.

Look at the "empty" home data. Some interesting reading:
https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/facts-and-figures

The end column on the spreadsheets show you 1 in X houses empty in each area.

And when does that stop on such a small island with limited space? When there is no green space or wildlife left and just shitty new build housing developments on every square metre?

6% of the UK is urban.

The vast vast majority of the land is not even actively farmed.

The whole of the UK's housing needs could be met by putting terraced houses for social rent onto brownfield sites.
Those cheap houses would drop the floor of the housing prices
and make all other normal homes affordable again.

It will not happen though
because politicians are in the pockets of developers.

@TalkinpeaceDH was involved with developers building on brownfield sites. There’s no such thing as cheap housing on brownfield sites. The cost of cleaning up the land is huge and this affects the price of houses. One reason sites are not used is that the cost of doing the clearing and cleaning up to comply with regulations has to be borne by developers and affects house prices. In areas of cheaper housing it’s simply not economic to do it. It is in London but lots of old factory sites have been used already and councils cling to employment zones and won’t zone for housing.

Even when there’s a need for housing, local people howl at the developers because housing means more traffic, more people at the doctors and they just don’t like or want more houses near them. Public meetings are full of angry people who don’t need the housing. It’s great in theory but DH has been dealing with some sites for years with not a spade in the ground yet!

No. No it’s not. Because there was council housing, if you couldn’t afford your town, you could 5 mins up the road.
now affordable housing is 100+ miles away so not commutable, and social housing is as rare as hens teeth.

Completely this. Build more council and social housing, take those out the rental market. Give people settled secure homes they can feel part of the community.

once you lessen the number of renters there will be more property for renters which will bring prices down and some landlords will sell up which again, may bring prices down.

I live in Scotland where a lot of the remaining 94% is. Poor, slow train services, almost no motorways, poor quality A roads - there’s reasons housing isn’t built there - oh, and few jobs.

Rightmove doesn't show the true picture. If you looked today for say flat rentals in York, there'd be a few dozen listed. But try getting a viewing. You won't be able to because all the viewing slots WILL be taken - they get taken on the morning of the listing. The flats don't show on RM as "let" until the reference and credit checking process is completed which is typically 2-3 weeks. So the picture on RM is simply not an accurate reflection of the reality. We found this out when my son wanted to rent a flat in York - it took 6 months to even get a viewing and that was with DS, DH and myself all phoning the agents to try to book a viewing virtually the moment it appeared on RM - the answer was always the same "slots fully booked".

I'm in a similar area with lots of empty/run down houses and lots of derelict/run down commercial/retail space ripe for development. Nothing ever happens because there are no jobs, so there's no demand as people aren't going to move into the area if there's nowhere to work. The only "incomers" are those seeking a more peaceful/rural/seaside style of life, either retired or working from home, who come with a lot of money so buy the higher end properties, not the likes of run down terraced in the dodgy areas. There are towns all over the UK like ours where literally thousands of empty properties could be redeveloped but without jobs, the developers aren't going to do it as they'd never sell them. Of course, the same reason means that most people moving into low quality housing are on benefits so it doesn't matter to them that there's no work, but it causes further deterioration to the area when lots of newly released prisoners are relocated without jobs, so it just feeds into low level crime, vandalism, etc.

This simply isn't true about politicians being in the pocket of developers stopping building. It's the very comfortably housed local community that prevents development. Just try getting elected on a platform of saying you'll build lots of council housing. You'd have no chance.

I agree. I'm not in the UK or Ireland, but what makes people think that the UK is the only place with these issues?

This what happens round here. Mothers are placed in supported housing.

I don’t think it’s fundementally broken nationwide, there’s just issues in certain places. The solution is actually to spread the population out across the country to places where there’s excess housing and plenty of potential for brownfield development. The concentration of the wealth in the se is the problem. Where I live 20 somethings are buying houses, there’s also social housing, shared ownership etc. council list for social housing is manageable.