To live in a council house?

[mrsruffallo]

Many people who live in council houses got to work, raise their children well, and are quite normal.
A recent thread made me laugh about the misconceptions regarding council tenants. A poster actually described them as homes for the umemployable, or words to that effect.
I am in my thirties, a sahm, professional husband, no asbos, bright, healthy children.

Can I clear up any Daily Mail views for anyone?

I really don't think that all people think that - you always get a few idiots with silly daily mail opinions.

My grandparents lived in a council house, like most working people after the war, they then bought it in the 80's when much coucil stock was sold off and not replaced. It was the norm to work but rent a council house in a lot of areas and of course many council areas still have tenants who work and rent their council house and have been there for years.

However times have changed. It is not possible though to get a council house now in many areas if you do work because there are not enough homes, unless you are an existing council tenant. Even if you are unemployed if you do not have kids you tend not to be a high enough priority. Not even the unemployed seem to be able to be housed, left alone the working poor! We need more HA housing.

What I do see is a small amount resentment of the new breed of HA homes on the new build estates mixed in with private homes and people not qualifing for them because they work or don't have enough kids. I don't subscribe to it but I do hear it. For example, there are some lovely new homes on a Barrats, Bryants and Persimmion estate near me and as per current legislation a certain % are social housing. The 2 beds costs 250k to buy and about £900-1000 to rent privately and you could be living in the same house and same road as a HA tenant who gets it much cheaper/free. Now personally I am happy for HA homes to be available to people who need them and don't feel the resentment, its important to me that in a civilised country we should have a safey net but some people I know do, they work hard and couldn't dream of affording to even privately rent those homes yet they see people getting them for free/well below market rent. I can understand their feelings to a point, private housing is so expensive and HA housing is restricted so much that many people who could do with it don't qualify. The points system means in our area basically means you tend to have to be unemployed/single parents/existing tenant to get these homes. Very few people in these houses are not in receipt of benefit/have been moved from another council house, simply because to get enough points to get a house you have to be.

I'm also genuinely interested in the answers to sitdownpleasegeorge's questions.

I don't think you're being unreasonable at all because presumably all you are doing is the best for your family within the rules. However, it does seem surprising, given the serious housing crisis in the country and the dire need of some people in temporary accommodation, that public housing is available to people in your situation. I'm not saying that people in council houses don't work etc it's just that the professional earner/SAHM situation is beyond the reach of the majority of people in the country (whatever their tenure) so it suggests that council housing is not well targeted at the greatest need. I've no idea how to solve that as I don't really understand the area but I'm interested in understanding it better.

Excellent post Playingthewaitinggame

It is an utter disgrace that there is not enough social housing for the growing number who cannot hope to be able to afford private rents or mortgages. I think it stokes bitterness when people who are really struggling to pay high private rents, and have no security of tenure are aware that their neighbours who do not work are so much better off and secure.

I am in that situation now, but too rational to resent my neighbours. I do wish that the media and politicians would pay more attention to the housing crisis and how badly so many families are being affected. At a minimum they could reform the tenancy laws to allow private tenants have some security of tenure. Ideally the broadsheets would quit talking up house price increases and rent increases as good news

Both my husband and myself grew up in (really rather pleasant) council houses on small estates in semi-rural areas. Both of us had working parents (both parents). My grandparents lived in a council house too. It was perfectly normal. He was an engineer in a factory, she used to be 'in service' - a housekeeper. Again, a nice little 50s house opposite a park. The misconceptions - especially the one that taxpayers (ie Mail readers) pay the rent of people in social housing - are rife.

As to why are rents cheaper. Well, usually the council doesn't have a giant buy-to-let mortgage to pay on the property, neither does it expect to make a huge profit.

Yes, it is an utter disgarce that there is a shortage of council housing, it it Thatcher's legacy unfortunately.
I gained the first couincil place as my parents moved away and I needed rehousing.
I wasn't unemployed at the time, but it was a long time ago.

LilRedWG, my dh works in a professional field where most of his contemporaries have lived in lovely houses, had houses abroad as children, went to private school yada yada and I am very proud of dh that he grew up on a very deprived council estate and got where he has. Where you live means nothing

My friend is in the position where her H earns a reasonable amount apparently they have "considered" buying their own home but have ruled it out because hes not one for staying in a job for long and if hes out of work they "wont get their mortgage paid but their rent will be"

Problem is someone who really, really cannot afford to buy doesnt get a house as a result.

"As to why are rents cheaper. Well, usually the council doesn't have a giant buy-to-let mortgage to pay on the property, neither does it expect to make a huge profit."

But as it could get higher rent the free market - people in council properties are effectively heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. This is a good thing IMHO, but it is a bit surprising that, with current crisis and the scarcity of social housing, mrsruffallo's family were offered that subsidy.

But not many people stay in the same financial position and maybe MrsR situation was bad enough to get a council house, but now she is in a better position. She doesnt then have to give back the house, are people thinking she should vacate it to someone more needy?

Why are the waiting lists so long? Mrs Thatcher and the right to buy, I guess. Most of the houses on the estate where I was brought up are now in private hands. Mum bought hers with help from my brother and me as it made economic sense. She's a pensioner on a fixed income and is not eligible for any benefits so would have continued to pay the full rent. She was reluctant to buy as she knows there are many families who would love a Council house and need one, but in the end you have to look after yourself.

Is there a subsidy? I guess there must be, but I don't know what it is. All I know is that when Mum was paying full rent she was paying what she would have paid for a private rental. This was some 5 years ago in Scotland when house prices were still fairly low compared to the rest of the UK, I don't really know the figures now.

I just get a bit when supposedly educated people get sniffy about council housing and the people who live there. When I was growing up in the 60s in Scotland nearly everybody I knew and went to school with grew up in Council accommodation and almost without exception their families were in work, paying full rent and just getting on with their lives.

I understand that there is a great need for affordable housing but to be honest that is not the fault of the people who have been housed and does not excuse the contempt that we seem to incur on MN.
I don't think that the perceptions I started this thread to challenge can be explained away by the housing shortage, more a snobbish need to condemn those who are not like you

personally i find it is a lot of "poor boy done well" types that perpetrate the myth of estates - "Who ever though that a boy from a council estate would end up in this million £ mansion" kind of thing

My Dh works but we will never be in a postition to buy our own house

He works hard, we live in a housing ass house and pay the rent in full ourselves and the council tax ect... But we don't have a penny to our name and struggle every month.

Just becouse someone works it does not mean they have money coming out of their ears and can buy a house
For the record we were housed when eveicted by awful private lanlords who kept our deposit ect... and luckily for us after 18 months in temporay accom we were housed.
I am extremely greatful but don't understand why it needs to be justified?

It doesn't cost "the taxpayer" anything just because rents are lower! It's like saying that because some swanky private health club charges £50 for a family swim, then "the taxpayer" (whoever she is) is paying out a subsidy every time you take your kids for a £10 swim.
In fact, I would guess that it often costs less for people to pay a reasonable, fair rent. When private rents are so unaffordably high, people rely on benefits to pay them, and the cost of administering the benefit adds hugely to the cost.

No howmuch, but I suppose they might expect that she is charged a fair market rent for a property of that size in that location.

SitdownpleaseGeorge - I can't answer your first question, but I think the answer to the second is something like this:

Social housing is designed to help those on lower incomes or in difficult circumstances have somewhere to live.

In the private landlord system, supply and demand and other market forces set the price that the landlord can charge and they are aiming for a profit - hence the rent will be as high as they can charge before tenants refuse to live there. The only qualification you need to live in the private sector is an income.

Social housing does not aim to make a profit, and the councils can achieve economies of scale by being landlords of a large number of houses (large maintenance contracts, for example, bringing the price for individual maintenance down), which means they charge less than a private landlord for the same property. The rent is thus not set by the market rates.

If you have a council house AND you meet the criteria for housing benefits, then benefits will pay part of your rent. But that does not apply to all council tenants by any means.

Does that make sense?

Upwind, I don't understand your last post.

The council has to have a housing budget which it spends on repairs, and the income from rents goes into that budget. It is 'ringfenced', ie they can't spend the rent income on other things nor can they top up the fund from other sources, as far as I am aware.

As msdemeanour said, the council don't have to pay the cost of acquiring those houses (interest on mortgages) nor do they make a profit from them. Therefore the costs of rents (simplistically speaking) equals the cost of repairs, services and administration of lettings.

There is no subsidising going on there.

Also, I think you would be surprised to hear that on the council estate I grew up on most peoploe worked, some had good jobs.
So I am guessing from the tone that some of you believe that these houses should only be for the unemployed/unemployable?

You have to be on an extremely high wage to afford to buy anywhere where I live. We may be able to afford a bed sit, with 3 children, is this what you would prefer?
Or are you worried that someone moght be okay without your own mortgage worries?
We are not rolling in money by any means

And as to why we should provide social housing under a free market/capitalist model rather than banging it all on the free market.....because it's abundantly clear that the capitalist model does result in some people being priced out of the market.

So unless we want thousands and thousands of people not to be able to afford to have a roof over their heads, we have to take some of those roofs out of the free market system.

I was working when I got my council home but was judged to be a high prority by other standards.

Nothing to do with my employment status.

magnolia- I emphasise!!
I am glad these issues have arisen on this thread, it really shows how many people are misinformed/waiting for you to explain how down and out you are. I find it quite funny, a recent phenonmena, almost everyone I know who grew up on a council estate had working parents.

I am actually quite cross that it has been demanded I explain myself on here?
For the snidey bunch to decide whether I was worthy or not?

mrsruffallo - I don't believe that. I think it is a shame that is effectively the way it is these days. And I have also seen the snobbish attitudes you mention on MN.

iheartdusty - the value of anything is what someone will pay for it, not what it costs to provide it.

In my last flat I was paying £700 a month in rent for a two bedroom flat. That was the going market rate. My neighbour across the hall was in a council flat and did not pay rent as she was unemployed. Effectively, her use of that council flat was a subsidy of £700 a month. Had she paid nominal rent of £400 a month the subsidy would have been £300. Like it or not it is a subsidy. That does not mean it is a bad thing! She also had the advantage of security of tenure and decent repairs.

I do think that the whole system needs to be shaken up. The points system creates crazy incentives. I would do away with it altogether and dramatically increase the social housing available, so that every household earning less than the average income could access it.