Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To live in a council house?

173 replies

mrsruffallo · 19/06/2008 12:52

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?

OP posts:
LittleMyDancing · 19/06/2008 18:01

Someone please explain to me how the taxpayer can be subsidising council housing when all that is happening is that the council is NOT making a profit on housing.

It's an absence of profit, not a cost, surely?

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:08

The tax payer is subsidising all the b&b accomodation, hotel rooms, and all the other private rental properties which are being paid for whilst those who no longer require/need council accomodation continue to stay in them.

So it always comes down to the tax payer directly or indirectly.

If people did not take the piss, there would be enough houseing for most folk.

Re-assessment is what is required, by strict criteria every few years, but no doubt just prior to that, ther will be some who jack the job in deliberately.

Bronze · 19/06/2008 18:16

Also the properties have to be built/bought in the first place and maintained.

LittleMyDancing · 19/06/2008 18:20

Ah right, thank you the devil you know - think I have been at cross purposes. I was not talking about people in social housing who no longer qualify, just about social housing in general.

Agree on the reassessment.

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:25

Now, then, who would like central heating, a new kitchen or new loft insulation? That was being offered free of charge to council tenants not that long ago.

I would have liked anyone of those, but no fucker offered it to me! I would have to save and buy my own, but then I wouldnt be able to do that because I'm alrady paying someone elses via my taxes! Funny that.

sitdownpleasegeorge · 19/06/2008 18:27

LittleMyDancing

Unless the council property tenant is being charged full market rate for the type of property they are living in, then they are being sudsidised. This is because the local council has tax payer funded money tied up in property stock which could be earning a higher rate of return if full market rent was being charged.

If I have a rental property which could earn £700 a month but then lets say I let my sister rent it from me for £500 a month, I would be subsidising her rent by £200 a month. I would otherwise have had another £200 in the bank each month to save up and invest in another rental property.

Substitute council house/flat for rental property in the above scenario and then consider that the local council is the landlord and the fact that there is a subsidy being offered and taken is still the same.

me23 · 19/06/2008 18:28

well it was never offered to me, my flat is falling apart, the council won't give me anything! don't tar everyone with the same brush.

misdee · 19/06/2008 18:29

ho hum

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:31

maybe me23 you are not in the area that it was being offered. I gather it is done in stages. No doubt you will get yours sometime for free. unlike me!

Bronze · 19/06/2008 18:33

me23 if it helps my house is falling apart too. I just hope we can get some money together before it becomes irreversible

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:33

or you could go for a private rent and pay for it yourself, if you are that ungrateful.

misdee · 19/06/2008 18:35

in a private rent doesnt your landlord take care of that?

MicrowaveOnly · 19/06/2008 18:35

Why is everyone conveniently forgetting about the capital cost of the houses in the first place. If tenants are only paying a nominal amount which covers maintenance and a bit, then the capital cost of the house (£1,000s) is a massive subsidy. In fact private landlords charge such a lot these days not to make a liquid profit but to cover high purchase price.

I understand that the tenants won't own the house so as far as they are concerned they don't need to pay for it...but that leaves the taxpayers having forked out millions of pounds on social housing with no return on that.

In the same was as taxpayers pay for hospital buildings and school buildings they pay for council houses to be built through.

So IT IS A SUBSIDY... but just one of many that society needs.

me23 · 19/06/2008 18:36

i know about the decent homes standard, why should people be forced to ive in squalid conditions. The scheme is a good one. my council hasn't got the money to pay for it. so they are going to sell off council houses to do so

gosh you are so bitter, social housing is a great thing, without it many families would be homeless.
yes some people don't deserve it I know of an actress and an artist who make tons of money who have council flats, it seems some people just know how work the system but you will find that in any walk of life.

LittleMyDancing · 19/06/2008 18:38

SitDownPlease - I think this comes down to semantics in the end, as I don't think our views of what constitutes a subsidy are the same. Suspect the difference lies in the indirect and direct thing pointed out by Upwind. I don't believe the indirect thing applies because I don't think social housing should EVER be considered to be part of the free market - and therefore could not EVER be charged at market rates. But that's a difference of opinion which I'm happy to agree to disagree.

But I think this is part of the problem - when the Daily Mail screams 'You, the honest taxpayer, are paying for people to live in idleness' it sounds rather more direct than it is, and is downright inflammatory.

I am totally in favour of reassessment in a transparent and sensitive way.

misdee · 19/06/2008 18:39

right so people who cant afford to live in a house that holds heat etc shouldnt have it paid for by the council?

my sister owns her own home, and recently became temporaily disabled, beause of this, she was entitled to having her home assessed for energy efficiancy etc, at a reduced rate. she had central heating installed and insulation put it. she got it at a reduced rate.

misdee · 19/06/2008 18:42

i am also in favour of reassesment, but sadly with a secure tenancy you cannot force people to leave their homes. round here couples who live in 3bed+ houses who children have left home are offered a cash incentive to move out, however a lot dont take them. i know of several now-older people who live in 4+ bedroom homes with just 2 of them there. i have offered to exchange my lovely 3bedroom bungalow with a couple of people who have one child at home in a 4bedroom place, but they have said no ,as they think the place is too small. well obviously it is, its built for 5 people, not 7 like theirs.

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:43

misdee - yes the landlord would be taking care of that in a private rental. Not the taxpayer

LittleMyDancing · 19/06/2008 18:43

It would be interesting if all those people who scream on about subsidies - do you claim your Child Benefit, to which everyone with a child is entitled? Because if you do, you're being subsidised by people without children. And if you don't need it, shame on you. Give it back now.

If anyone who resents paying for the welfare state fell on hard times, would you claim your benefits, free housing etc?

The welfare state exists to even out some of the inequalities brought about by the free market all our governments seem to worship, a free market that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And as me23 says, some people will abuse a system, but that doesn't mean the system is wrong.

misdee · 19/06/2008 18:44

my rent here matches my old mortage rate.

Bronze · 19/06/2008 18:49

I think I mentioned subsidies at the top of the page so that would include me. What I said was that some do need them some people take the piss.
As with child benefit I do believe we need them so yes I do claim them. If I fell on hard(er) times I would also claim. Yes I am being subsidised by nonparents but I dont think I have ever said that people shouldnt be subsidised full stop.

expatinscotland · 19/06/2008 18:52

What gets me is the people who think whoever lives in a council house lives there for free.

Do they realise that some council homes have been bought and sold privately numerous times?

Or that council tenants pay rent.

But really, like, are people that bothered?

I don't get the big deal about 'oh, he/she lives in a council house'.

So what?

I've lived in a council flat. Big deal. It hardly makes a person any different from what they already are.

LittleMyDancing · 19/06/2008 18:53

No Bronze, it doesn't include you, as we seem to agree. I mean people who tar everyone in receipt of benefits/council accommodation as taking the p*ss and playing the system.

thedevilyouknow · 19/06/2008 18:53

I dont think anyone is screaming on at people who get subsidies. Yes, I get child benefit and am entitled to it, along with everyone else.

That is not called taking the piss. It is maybe looked upon as 'clawing back a little of the vast chunk taken away from us'.

If i was in a position where i had to claim benefits, yes, I would. The difference is that some taken when they do not need it.

Nobody is against halping the welfare state through taxation, but as I keep saying some take the piss.

Those are the ones that piss everyone else off.

memoo · 19/06/2008 18:54

thedevilyouknow. People in council houses pay tax too, you know. Nobody is subsidising council housing for those of us who work and therefore pay full rent and taxs. Council housing is massively cheaper to build because the council build them on land they already own, so they don't have to fork out thousands to buy land.