AIBU to question Reform's plan to prioritise married couples for social housing?

[QueenSophia]

Reform have proposed to prioritise social housing for various groups : 'Rules would be changed to reserve at least half of all social homes in England for British-born workers aged under 35, with prioritisation also given to married couples, veterans, victims of domestic violence and care leavers.'

I agree with DV victims, those with children, care leavers : veterans are also at high risk of homelessness. But why prioritise married couples over single people? I'm not convinced that's fair. I assume it's to encourage marriage which is a good aim but I'm not convinced if this is the right decision.

The literal answer to “who subsidises HAs which don’t use grants” is private market housebuilders through S106 agreements, under which they have to provide a certain number of heavily subsidised houses as a condition of planning permission. Those are normally sold to HAs cheaply. The HAs might use debt to acquire them and maybe the rent can cover the cost of the debt to finance the (subsidised) purchase price. Ultimately the subsidy is paid by the people paying full price for the other houses on the development (and by landowners etc who get a lower overall price for their land.)

It sounds like your HAs might do some of their own developments. I’m surprised they’re still finding that profitable, but I suspect it’s about to stop working very quickly. The commercial housebuilders can’t make money selling open market homes in this market so unless your HA is much better at building that Barratt, Persimmon etc (or gets free land, or you’re talking about S106 houses etc) then it’s likely to find that cross subsidy getting much, much harder. Ask your development team what has happened to build costs and interest rates over the last few years and for some examples of not-yet-started debt financed projects which they expect to be profitable, and then maybe get a second opinion from an outside party on those projects.

That entirely depends whether you’re building under s106, but granted that’s more common than using grant.

and yes, outright sale owners are subsiding the build of social housing which is the whole point (although obviously they pay market price and see no different)

Although I think we have now established the tax payer doesn’t subsidise new build social housing? Excluding the 50 odd built by councils anyway.

I’m well aware of cost pressures thanks. As you know, the significant cost of house building is the land, and barratt et al reducing their programmes does give some opportunity for HAs to win bids for land, something that was much harder 5-10 years ago.

Anyone with a reasonable position on the council housing list would be an absolute fool to choose private renting with all its insecurity, and extortionate costs should their situation improve and they can work. It would be hugely against their interests, so trying to frame it as 'helping themselves' is daft. They are helping themselves best by waiting it out.

I lived in temporary accommodation until my child was a toddler (too young to move out before that) and then after being told council would take years I looked into private renting. The other people I lived with wouldn’t even consider private renting and their kids were older than mine at the time. Maybe they still live there.

Not sure how subjecting a child to sharing a bathroom, kitchen and living room with non family members some of who were complete cunts to put it mildly, for an unnecessarily long period of time (literally years and years the majority of their childhood sometimes) makes you superior

and yet the child free were second on the list when they were discussing the possibility of conscription.

Ah yes the SH haters who dont think ppl should break their tenancy agreements and should be thrown out on their arse oooh but they can break their tenancy agreement by fixing and repairing things that their tenancy agreement says should be done by the HA oh and another one is fruit picking.

Also MN "why cant brits do the LIVE IN fruit picking jobs We have to have people come from other countries to do the jobs Brits wont do!
Posted this on another thread
"a. Fruit picking veg picking etc a lot of which is LIVE IN work. If you rent social housing you have to actually fucking well live there. You are not allowed to live away from home for the length of time these employers want you to. If you want that you will need to give SH tenants more rights! But that would also mean giving them more rights to leave their home for other reasons Up for that are we? Dont bother cos i know the answer to that already.
b. Gas safety checks fire door checks electric checks Surveys My tenancy agreement says i have to be home for these and no i cant get a friend or neighbour to do it for me.
c. the hatred there is for SH tenants ensures that some busybody would probably report the flat as abandoned if a tenant were to risk their tenancy by taking this job.
d. i have mentioned SH tenants because they will be the most likely group expected to take these jobs yet their hands are tied and they cant And even if they wont perhaps they want a life after the working day (just like home owners have You know the ones who arent expected to do these jobs instead of sharing a berth with a stranger"
I SWEAR TO GOD IM GOING TO GET THIS FUCKING LAMINATED. isnt it funny how the social housing haters froth like fuck when tenants break a tenancy agreement for any other reason but want them to break their tenancy agreements for bloody fruit picking and repair and fix stuff that their tenancy agreement tells them not to touch STINKING HYPOCRISY

Well a homeless woman risks being attacked and raped while sleeping on the street whether she has kids in tow or not

What is this long rant about fruit picking? My mother rents from a housing association and fixes things up herself. And with a council home you can do pretty much whatever you want.

But then there’s some who let their kids punch holes in the door and then demand the council give them a new door on facebook

Yes but a homeless mother with two kids would have the added worry that something like that could happen to her kids.

Just pre empting the tirade @Samanthapiggles just pre empting the tirade. You are absolutely right. With a COUNCIL home you could do pretty much whatever within reason With a HOUSING ASSOCIATION home you cant. there is a difference. You need to do some reading. I would suggest Municipal Dreams The Rise and FALL of Council Housing by John Boughton.

but upthread you said everyone should be pro active and not expect SH So which is it?

Social housing allocation should be based on need, not the relationship status of the applicant.

This is complicated too. If only vulnerable, trauma impacted people with lots of issues get housing, that housing will become unmanageable. Old council estates with young families, a range of needs all the way to my gran and granddad were livable, safer, people with more could help those with less out. Balanced communities are safer and happier.

Well a homeless woman risks being attacked and raped while sleeping on the street whether she has kids in tow or not

Studies often show that 'gender based violence' (god help us) or VAWG is the #1 issue identified by female users of homeless provision. And that is probably already tramatised women.

Did you mean to respond to my comment from the get go I only even mentioned council houses? My mother rents from a housing association I get all housing associations are different but she can still do more to her home than I can (I rent private).

There’s no need for the entitled whinges I see on my fb where someone’s smashed a hole in the door and now it’s the councils job to come and fix it. Council houses seem to breed entitled in some people not everyone obviously. If I punched a hole in my door my private landlord would be pissed and take it off my deposit.

The irony of saying everyone should look after themselves when your mum is in social housing 😂

Yeah they should that’s right. But I went on to say especially people who don’t have kids or disabilities or care leavers. Absolutely no excuses there. But still all I see is grown men claiming it’s unfair all the teen mums get council houses (we don’t) and they should get one too.

Absolutely no excuse for Richard age 43 to go get a job and buy or rent his own place.

Why would that be ironic? The poster is not an extension of her mother and doesn’t make decisions for the mother.

How my mother chooses to live her life had no bearing on me being allowed an opinion. This is like saying a child of a murderer isn’t allowed to be opposed to murder. I should agree with something just because of my parents ?

So you DO think people deserve less just because they dont have living proof that they have had sex without contraception.

I would say the vast majority of people think those on low incomes with minor aged children in their care should be higher priority than an able bodied single person. No idea why you’re making that sound so outlandish or unreasonable.

I think everyone should be responsible for their own place exceptions being young people who’ve just left foster care or disabled people with no family.
But if we are going to have council houses of course people with kids will be prioritised because kids are more vulnerable than adults. Being homeless by yourself is a different league from being homeless while having little kids to look after it dosent take much imagination to know that.
The sheer entitlement of demanding a free place as an able bodied individual with no dependents.

It costs money? It's not free.

its not free

I very much doubt that the imaginary Reform government t are going to be able to force through such changes to homelessness legislation that women with children would be on the streets anyway. I include in that their hateful and delusional rantings about evicting non- UK born tenants. It's pie in the sky. I think we should stick to reality here.

As I said:

Would you say this is free:
man I know in his fifties unemployed (long term) actually has his own council flat despite being single and childless (surprise surprise for the people who think single men don’t get council homes) his rent is straight up less than £100 a week (so less than £400 a month) we live in the south east btw.
And universal credit pays that for him.
No health issues btw

That’s free in every way except on paper. Can tell you’ve never had a mortgage or private rented or even considered either of those if you think less than 400 a month rent (in the south east) is in anyway a big deal 👌🏻

No such thing as free housing.