Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to not want to wait for a council house anymore?

136 replies

StuckInTheMiddleWithYou · 09/05/2010 08:19

I've name changed for this.

To cut along story short, I've been stuck living with my mother for the last five years after I was left destitute by divorce.

I've tried to move out but my employment status has made this difficult.

Two years ago I met a lovely man and we have been planning to move in together ever since. We were even TTC for awhile last year.

My Mother and I are close to killing each other. My DP thinks that we should wait for the council to house us - have been trying to get somewhere since November.

I could just about afford to rent somewhere privately. Hell, if I had a permanent job I could get a mortage!

Do I force the issue and rent privately (I hate it - had some horrendous landords) or do I slowly go mad living here?

Letting agencies will not take us due to my not having a permanent job, DP being on the sick and his terrible credit rating.

OP posts:
CheekyRedWineGirl · 09/05/2010 11:58

I'm still waiting for a council house in my home town and I applied march 2006 when I 1st found out I was pregnant with my first. Fortunatley we managed to get a flat, but when the tenancy was up 9mths later and the landlord wouldn't renew cos it was a one bed upstairs flat and cos we had a 4mth old. We had to go to the council with our eviction notice and hand it in, within 6 weeks we was offered a house and that's where we are today Councils don't rush unless you know someone who works for your local council. Wheb I 1st applied for a house with Wakefield Housing I was told I'd be waiting at least 2yrs. The day I handed my form in with all evidence I was pregnant, my old friends handed hers in (she wasn't pregnant) and within 3 months she was offeres a house. Thatys because most of her family worked for a part of the council.

As the saying goes: its not wjat you know its WHO and its wrong in these circumstances!

EricNorthmansmistress · 09/05/2010 12:15

Cheekyredwinegirl it doesn't work like that in my area - trust me.

Bottom line OP, you won't get housed. Both you and DP would have to make yourselves homeless but also not be found intentionally homeless - so you would both have to be evicted from where you are living. You would have to present as homeless and would be put in B&B or horrible temporary accommodation (think nasty tiny studio flat or bedsit) for what could be months and months, since you don't have DCs and won't be consdiered priority. Then you may, if you are lucky, get a one bed flat which you would not be moved from if you had DC/s, as one beds count as two if they have a seperate livingroom/kitchen. You could be looking at ten years with DC/s in a one bed. I'm not kidding - I have friends who are only now qualifying for 2 beds as their DD is turning ten - she and their two DSs share the bedroom, parents in the living room.

Sooooo...............YANBU. Face reality, rent a place on your own, the council will certainly help you to find a private rental that will accept you (but you will need to find the deposit yourself and get your mum to write an eviction letter) in my area they have a list of letting agents who accept housing benefit/no guarantors. Work on your relationship before TTCing as it sounds iffy to me. Good luck.

EricNorthmansmistress · 09/05/2010 12:17

Social housing is now, unfortunately, for those in dire need, not just those on low incomes. It's not right, but it's fact.

HarderToKidnap · 09/05/2010 15:17

Why shouldn't social housing be just for those in dire need? That's just what it should be for, imo.

My mum put my brother on the housing waiting list when he was 16. He had a letter last month to say that he has now come to the top and would he like to view a bedsit they had for him. He declined as he is now 27, married with children and we had all totally forgotten he was on the list. That's an ELEVEN year wait. You will literally never ever get housed Stuck, so rent privately.

EricNorthmansmistress · 09/05/2010 15:31

Personally, I think social housing should be available to those who are on lower incomes, There should be more of it, it should be a high quality and that private rents should be heavily regulated to prevent rip off landlords. I don't think you should actually be allowed to make a profit on renting TBH. I realise this would cause all BTL landlords to sell and the market to plummet, probably causing yet another recession, I know it's unworkable but that is how it should be.

But then local authorities could buy the cheap housing stock and turn it into social housing. Or they could if they weren't all half bankrupt.

RedLadyBiscuit · 09/05/2010 15:47

Most landlords don't make a profit on renting, most of them just cover their mortgages.

I don't understand how the OP has no money but also has savings

This thread is weird

smallishsheep · 09/05/2010 16:42

Most landlords don't make a profit?!
Yeah, and I'm Elle Macpherson [win]

EricNorthmansmistress · 09/05/2010 17:09

Actually, most BTL landlords make profit, which is why it was promoted as a business venture from the nineties onwards. Some may not now, but thet's due to the recession. Private rental is out of control. I would like to see a cap on rents charged at mortgage + 10% which would allow those in difficulties to cover their mortgages but put an end to obscene profiteering by BTL landlords. It would mean that those with large mortgages might have to sell rather than have empty properties but then they could do things like offer long contracts to attract quality tenants who would be happy to pay extra in exchange for security. The current system of 'whack the rent as high as possible while simultaneously shafting tenants on repairs and keeping them insecure with 6 month tenancies' serves nobody apart from landlords. If you live in an expensive area you can claim HB just to manage the rent even on quite a good income which the government shells out to line the pockets of landlords. Madness.

MintHumbug · 09/05/2010 18:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Missus84 · 09/05/2010 18:55

Manda - most places operate a bidding system now. You are placed in a band according to your need (so highest band if you are a single mum who's homeless and in a B&B, lowest band if you're a single man already renting somewhere) and then you have to check a website/newsletter every week that has available houses in it and bid on the one you want. The bidder in the highest band wins.

RedLadyBiscuit · 09/05/2010 18:57

None of the ones I know do but they have just rented out their flat when they bought with their partner, not seeking to make a fortune out of it. I would make a profit if I rented out my flat but only a couple of hundred quid a month. Given that if I sold it I'd make nearly double what I paid for it (I've lived here 10 years), I'm not entirely sure that rents have kept up with house prices.

I agree with you though - I think that rents should be capped. That's what they do in other countries - those where renting is much more common than owning property.

venusonarockbun · 09/05/2010 18:58

I wish they would tax BTL landlords out of existence. They have hoovered up all the property which should have gone to first time buyers. My DCs will never be able to afford their own houses because of these people. It makes me laugh people saying theres no profit in it. Why are there so many of them then?

Quattrocento · 09/05/2010 19:09

Actually, most BTL landlords enter into assured shorthold tenancies because otherwise it is extremely difficult to evict. Even if tenants are (a) not paying the rent and (b) trashing the property.

No-one is forcing people to move into expensive private rental properties - the rents are set by the market. You cannot impose rent control in the form that you suggest.

smallishsheep · 09/05/2010 19:13

'No-one is forcing people to move into expensive private rental properties'

Actually Quattro, I think the lack of social housing leaves little choice, and I can just see all the BTL landlords rubbing their hands with glee
The fact is, there are a lot of people who have no choice but to move into private rented accomodation. And I could weep when I htink of the amount that the councils must pay straight into landlords pockets, which is surely about 2 or 3 times the amount they would be paying in housing benefit to those in social housing. That is criminal

EricNorthmansmistress · 09/05/2010 19:15

No-one is forcing people to move into expensive private rental properties -

Really? Where the fuck are the cheap private rental properties then? I don't see us having much choice, short of moving out of the area, which isn't much of a solution is it?

It doesn't matter which way you cut it, one full time minimum wage brings in about £850 a month, in this area you can't get a two bedroom flat for under £650 and that's the very bottom end of the market, we pay £750 for an average 2 bed with no garden. We earn more than minimum wage but the govt still tops us up, money which comes from your pockets and goes into my landlady's pocket. Explain how that's fair?

Quattrocento · 09/05/2010 19:21

I don't think I understand your question, Eric

An investor comes along, works out what the market rents are, and decides that it is a reasonable investment to buy to let a property - although not without risk.

He takes on a tenant who is in receipt of housing benefit (brave man, this investor, rates of damage and default much higher from HB claimints) because the tenant could not otherwise afford to pay the rent.

So what is the issue about fairness?

I think you are saying that the tenant can't afford to pay the rent is what is unfair. But that's life in the UK where there is a housing shortage.

venusonarockbun · 09/05/2010 19:25

Houses are for people to live in - they should never be seen as a money pot for greedy buy to let investors.

RedLadyBiscuit · 09/05/2010 19:38

If the councils hadn't sold off all their council property, then there wouldn't be this problem. But there is simply not enough social housing to go round

Manda25 · 09/05/2010 22:33

If people in Council / Housing association properties find themselves in the position in later life to be able to buy or rent - should then then be forced out of their 'social housing'?

smallishsheep · 09/05/2010 22:38

Yes.
I have an elderly aunt living alone in a 3 bed house. Most of the houses on her road are the same. These are desperately needed houses for others. It seems harsh to turf people out of their homes, but in reality any tenancy can be terminated by a landlord at any time.
There should be regular assesments made of household income, as well as number the of people in the houses themselves.

Missus84 · 09/05/2010 22:46

I totally disagree - people under-occupying homes should be given incentives to downsize, but the point of social housing is that it is stable and secure, and can encourage stable communities. If people need short-term help then there is housing benefit in the private sector.

smallishsheep · 09/05/2010 22:49

But missus that's not sustainable long term. Think how much housing benefit gets paid to private landlords. And that is one of the reasons council tax is so bloody high, they've got to get the money somehow.

GypsyMoth · 09/05/2010 22:50

missus...there is an incentive to downsize,its been going years,a cash incentive

Missus84 · 09/05/2010 22:51

Yes, but what should be happening is building more social housing, not turfing people out of the already meagre supply.

GypsyMoth · 09/05/2010 22:56

they ARE building more social housing tho....a proportion of new builds has to be sold to HA's. we have 3 new build estates here....all with social housing for rent as soon as they are ready....i see them on the bidding list everyweek