Council vs Private Rent Unfair

[UnfairSociety]

Hello

I have a few friends I met in London living in a council/housing association in zone 1/2 and paying lower than the market rate. They had the apartment many years ago but now earning way above average workers' salaries, yet the rent doesn't increase at a similar rate to the private sector.

For example, there is one bedroom apartment that only pays £600 a month. Another 2-bed rooms apartment only pays roughly £700 a month. Do taxpayers have to subsidise the remaining cost of their rent? One of the couples earns a combined salary of £90k per annum and pays this much rent? Note quality of the apartments is pretty good. I hear you they would put the home as a single tenant to earn extra income from their partner and also pay council tax at a 25% discount.

I feel sorry for those in the private sector living in s*tty quality homes and dealing with rogue landlords. Housing crises are a mess in London, and those rich council tenants should pay in line with the private sector or move elsewhere to allow those in need to live there.

Also, they get a massive discount if they buy their council house.

It isn't that rents are low that bother me.
It is that people who really need them can't get them while people who don't need them are hogging a public asset.

People and children wait in desperatly unsuitable accommodation for years. You don't get other benefits for life so why should you get this one.
A home for life is no longer a reasonable expactation for most of the working population. Anyone can have redundancy etc and be screwed. That isn't a reason for someone who can afford to rent privately to keep a council house when others are more in need now

A home for life is no longer a reasonable expactation for most of the working population

Well why isn't it?
Why are we so willing to just accept a lower quality of life as if there's nothing that can be done? It doesn't have to be like that and we are complete mugs if we thing it does. The government can change things, they choose not to.

A home for life is no longer a reasonable expactation for most of the working population

So we evict them and put them on the street when the kids leave home or when they turn 18?

A lot of councils simply don't have the housing available.

In the old days pre WW2 they sent the poor to Canada or Australia, pity we can't do that.

How are they 'hogging a public asset' when they're paying their rent?

The issue isn't that anyone's 'hogging' council/HA homes. It's that not enough affordable social housing is built, and what there is is being sold off.

I live in a council house, pay full rent with no housing benefit. If the council decided to turf me out because I earned over a certain amount I would make sure I didn’t earn over that amount. Why would I be so stupid to risk losing the roof over my head to be bounced from private let to private let with no sense of security 🤔

But once people are warning above average pay then why should they keep their social housing? SH should be supplied to those in need. If people moved on to private or bought the. There might be enough SH for those who actually need it.

Because it's SH. Housing provided for people in need. If you are no longer in need then move along and make room for people who do need

This ^^
just because private landlords charge extortionate rents doesn't mean councils should

Stop blaming social housing tenants for Tory policy. If all the social housing hadn't been sold off and there had been more investment in new social housing it wouldn't be so difficult to access and fewer people would be at the mercy of private landlords.

You are directing your anger in completely the wrong direction.

SH is and never has been linked to benefits. You're looking at the wrong thing.

Why the fuck would anyone step down from SH into private rents? Private rentals suck monkeys balls man. Focus on building people up rather than drag them down into the shit.

But it never used to be like that. Council housing wasn't designed only for people in great need, it was designed to provide good quality, secure homes for the masses. No reason why it couldn't be again if we had a government who actually cared about the population.

SH isn't only for those 'in need', though it could be argued that everyone is 'in need' of a home.

If RTB were abolished and more SH was built there would be enough for everyone who needed it. It's not the fault of current tenants that SH stocks have been decimated.

One has to qualify for SH yes? So that by definition means some people don't qualify. Once you no longer qualify for a period of time you should move along for others

move along for others

Move along where exactly?

What is the criteria for no longer qualifying?

What are the requirements to qualify? There are loads of requirements. If you later earn £250k a year then I think you should no longer qualify

There are loads of requirements.

Name 5.

If you later earn £250k a year then I think you should no longer qualify

Just how many council tenants do you think there are that earn that amount? 🤣🤣

What are the requirements to qualify? There are loads of requirements. If you later earn £250k a year then I think you should no longer qualify

There are no criteria. There are points awarded based on your circumstances but literally anyone can apply for social housing. Whether or not you will get one depends on your location i.e the level of SH available and the points you are awarded. Not everywhere in the UK is in London and not everywhere has a shortage of SH.

I waited a week on the waiting list for mine. I was working full-time and not claiming HB. I earn more now than I did then but I am still "entitled" to a home.

Where I am there is an excess of rented properties so the rents are not stupid like they are in London. My Sh costs around the same, if not slightly more, than a private let would. I wanted SH for the security and to finally have a decent-ish LL who would do repairs without harassing me and would allow me ot decorate my own home.

Yeah because someone on £250k a year (or even a quarter of that) is really going to be living in a 2 bedroom council flat 🙄

Everyone 'qualifies' for SH. You can be in full time work, not claiming benefits and be privately renting, or you can be homeless. The homeless person will be in greater housing need so will be housed before the employed, housed person if there is a 'queue'. However where SH is more readily available (where I am, for example) both will get housed fairly quickly.

There is no cut off point financially at which you no longer 'qualify'.

People seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that SH is some kind of benefit.

So you agree then that at some point people should no longer keep their SH. Great. We agree then.

Our council house rents are higher than the private sector but tenants pay more for a sense of security

So you agree then that at some point people should no longer keep their SH. Great. We agree then.

Where did I agree or say anything remotely close to that?
You are not very bright are you?

Don't worry tac payers don't subsidise and council / social the whole idea is its a house for life
Not all people qualify for RTB either and some can't buy due to where house is
What is wrong is how high private rent is and the silly prices houses were allowed to inflate by under both of the last goverments
Why would people work hard and aim for a better job if they knew they were getting chucked out , houses etc they have paid rent for years on , decorated , carpeted as the council don't do that part

@aniamana labour did nothing to rectify or fix it wither when they was in power for years

@mummybearcub2022 she would have ahard job removing a subsidy that doesn't exsist and would actually have to tax us all more to pay the higher rents as some will be on benefits or the higher rents would tip them into that
Nothing like being informed is there