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.

I think the point OP was making was that SH wasn't being used for lower paid workers, because some people's circumstances are changing, they're earning loads, and still keeping their SH

@Sarahcoggles My comment wasn't addressed to the OP - so irrelevant. I'm replying to @Lilgamesh2 who actually seems to think it's okay to raise SH rents and force tenants out.

If people's circumstances are changing, are they supposed to keep moving out in and out of SH? If people do have a reasonable income, they tend to look after and improve their properties better. Who wants ghetto estates?

Most people can’t even get on the flipping lists!

But the point of a house is it is a home. That you can do up, fits with your lifestyle, something to support you. It’s not unreasonable to have it until you decide it no longer fits your needs.
Social housing should be as supportive as any other housing. Their are homes.

I don’t support buying social housing and moving on. This seems to happen with key worker properties a lot - because nurses and teachers earn a decent amount and in a couple a key worker property gets them on the ladder - and the bottom rung invariably gets sold to an investor rather than someone who wants a home.

People who get off their backside and work should be given priority - it would encourage others to do the same
Where is the incentive if those who do not work get treated better than those who do

Local housing association building over 100 homes. 70 odd percent going to Ukrainian families. Hopefully this will be short term

I do think that as part of the condition for new developments, developers should have to put in much more social housing.
The trouble is each and every deal is structured in a different way. Councils are now actively making land deals with developers and in return for their investment the council will be handed the keys (and freehold rights) to an agreed number of social housing properties.
Developers also negotiate hard and always try to push the number of properties down.

I think they should put a rent cap on London properties.

But municipal apartments as well as houses with land adjoining them cannot be more expensive than private properties. If you report an incident for councils and ask for an explanation, they will tell you that your right is to keep your council flat as it was rented to you. If there is a repair or replacement of anything on the property/apartment, you should report it to the councils. Despite the increase in the price of wages, the price of renting such a property will not increase because it is fixed.

It should be private landlords that should be putting their rents in line with social housing rent.