Discrepancy between social housing rents verses private sector rents - how is this legal/fair?

[floffy]

I cannot understand how the discrepancy between the cost of social rents versus private rents is not breaching some kind of equality/discrimination/human rights laws .

My neighbours live in an identical sized property to ours, they have the same number of kids with no disabilities and roughly the same income as our household, yet they pay 1/3rd (or less) of what we pay and have a secure tenancy, whereas we have to always wonder whether our landlord will extend past 6 months. How can this possibly be legal or fair?

Ask your landlord.

Sorry DioneTheDiabolist, I didn't make it clear. We rent from a private landlord and have to pay market rent. Our neighbours rent from a social landlord and pay subsidised/reduced rent.

I think you've got a point. Social housing should be for people who need it most. When their circumstances improve, the expectation should be that they move into private rental or ownership and the property should pass on to someone else who needs it more. As it stands with lifetime tenancy agreements where no-one ever moves on, we end up with long waiting lists and a big under-occupancy problem. Have you applied for social housing?

I agree.

I was extremely lucky to be given a 3 bed HA property when I had ds. I stayed there for 9 years. The rent was £460 per month for a 3 bed semi detached.

I decided to give it up and move into private rental when dd2 came along and things got a bit cramped.

We moved into a 4 bed terraced house and the rent is £800 per month.

When we moved we were both in well paid jobs and were comfortable enough but there have been times when dp has been out of work and things have been really tight. Scarily tight.

If we were to apply for social housing again the wait would likely be about 4-5 years for a property.

Lifetime tenancies are not a good idea imo. One of our neighbours live alone in a 4 bed the same as ours, their 3 dc have grown up and moved out. With hb she pays £260 a month for her house.

I agree that lifetime tenancies are not a good idea as our scarse stocks of social housing should be saved for those in most need.

The only issue I can see is that by removing the tenancy, we risk people being put off bettering themselves. I mean why go for that job if it means you could potentially be worse off?

It's not fair but I would say the answer is to have more social housing or rent controlled properties with secure tenancies. There has to be somewhere for low to middle income families to live and at the moment they're completely priced out of the housing market and the private sector unless they are claiming HB.

I was given a council house after escaping an abusive marriage. My dc and I went through hell and were all very traumatised. We we're homeless for 3 months.
We finally got given a house and I tried to rebuild our lives. I went to collage and eventually started working albeit for a very low wage.
Do you really think I should then be chucked out of my house just because things had improved for me? For the first time in years my dc and I had some stability and you want to take that away?

It's private rents that need capping rather than taking away the homes of social tenants.

I hate this attitude some have that they can't have it so why should others too.

I don't think its fair either or the way social housing is allocated.

I am lucky as I have my own home but for the young people it is going to be very hard particularly if they have a student debt and then want to settle down and have a family

Social housing is allocated on the basis of need. At the moment, it can't be taken away if your needs change (ie that your income rises considerably or that your children move out) but there are changes afoot, certainly for the latter, to 'encourage' people in properties that are too big for them to move on.

floffy - anyone can apply for social housing. It's not means tested so if you'd put your name on the list when you turned 18, you might have had a house by now.

edna of course you shouldn't be 'chucked' out of your house, but when your dc leave home will you still need the same size house?. is it far that another young family will have to wait years (possibly) for a home when you could maybe afford to move to a smaller private rental?

of course if private rentals where reasonably priced then there wouldn't be half as much of an issue as there is now.

So my elderly neighbour across the street. She's rattling around in a three bed home. She has Alzheimer's. She's terrified when she goes somewhere unfamiliar. The only place she feels safe is in home where she is surrounded by memories of her children growing up. You'd throw her out would you?

@Edna It's not great but yes, it isn't fair that she gets to keep her home when many others who assumed personal financial reponsibility will not be able to do the same. Even if things went well fo rhtem you have to have a lot of breaks to be able to keep your family home once you retire rather than have to sell up to release equity.

This all makes me so sad. Where is your compassion. You want to throw old ladies out of their homes because your rent is too high.

But anyway, I think there need to be more. It used to be the case that it was not uncommon for people on middle incomes to be able to access social housing. I'm not poor but would love it to be like that.

I just wanted to add that I am not against social housing and I don't think social housing rents should be increased. On the contrary, I think there should be in place some sort of mechanism to reduce/cap private rents so that they are level with social rents. I know people always trot out the "market rate" argument about why private rents are so high but the truth is that it is a completely distorted market, occupied by buy-to-letters with tax advantages, ex-social tenants who have bought their homes cheaply under right to buy and are now exploiting the kindness of the state and people who have simply hoovered up property when it was cheap to exploit the market. Add in low interest rates and tenancy law that favours landlords and you have a recipe for disaster. Nobody should profit from something that should be a place to live and housing becoming a speculative asset has caused this problem in the first place.

Social housing rent is not too low , private rents are too high , the private rental market needs to change

and they are not just houses they are homes , council house envy the old MN favorite

People live in council houses , just like you ,not some bloody alien species

Why don't you fight against the private rental landlords who are charging such ridiculous rents? Why not lobby the government to act and do something to help private tenants?

Is it because it's easier to pick on the elderly?

There is a huge problem when someone working full time can't earn enough to survive.

Tackle this. Don't take it out on social tenants.

There is actually a shortage of smaller homes though in many parts of the country. Wqanting to move poeple on is all well and good, but there are more family homesthan one bed flats and bungalows. As far as Alzheimer's goes there is good evidence to show if and when you move someone they have a rapid decline - just saying.

I don't think the problem is secure tenancy (speaking as someone who has rented private, bought on a mortgage and is now renting from the LA). I think there is a major problem with low income households being expected to pay the over inflated mortgages of their LL with no sense of security or stability. That is the real scandle, why don't we stop the race to the bottom in this country and start advocating all people have a decent standard of living? What's wrong with wanting better for everyone - it's not even about spending more money, just force current LL's to take on a bit more responsibility for their tenants and share the burden between LL and tenant.

Edna, sorry to hear about your neighbour but why should she be entitled to stay in a property that she has benefited from (by having a reduced rent and a secure tenancy) without having to buy or commit to it, yet a similar elderly person who has bought their own home in the private sector and whose home is worth over a certain amount will be forced to sell their home if they need to be put into a care home or pay inheritance tax? How is it fair that the person who sacrificed, worked hard and paid a market rate for their home has to sell it whereas the person who has had subsidised rent and security all their life doesn't have to move/sell? The whole system is so screwed up and unfair.

So you want the elderly to solve the housing crisis do you?

What if it was your grandma /elderly mother would you be happy then ?

No thought not

So if the elderly woman/couple have worked hard and paid rent for 40 odd years , that counts for nothing?

Usualsuspects - see my post above yours. I agree with you!

EdnaClouds - I have written to both the Housing Minister and my own MP. They don't care about private renters as they all have huge housing portfolios themselves and have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Nothing will change until the number of private renters vote for change on a large scale.

And what would you do with her once she's been chucked out of her home??? Cardboard box in a door way?

My grandma was forced to sell her house which she had worked for to pay for her care home. Of course I was not happy. I don't see why someone in subsidised housing is protected from having to move whereas my grandma wasn't. Also, yes, it is very sad that the elderly woman may be moved from her home but it is also sad that a homeless family may be living in overcrowded conditions when there are so many large houses being underoccupied by tenants who don't need so much room. I can see both sides of the coin and it is a ridiculous situation.