Lifetime Social Housing Tenancies

[RowsOfFlowers]

Am I wrong or being unreasonable to think that this new policy that Labour are bringing in is very unfair?

I come from a poor-ish background (as in no one in my wider family has any money). However, my mum and Dad did fairly okay and managed to move up the property ladder (through sheer hard work and sacrifice). My dad died a few years ago and so now it’s just my mom. We never received any benefits - and now my DH and I live in a house and pay a high interest rate (thanks Truss) and I don’t know if we will ever pay off our house (if I am to have children and go part time), so we will need to downsize. We don’t qualify for any benefits either but we are in the squashed middle, so we really feel it when anything rises in cost and don’t get any help.

I feel really cross that someone can benefit from social housing for a lifetime, no matter how much they go on to earn, and then if they pass away, they can pass it down as an asset.

I have a friend who’s parents came to this country, got given social housing, their children paid it off (40% discount) and now they all get to keep a £650k house in London. It doesn’t seem fair to me at all. I feel really disillusioned living in the UK.

NO.IT.IS.NOT.

Right? So?

The rent paid is not for profit. I'll say again, you're directing your anger at the wrong people.

If you wanted a bacon sarnie you’d have to wait ages on the phone to LL, or report in about 20 characters on the portal 😂 wait for the request to be logged then assigned when you will be sent a letter informing you of delivery of sarnie on an immovable date weeks into the future. On that day you could wait in all day (don’t forget social tenants don’t have jobs 😂) when a subcontractor will arrive. Usually a jolly chap, he will give you a baked potato because the message didn’t get through properly. Also, don’t ask for any other food for about three months - weigh up what’s really important to survive as you don’t want to be seen as demanding.

I’m still waiting for the list of subsidies.

OP has said again and again that being a mortgage payer and being a social housing tenant are very different, for various reasons outlined here. Therefore, this is relevant regarding the issue of OP’s thread. I hope that’s clear enough.

But you chose to live there. If you can't afford it move somewhere cheaper....it's not the fault of SH tenants that you're struggling....we didn't decide how much your house was marketed for, whether you should buy it or not, nor, indeed, how much your mortgage would cost. My secure tenancy played no part in any of that, so why should I have to pay the price because the dream you were sold turned out not to be as good as you had hoped.

The biggest difference is that one owns a valuable asset after x years of paying £££ every month, the other continues to pay £££ a month until they die.

Obviously, there are other differences, such as one gets to arrange work to be done on their schedule, the other has to take time off work at the drop of a hat for work they may or may not want doing. And god forbid they get a choice in anything.

One knows they have a home for life as long as they continue to pay for it. The other is painfully aware that if they refuse to allow renovations they neither want nor need at times that are inconvenient for them, they may end up homeless.

But yeah, social tenants have all the fun.

And you'll be told you can't buy the sarnie yourself as it MUST be bought by the LL as per your tenancy agreement, even if you have the £ to do so.

Its not remotely clear. What does op and now me having to pay high mortgages have to do with people paying lower rents in social housing?

The majority of social housing isn't in areas that most people who have a choice would choose to live. I agree with lifetime tenancies but due to the shortage of social housing I think being able to pass it on ( except in some cases eg. SEN) should be stopped

No to right to buy.

Just because you're fortunate to get a social/ council house you get it on the cheap? That makes it just as unfair on everyone else who's worked their socks to get a deposit and a mortgage.

If anything the government should fund a set of mortgages for these properties and those tenancies work the same way as mortgage holders.

any money the council earns through social housing would be ringfenced and could only be used for buying more social housing and improving current stock

That’s already the case.

I think it's you who knows jack shit if you think that's standard practice.

It might if you buy a brand new property where the developer supplies all that stuff but a lot of the time it's not the case at all.

It depends what you buy. My first house was freshly renovated. I moved my stuff in and put the kettle on.

Both of mine were new and came with bugger all. DH and his cousin spent the first month at weekends laying the floor and waiting for appliances.

Admittedly the second had flooring but that's only because we bought it from someone who bought it as new and then decided to sell up without moving in.

Erm no. Its pretty standard to have to decorate and pay for flooring in social housing.

When I bought, I didnt have to do a thing.

Yep - social housing I've lived in ripped out any flooring etc before a new tenant move in. Even if there's nothing wrong with it.

When I bought we had to lay the floor. The point I was making you don't always get all the bells and whistles when you buy.

I've always been dubious about the inflated cost of brand new property because you do pay for for this stuff, its all part of the package but I can see why it appeals. Either way you end up paying somewhere.

I never said that was always the case? The point i was making was proving to the op that moving into social housing 9 times out of 10 comes with costs.

Mine was a Victorian terrace. The previous owner had completely renovated and her taste was identical to mine.

I agree . This is dds old flat this is how it was let. No type of flooring . They even strip the walls.

When I moved into my HA house not only did they rip out all of the flooring so I had to replace it, even the brand new stair carpet the previous tenant had only paid for a year previous they also dug up all the grass in order to bury the shed foundations (which would have been handy to keep) they smashed up.

That cost ££££ to sort out, and the garden is still not level, and I still find bits of foundation when I am cutting the grass.

On top of that my toilet was not plumbed in and there was actual human shit floating around my garden. Apparently, that was not an emergency, and it was OK to make me wait 6-8 weeks for a contractor, although, admittedly, they changed their mind on that one and sent someone within the hour after I eventually got fed up of fighting them and threatened to report them to environmental health.

Ah but you cannae complain! You're getting it for free, whilst you sit there, jobless, laughing at folks with mortgages.... 😉

I've never understood why they rip out flooring and garden improvements and pull down wallpaper, etc.

I sort of understand why they did it in my living room, which was old and dated, but why go to the expense of paying someone to smash up a perfectly decent foundation and destroy a brand new carpet?

I did ask the woman who showed me the house why I couldn't keep the carpet, but she didn't have an answer other than "it's policy." She then admitted she also thought it was a bloody stupid policy, but they have to do it because the council says so.

Many housing associations behave in the same way Its been all over the press enough times.