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.

Oh well if your HUSBAND said so, then it must be absolute concrete FACT.

All the LOLz. 😂 This thread is pure unadultered prime peak batshit. Imagine needing your husband's opinion to try to back up your own argument. And if HE agrees then that means your opinion is obviously right! How embarrassing. Having to get a man to back up your opinion!😬

.
YES OPINION!

And of course private let is quite a bit more than social housing.

WE ALL KNOW THAT.

But the horrifically high private lets make social housing rents APPEAR cheap.

THEY ARE NOT!

Seriously, this is like trying put the sun out by pissing on it!

.

NO. It. is. NOT. Not all of it!

AND.

MANY. SOCIAL. HOUSING. TENANTS. PAY. TAX!!!!!!!!

I will tell my friends neighbour to quit her NHS job and find something else so shes not being "subsidised" Im sure that will help.

I wish so much that this myth that social housing is subsidised would die a death. The only rent that’s subsidised is that paid by recipients of housing benefit - and most of those are in private rentals.

THANK YOU @Blossomtoes 👏

You’re welcome. 😊

The right to buy is simply wrong in the current format, there should be no discount at all. Just because you've rented something doesn't mean you should get a discount.

The discount system leaves the housing provider short because they have to build a new property at today's land prices.

It might seem harsh but but what I'm saying is a lot fairer than a system that rewards some renters who live in a council house while other private renter's have no such right. Those that buy a house a full price are also losing out.

I'm pro state rental but we can't have a system that is using tax payers money to build social housing and then to give homes at a huge discount to those that live in them. If they can afford to buy then go out and buy one.

I never suggested that people shouldn't be subsidised, just that you can't benefit from being subsidised and then pontificate about why someone who can't access the same subsidised housing as you would take the risk of getting a mortgage.

It is defacto subsidised. You have to account for the cost of capital and true cost of building to calculate how much it is subsidised by. A council could sell a house they own and put the money in a bank account that will earn 5% hassle free. This is almost certainly more than the return they get on renting the house to a SH tenant, especially when you account for all the additional costs association with owning and maintaining property. So the tax payer is losing out on money that could be made from this capital because it is being used for SH. This is the definition of being subsidised.

What about old housing stock surely they would have been paid for many years ago?

The Council then has a lot of money (i.e. equity) trapped in the houses that will be delivering a relatively low level of return. There is an opportunity cost to this. There are over 100 council houses worth over £1million. Imagine how much money the councils that owned these houses could make if the houses were sold and the money invested. This is all money that could help plug budget deficits and provide vital services.

If ppl want my sauna of a flat so fucking badly they can fucking have it.

They receiving some rent.
If sold and people end up private renting but claiming housing benefit for 2x as much then any gains are cancelled out

Well @Bumpitybumper you will be pleased to know you havent had to subsidise me having a shower installed as i still have the 1980s bathroom including just a bath with two taps as in no mixer tap. Means using a HELL of a lot MORE water though especially during a heatwave but...........thems the breaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES, let's sell ALL the social housing, so there is fuck-all left, and millions of people will be homeless. Let's put this to Parliament. What a stellar idea. Give @Bumpitybumper an MBE! 🏅

Gosh, a few posters on here really DO want people suffering, miserable, and in hardship don't they? Imagine being that full of bile that you wish so much discord, and misfortune on people who have done nothing to deserve the vitriol aimed at them, other than have the temerity to GASP! be not finanically well off!

Exactly! Each social housing property yields around £5000 to £6000 a year rent (on average) so 10 years worth of rent gives them £50,000 to £60,000. Often on homes that were paid for 35-40+ years ago. Go figure! These councils and housing associations do fucking well on rents. As I say on many houses that have been paid for since the 1980s/early 1990s (and some were paid off by the the 1970s or earlier!)

If you’re so envious, I suggest you get yourself into social housing.

I work for a local authority - happy to take you through exactly just what being housed entails (trust me when I say you won’t like it)

Im happy to swop where i am for where she is

I doubt they would cope with temporary accommodation. The conditions etc.

This is already the case, and as it should be. The article is really misleading. The issue is the social housing being sold off, and there not being enough of it. That’s not the fault of social housing tenants. Direct your ire at the people in charge and press them to stop “right to buy” and increase the investment in social housing.

This has always been a thing. Assured lifetime tenancies. I think only some areas do the five year fixed term.

And they don't get to " hand it down" as an asset! They get one succession. If two householders have lived there and one of them passes away, the tenancy going to the other person is counted as that succession. If a single person is living there, no succession. I don't know why anybody would begrudge anybody that.

I think those of us well out of the social housing system should be incredibly grateful we are, and leave the people who have to rely on it alone. Councils and housing associations are on their knees, managing lack of funding, overwhelming demand and no housing stock. And social housing tenants rely on those organisations for the standard of their home. That, amongst some really shitty pockets of asb at times, It's really not the easy street people think it is.

What if I don't want subsidise people like you?

75% of the tax I pay which is dedicated to housing costs benefits private ownership, 25% is for social housing.

Who-gets-most-from-the-tax-payer-R2.pdf share.google/EkmedSM7e62Kfqp9q

Except I never suggested this. I was simply explaining that all SH is to some extent subsidised. We don't have infinite public money so tying up so much capital in SH delivering a low level of return will mean we have less to spend elsewhere. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the wrong thing to do but many on this thread seem to think that SH isn't subsidised and therefore doesn't exist at the detriment to other things.

I suggest you reflect on the vitriol in your post and why you're unable to have a sensible, reasonable discussion about this issue.

I'm not envious. I'm simply explaining that SH is indeed subsidised by the tax payer. For this reason we all have a stake in how it is allocated.

Also the waiting list for SH suggests that for many it is the best option. That is the problem. I don't want or need SH. My concern is about those who desperately need it and can't access it due to lifetime tenancies.

That report is wrong about almost everything. The government no longer operating the Help to Buy scheme and lots of their efforts are focussed on helping low paid FTBs and key workers afford housing in London.

They also have misrepresented how SH is indeed subsidised, especially in London. They haven't mentioned cost of capital or investment cost because it doesn't suit their agenda. Having money tied up in housing costs the council money unless the tenants are paying a high enough rent that it matches what that capital could achieve elsewhere. It is likely in London that the accommodation is worth a lot of money if sold so that would be a lot of equity tied up in someone's home where they are probably paying a relatively small rent. I honestly think reports like the one you have linked should be banned as they spread misinformation and imply that SH can be easily built and scaled at no cost to other public services when this simply isn't true.