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.

You’ve added nothing worthwhile to this discussion @MyKingdomForACat But like I said the other day, derailing threads on online forums is a classic way to deflect from weak arguments. And, fyi, right wing views are just as valid as any others. We live in a democracy. Enjoy your Sunday.

I have no problem with lifetime (for one person) tenancies. If you penalise people for earning - that would be madness.

However, as I said on another thread, what is equally madness is making the eligibility for social housing basically having nothing - no job and no spouse/partner, but the more children the better. The system is peverse in that it punishes couples on low (ordinary) incomes in favour of people who - let’s be honest - you probably don’t want occupying estates/flats en masse.

Furthermore we saw from Grenfell Tower and in my personal experience that masses of properties are sub-let. My cousin sub-let a flat in Bethnal Green from a man who lived abroad. They paid a relative who came round in cash. A young colleague had her own flat in a very nice street. She said that the way to get one was your mum said the stepfather was abusing you. She said loads of her friends did it. Then she just continued to live at home and sublet the flat.

Yeah, there needs to be a crackdown on subletting for sure. I’m not entirely sure how they’d police this though?

There does need to be reform on eligibility yep, I agree.

From this discussion so far - I definitely disagree with right to buy and think that’s been a large cause of the mess we are in housing-wise in this country.

I am still unsure on lifetime tenancy - think it’s great for keeping community together. Maybe once the tenant earns a certain amount if they do indeed progress in their career, then the cost of the rent should go up (on an incremental basis) rather than moving them out. I think that’s fair.

You are indeed NOT correct. Indeed.

No BlossomToes' is not 'dragging the thread down.' She's simply stating a fact, (like I was,) that you are 'thanking' a poster who is posting incorrect information.

.

Social housing in this country is subsidised in one shape or another, but it’s a very complex financing system. I’m not sure why you think it’s otherwise not the case and rather than in-fighting in thread, why not explain and share evidence as to why it’s not? Also I’m not saying this to shame those in social housing either, so there’s no need to get defensive. I feel like that’s why insults and fighting is happening here, and it’s not actually conducive to the discussion. We are all part of an electorate of the UK I’m sure, so it’s absolutely fine to talk about it openly.

Yeah this. ^ The constant stream of misinformation on here to throw shade on people in social housing, and the links to misleading/innaccurate/biased information is grinding my gears now.

Some people are plain and simple envious and bitter that others have social housing, and get to keep it for life, and that's just the long and short of it. As I said, how depressing that some people want others to lose their social housing if their financial situation improves slightly. They are basically wishing hardship and financial struggling on other people. As was said earlier 'blowing out someone else's candle will not make yours burn brighter.'

Just be happy with what you have @RowsOfFlowers and this is aimed at the (few) people supporting your thread, and try to be happy for others who are comfortable and happy.

I'm out too.

.

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway You haven't exactly covered yourself in glory in your posts on this thread, so yes, I agree it's best you depart. You didn't get the point (and complexities) of the central issue, despite many of us clearly explaining, and often resorted to insults, which is revealing of your character.

It's not a fact. I have explained how the SH is indeed subsidised with reference to actual economic theory. @blossomtoes has never rebutted any of this but simply just stated incessantly that it isn't subsidised in the most basic sense that the running costs are covered by rental income. This is such a small part of the overall picture but clearly this doesn't matter to you or them

Grenfell flats were sublet? Can we have a link please.

The only thing i would be able to sublet my flat as is as A FUCKING SAUNA

It’s the main part of the overall picture. It’s not just the running costs which are covered by rental income, it’s also the original cost. As I pointed out what feels like aeons ago a council property built in the late 40s will have had its original cost paid two or three times over through the rent that’s been paid. No free market mental gymnastics required to understand that.

As I've said a million times, it is too simplistic and not reflective of the reality of owning an asset like housing. One last time though no doubt it would make no difference to you:

Say your grandparents owned a house that they bought in the 1940s. They paid the mortgage off years ago. You inherit the house that's now worth £500,000. Your options are:

1. Sell the house and put the money you make from the sale into a bank account or into investments earning 5% plus each year. You will earn at least £25k per annum doing this; OR
2. Rent the house to a family in need. They can pay you 50% of the market rental which equates to £15k. You also now need to pay for the ongoing maintenance costs, landlords safety checks which the rent will of course cover in full with some money left over.

Are you subsidising the family in need to stay in your house or not just because the mortgage is paid and the house's ongoing costs are covered? What if you had other essential bills to pay and you were in a huge amount of debt like many councils are?

Money from social housing is ringfenced and cannot be used for other debts. That is what council tax is for.

Also, council housing isn't priced according to market rates; it is priced at the actual cost of letting a house, including loan repayments and maintenance costs. Just because the private rental market is over-inflated doesn't mean council housing doesn't pay for itself.

The comparison isn’t valid for two reasons which you’re conveniently ignoring. The first is that a basic tenet of social housing is that it’s not for profit. The second is that all council housing revenue accounts are by statute ringfenced and local authorities are not allowed to transfer funds from the housing account to the general account or vice versa.

Neither of these things change the fact that SH is de facto subsidised.

For political and social reasons we currently choose to make SH 'not for profit ' but this has a clear opportunity cost to the tax payer. It is therefore subsidised and comes at a cost to other services that will not be funded as easily with money made from the public equity/capital tied up in housing. Also the fact something is written in statue means nothing. Statue can and does change especially if political will changes.

😂

Yes, how hilarious.

It is hilarious. To be so comprehensively proved wrong and still maintain you’re right would be sad if it wasn’t so funny.

But that person hasn’t been proven right - it’s you who doesn’t understand the point they’re making and how the point differs from yours.

So a family in social housing. Working . Can pay their own rent due to be being lower than private rent ... the family start earning a bit more. get kicked out of social housing forced to private rent. Family now have to claim help for their rent as it's to much for them to manage.

1. the tax payer is now helping with the rent .

2. gold dust if a landlord will even accept the family.

3. landlord decides to sell a few years later. They cant get another private rent due to landlord not accepting the family.

4. family now made homeless in temporary accommodation for many years.

On another thread im on there are people moaning like fuck about how there is no community anymore. The cognitive dissonance is stark.

I completely understand the point they’re making and they’re wrong.

You have completely failed to address the cost of capital/opportunity cost point. I can only assume you either can't comprehend what I'm arguing or that you think because SH is run on a not for profit basis then this means that there is no opportunity cost. It's really bizarre!

An easy way to prove who is right is to look at the (lack of) social housing being built. If there was no opportunity cost and it was an excellent investment then the state and private investors would be rushing to invest. Heck, investors would be piling into the private rental market as this would be even more lucrative without the need to charge lower rents and yet we see landlords doing the exact opposite. So if it doesn't pay to be in the private rental sector why on earth are you convinced that SH isn't subsidised?

@JenniferBooth - indeed Grenfell flats were sublet. It made it difficult to identify the occupants. Some of those illegally subletting were claiming they had been in situ. An Italian couple - architectural students I think - who died had been subletting a flat.

One can only hope “lessons were learned” by the Council but as ever I fear not.