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.

🤦🏽‍♀️ 🤦🏽‍♀️

It absolutely is coming out of government money, and it’s also being cross subsidised.

Long-Term Economic Benefits of social housing:

Our research shows that building 90,000 social homes and providing people with a stable, affordable place to live would generate £31.4bn in societal benefits through:

Higher employment – £8.9bn

A stable home helps people to get and keep work, and reduces the long-term scarring effect that being homeless or in insecure housing can have on employment prospects, generating £8.9bn for the economy and a further £3.8bn in tax revenue.

Lower benefit costs – £3.3bn

Due to higher employment, yearly benefit claims would be cut by £1,218 per household, generating £3.3bn in savings over the long term.

Improved healthcare – £5.2bn

On average social homes have fewer health hazards and stable homes are linked to better wellbeing, generating £5.2bn through NHS savings.

Reducing homelessness – £4.5bn

More social homes would mean fewer people living in temporary accommodation and requiring homelessness assistance, saving local authorities £4.5bn.

Reduced crime – £3.1bn

People in inadequate housing are more likely to experience crime. Social homes lead to fewer police callouts and reduced cost of crime, generating savings of £3.1bn.

Better life chances for children – £2.7bn

Unstable homes can harm children by disrupting their education, which leads to lower economic contributions, increased crime, and greater use of public services. Reducing these disruptions would generate £2.7bn in savings.

Building social housing generates long-term economic benefits, including reduced housing benefit costs, increased employment, and improved health outcomes, and a better quality of living. These benefits can offset the initial investment, making it a worthwhile use of public funds on the occasions housing associations receive public funds.

Mic drop.

Thank you and goodnight.

https://www.housing.org.uk/resources/the-economic-impact-of-building-social-housing/

😂😂

What has this got to do with being subsidised though?

There are lots of benefits yes (for balance).

Btw, I am not intending to stigmatise those in social housing, I just think the system (e.g. allocation and management) needs review.

Look at the savings. More than £8 billion in housing benefit and temporary accommodation costs.

That’s great

It’s not that social housing tenants are being subsidised, as such, but they are not paying MARKET rents. In London I saw a calculation about how much of a winner a social-housing tenant was over a private renter and the gap was huge.

Also people often trumpet about homeowners who have made vast sums. Well, a) until you’re dead that house isn’t worth nowt because you’re living in it and b) increasingly homes have been bought at huge expense with giant mortgages by ordinary people. Where I grew up a 3-bed 60s box now costs £500k.

Also all those good things about social housing just posted upthread - well, doesn’t more beget more? If you build 10 million social houses 20 million will join the list.

I don’t agree they should be means tested after acquisition. But i think allocation needs an overhaul as atm it is clearly not fit for purpose. A friend’s just-moved-in neighbour owns a house in Eastern Europe. If I applied for a council house they would rightly tell me to sling my hook as I already own one here. Who is doing any due diligence?!

That makes me so cross! People are abusing the system.

You genuinely think you should be allowed to ask for a social housing property when you own a house? You would be really be surprised or annoyed if they refused you? Words fail me!

Absolutely baffled. This thread gets more batshit every time I look at it.

And yes, social housing tenants pay much less than private rent. That's a given and has always been. They still pay quite a decent amount though. Some people just THINK social housing rents are low because of exhoribitant private let prices make them APPEAR low.

I know someone who pays £650 a month for a small 3 bed semi. That was the PRIVATE rent figure up to about 3-4 years ago. Go figure.

And anyone who says 'meh, that's not even a lot!' Check Your Privilege!

@RowsOfFlowers

That makes me so cross! People are abusing the system.

No-one is 'abusing the system.' 🙄 For goodness sake! Why do you (and several others) seem so angry about some people - many who are not on a high income and never will be - having decent, affordable social housing, and a good decent quality of life because of it?

Maybe you should read through that list of ADVANTAGES of social housing, and the fact that all the benefits to it offset any costs. (And most of it has been paid for many years ago anyway!) I know it doesn't suit you to read it, (and believe any of it!) as it doesn't suit your agenda, but maybe just give it a go eh?

Maybe, just MAYBE it might sink in that social housing tenants are not your enemy. They are just decent people, many on low income, who just want a warm safe home they can rely on and never have to worry about being throw out of. I can't get my head around anyone who resents people for this. Blowing out someone else's candle won't make yours burn any brighter.

I am definitely out now, and am hiding the thread. Some posts on here are making my blood boil!

Parole have been abusing the system since forever, because they can. Pretending they don’t helps no-one.

people which includes those high earner scumbags living in social housing when they shouldn’t be, as mentioned in that Telegraph article.

It always baffles me how much people know about their neighbours' and acquaintances' financial situation. I don't even know what my family earns, much less how much they do or don't get in benefits.

My mum has a Syrian neighbour. She knows for a fact the government bought him a Range Rover because he works in he same warehouse as my neighbour and my neighbour can't afford a Range Rover, he has to work in her local pizza shop 2 nights a week to top up his wage
She's not wrong about where they both work. I was talking to my mum's neighbour a few weeks ago, and we got onto the topic of work because I'd just started a new job. He does indeed work in the local Amazon warehouse as a senior infrastructure engineer. He has a degree in computer science and is a CCNP-certified network engineer.

I don't think the reason one of them can afford a Range Rover and the other cannot is because one gets more money in benefits due to being Syrian.

Sounds like you’ve got a chip on your shoulder.

Did you actually read the post that I replied to? Having a house in another country shouldn’t allow you to be able to get social housing in another when there are MILLIONS in temporary housing or homeless in their own country.

Also there are different types of social housing. There is social housing which is for low to no income, there is affordable housing (AH) which is either 40% or 80%.

“It typically involves homes offered at below-market rates, often through government-funded or supported programs.”

You do realise that private rentals are priced at that rate due to the economy / market. Some are over-inflated, yes… you could even argue that the housing market in general is inflated, but that’s how inflation works due to supply and demand. There isn’t enough housing stock in the country in general. So SH and AH are still below market rate.

I think your blood is boiling for the wrong reason. It seems again you think I am stigmatising those in SH - which I repeat, time and time again, I am not. I am critical of the system in this country.

So maybe instead of unnecessarily getting up in arms, you can leave this thread, or stop spouting out the same things. Social housing is below market rate, the end.

I wouldn’t mind living in a safe and secure home either - but I have to work hard, and long hours to be able to pay my bills and my mortgage. I spent a long time saving for a deposit for my home too, often working 2-3 jobs at a time. Yes, I am angry it is not a level playing field, and I still maintain my point that the middle classes get a bad, bad hand in this country. We qualify for nothing, and if we want or need anything else, we have to work harder. It isn’t fair, and I wish there was more support for people like myself, my friends and family, and other people in a similar position.

Low income jobs are and can be hard work as well, but it’s not the same level or type of stress safe in the knowing that they won’t lose their home at the end of the day 👍

Tell me you've never struggled on NMW as a family without telling me you've never struggled on NMW as a family.

I've tried all sides of the coin, unemployed and on benefits when I first left DH, employed on NMW as a single mother, employed on a decent, professional wage.

I promise you, the more you earn, the easier life is. The people struggling on UC and housing benefits are not better off than homeowners, even homeowners who've overstretched themslves on their mortage and are now looking to shift the blame for the poor financial choices to people less fortunate.

I promise you, the more you earn, the easier life is. The people struggling on UC and housing benefits are not better off than homeowners, even homeowners who've overstretched themslves on their mortage and are now looking to shift the blame for the poor financial choices to people less fortunate.

That’s a simplistic and binary picture you’re painting, which isn’t helpful. I can imagine that there is huge comfort knowing that you have secure housing for the rest of your life and that if you can’t pay your rent the state will step in. And you may pass down your council property to someone because of the succession process.

I agree.

It's basically yet another "benefit" for the lucky minority.

ALL benefits need to be means-tested and only provided to those who NEED them, not those who "want" them or those who've been lucky in the past.

Exactly, it's baffling to me that this thread can have so many posters on the one hand claiming that nobody would want to live in SH with UC/HB paying the bills and then on the other hand lots of posters claiming that anyone that complains about the situation is jealous.

The reality is often somewhere in the middle. People hate to admit it but life can be much easier relying on the state than trying to be totally self sufficient (or as self sufficient as possible). Yes, you may well never get access to the finer things in life but you often have security and 'enough' to manage. Some people will actively choose this and shy away from more stressful but higher paid jobs or taking on more hours at work. We see threads where people basically admit this on a daily basis. In the context, there is a sense of jealousy and to some extent injustice attached to those that took the easier path and have benefitted from it. I think this is especially true for those that feel they have sacrificed a lot to try and make something of themselves but they have ended up no better off financially (and potentially worse off) than those that didn't even try. This is completely normal and easy to understand. We instinctively feel like hard work and sacrifice should be rewarded.

The state steps in if people can't pay their mortgage because of unemployment to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds.

Also, council tenants can be evicted if they don't pay their rent. They are in exactly the same position as homeowners, in that respect, except they don't get a very valuable asset at the end of it all.

Being on Universal Credit won’t pay your mortgage, though. Homeowners aren’t entitled to housing benefit, which was discussed earlier in this thread. So, no, it’s not the same at all.

“They are in exactly the same position as homeowners.”

Absolutely not!! To say they are is laughable and quite frankly insulting.

Thank you @Bumpitybumper @Badbadbunny @mylovedoesitgood

You’ve basically summarised everything I’ve been thinking / feeling.

It’s the security of social housing that I envy.

If I lose my job tomorrow, my DH and I are in trouble. We’ve recently bought our house, so we are now trying to build our savings pot back up. It’s stressful, and yes, we do get some luxuries (at times) but we have to work hard, hard, hard for this. We both have two jobs. Our pay is eaten up by mortgage, council tax, food, tax etc. All whilst paying taxes and supporting others who do not work at all.

Also I don’t think those in SH or AH are affected by things like interest rates (cheers Liz Truss). They are safer. It just feels like hard work & stress isn’t actually worth it at this level tbh. I only relate to people in a similar position to me. Those that are wealthy have a cushioning, and those in receipt of a benefit (social housing or affordable housing is a benefit) have cushioning too!

I don't understand why people believe there is no support for homeowners who lose their jobs. That's simply not true.

https://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/remortgage/unemployment-how-to-manage-your-mortgage-if-you-lose-your-job/

There is insurance, mortgage holidays, and government support.

If you have a mortgage and have opted not to take insurance, that's your problem, not social tenants'.

where was I blaming social housing tenants @Frequency ?