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.

Products such as health insurance, income protection, life insurance etc are all at the added expense of the mortgage holder. More responsibility is put on mortgage holders when they already face great expense (middle earners). Do you think people with a mortgage have a magic money tree? Your attitude kinda stinks and is unempathetic to those of us who face great costs.

Interest only isn’t great either nor is a mortgage holiday. They are good temporary fixes I agree - but it’s still at expense of the mortgage holder.

These are not benefits provided by the state. We are just completely self-sufficient. We pay taxes, but we aren’t really protected. UC or HB won’t cover our mortgage.

But why do you believe you should be entitled to have the government pay for an asset that you will fully own and could potentially profit from down the line?

You already have exactly what you say you don't have, which is safe and secure housing and a safety net if you need it.

You cannot honestly believe that other taxpayers, including many who could only ever dream of owning their own home, should pay your mortgage for you if you lose your job? not just pay enough so that you don't lose your home (because that support is already there), but to pay towards the cost of you eventually owning it?

But why do you believe you should be entitled to have the government pay for an asset that you will fully own and could potentially profit from down the line?

the same could be said for right to buy!! Why do they get that for essentially next to nothing?

I may never fully own the property that I am in - also I pay a lot in interest.

I am sorry but I don’t agree with you that it’s a safe and secure housing. As previously said - if anything happens to myself and my DH in terms of our jobs or our health, then we are screwed. This is before we even have kids.

On another thread, a pp explained it well in that, a lot of us are paying for very expensive housing AND paying loads in tax and NI etc while not being able to afford children or the amount of children we want, while those in SH or AH can have as many as they like.

I am not expecting the government to pay for my house btw @Frequency its our responsibility - I am merely highlighting the unfairness and injustice of the SYSTEM.

Again, mentioned previously that the SMI loan - which you pay interest on - isn’t comparable to housing benefit.

@LikeWhoUsesTypewritersAnyway You didn’t read my post with any comprehension at all. Did you really think I’d asked for a council house?!

The ignorance in the post is startling. .

A lifetime tenancy on a SH property with subsidised rent is a unique benefit that has no comparison. Home ownership is far more expensive and risky in comparison.

Look at the previous three years and compare someone that was allocated a SH property with a lifetime tenancy and someone that has bought a property on a comparable property. The home owner will have paid much more money to live in their home, have probably had to remortgage and face even higher payments and probably seen the value of their property plummet and will be in negative equity. They will have paid very little of the principle sum of the property (assuming they don't have an interest only mortgage), paid stamp duty and conveyancing costs and paid an awful lot of interest. They also will be responsible for any maintenance required on the property and if they lose their job (reasonably likely in this current environment) then the government at most will step in and loan them money for the mortgage which would have to be repaid with interest. Meanwhile the SH tenant can pay their subsidised rent without such concerns, often relying on HB to cover some or all of the cost. It's shocking how you can't see why people are angry!

Home ownership is a choice. A choice which is not affordable to many.

Sorry, but I have the same amount of sympathy for homeowners having to pay their own mortgage as I would have for someone on benefits whining that they cannot afford the HPI on their brand new Ferrari.

No one forced OP to get a mortgage; if it was that risky, she could have rented privately or applied for social housing. The fact that she didn't surely proves that there are benefits to owning your own home.

Ditto the "expense" of earning a higher income. No one forced OP to get a well-paid job. If she's finding it that hard, she is well within her rights to quit, sell her home, and go and get a job at McDonald's instead.

But she did buy her own home, she did get a well-paying job because she knows full well that there are benefits to this, and now she is stamping her feet and whinging because she thinks someone is getting something she's not. It's childish and entitled.

The “value” of our house has grown by around half a million since we bought it. All unearned, tax free money. Whereas my counterpart living in social housing has no capital and will be paying rent for the rest of their life. Why would I be angry?

Oh god, this is such an ignorant response it’s shocking how you cannot see it.

“No one forced me to buy a house, I could rent.” Private renting is even worse! How can you not see that someone like myself is stuck between a rock and a hard place? Not to mention that I live in the very crowded South East of England. And no, before you say it, I cannot move as all of my support system is here and I’m looking to start a family. Compared with someone in SH or AH, my circumstances are far riskier and more stressful to navigate. Your ignorance is showing.

“No one forced me to buy a house, I could rent.” Private renting is even worse!

Yet, you are happy to force social tenants who work to better themselves into he private renting market?

Whereas my counterpart living in social housing has no capital and will be paying rent for the rest of their life.

No, not necessarily. That person, upon retirement, may be eligible for housing benefit, which can cover all or some of that (subsidised) rent.

tax free is an interesting way to look at it - what about stamp duty when you buy and sell and if you pass away, there is inheritance tax. If you rent your house as a business, then you have capital gains tax, so I wouldn’t agree that it is tax free.

the unearned bit I agree…

Sorry, where did I say that?

The profit is tax free. We can leave the kids £1 million free of inheritance tax and that’s more than the value of the house. It’s entirely tax free. There will never be a penny of tax paid on it.

🤨

I know. Bloody annoying, isn’t it? I don’t think it’s fair either.

I couldn’t comment really as I’m not a tax expert. However, I do agree re the huge profit. My mum’s generation (assuming you are apart of it too) have massively lucked out.

I can’t say the same for my generation if I’m honest, it’s really turbulent. We enjoyed a couple of years of low interest rates, and now it’s shot up. Very squeezed. Happy for your kids tho.

RowsOfFlowers · 26/06/2025 08:07

Agree, but how is this helping the housing crisis as such as well? Social housing should be for those who need it. If you’re then in a position to buy or rent, then that you should do.

When did you buy your house out of interest?

Have you factored in stamp duty, inflation and interest payments (including inflation here too)? As an example, house prices have risen around 95% on average in the past 20 years. However inflation has risen by 75% in terms of goods and services. Combine this with any interest you have paid over the period of ownership then you could quickly find that your so called 'profit' isn't a real profit at all and you have actually lost money.

Bought in 1999. It’s made 400% profit. Despite your usual convolutions to prove black is white, we had to live somewhere and if we hadn’t made mortgage payments we’d have paid rent with nothing to show for it. However you look at it, buying rather than renting is the best financial decision if it’s possible.

Privately renting, comparatively yes it’s better to rent (if you can afford the deposit - £61k on average now, £11k in 1999 and repayments on 4 or 5% interest now with the average price of a house now £270k) but the picture is complicated when you’re renting in the social housing sector, as evidenced in this thread.

It makes no difference which sector you rent in. Rent payments are for ever. Mortgages get paid off and you own an asset at the end.

Well, some people on this thread think otherwise! And that social housing should be for life, but thus the housing shortage for vulnerable people continues!

lively and interesting thread topic isn’t it?

It certainly does make a difference. You have a degree of security when you’re a mortgage payer, which you don’t have when you’re privately renting and living in someone else’s property. But you have even more security in social housing. And no, as I said earlier, rent payments aren’t necessarily forever.