Council housing query

[user13842]

When there is a council housing shortage, why do Council’s not manage those living in the homes they have better? For example, I know of someone who lives on their own in a 3-bed council house in my area as their children have now left home. I also know of a family of 4 (2 parents, 2 children) who are living in a small 2 bed council flat. I appreciate this won’t cater for everyone but why do Council’s not routinely check up on who they are housing in what and encourage swaps where appropriate so that everyone is housed according to their needs? Appreciate it isn’t as straightforward as all that but surely it would be relatively easy to create a system to flag suitable swaps when they came up based on regular checks on circumstances.

I also know of a couple who were in council housing for a couple of years despite suddenly earning a lot of money and was very surprised the Council didn’t do regular checks on this to identify those who could afford private renting and move them on for those in need.

Thank you, that is interesting. Do the new tenancy agreements expressly stipulate they can be moved if under-occupied? And how do councils know that the houses are under-occupied?

I have moved a lot both as a child and an adult so agree with you that a home is less about the house itself and more about what you make of it. I appreciate it must be hard though when you’ve been in the same place a long time. It is probably much less common to do nowadays.

Who was it intended for? Why would the government give free housing unless it was to people who can’t afford to rent/buy?
As others have pointed out, they are not free ffs!
Social housing was originally built so that there was a stock of decent, secure housing for people to rent, and much of it replaced slums and poor quality housing owned by dodgy landlords. It was intended for all sorts of people, though generally families, and when they were first built, home ownership was much less common in this country than renting.
As for the idea that those on long term tenancies should move out, over the years they will have more than paid for the cost of their home in rent. Local authorities are not trying to make a profit out of their tenants, which is why rents have not risen exponentially like they have in the private market. It is private rentals that are the problem.

@Nonametonight , sorry but I think the lack of social housing does mean that it’s extremely hard to justify people continuing to occupy a family home when they no longer need the room and absolutely outrageous that people who could afford to either buy or rent privately are permitted to stay in council housing. Yes they live in a home but very many people when they get older have to for financial reasons make the heart wrenching decision to leave their family home and move to smaller, more affordable accommodation. Why should those in social housing be spared this?

They can froth. I've paid over 115k in rent to the HA over the years and completely turned both properties around in terms of gardening and decorating. I've put money back into it ontop of rent.

A family member had a council flat with her boyfriend. He was a teacher and died a few years ago. I assume they were joint tenants as he died. She was never in a job to get housed. Never a key worker. Nearly 30 years ago, she inherited £135,000. Enough to buy 3 houses where she lived. Of course they didn't. Stayed in council accommodation. Surely this is wrong? No wonder there's not enough to go round.

I private rent with my 2 year old and the whole “ high income so can private rent” mindset drains me! Just because you earn doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be entitled to social housing.

That is why some councils have stopped giving secure lifetime tenancies. But those of us that have them, they can’t just decide you aren’t entitled any more

My pensioner SIL lives in a 3 bedroom house by herself. It's housing association not council. She's also disabled and uses a crutch outside. Dodgy back! Strangely she manages to sail up and down her steep stairs with no problem. Pays for nothing as lives off the taxpayers.

She was offered a bungalow when her late hubby was alive, refused, he fell down the stairs face first and died the next month. He had multiple issues with health due to smoking, drinking, being obese.... She blames the NHS for his death. Everything about her pisses me off !!!

Her legacy tenancy allows her to stay in the 3 bed when it could be used for a family. She won't shift voluntarily.

The issue is though that when there’s a shortage of social housing, those who can afford to private rent should and that does equate to having a higher income. It doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to social housing and in an ideal world it would work as it was first intended but reality is it doesn’t anymore and those who can afford adequate private renting should be much lower down the priority list to those who can’t.

That may be the case now, but it wasn't in the past. Many of the people moving into the original houses would not have been on particularly low incomes, they would have just been 'normal' working families. It wasn't the case that the rent was substantially cheaper than private, rather the standard of housing was much better.

I wasn’t aware of lifetime tenancies until a PP pointed them out earlier but do appreciate they will honour those, as they should.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/09/uk-housing-associations-accused-of-mis-selling-affordable-homes-as-service-charges-soar-by-up-to-400?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwY2xjawI6_7xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWCzVFBp_WloLbZp70PZ2q-wDV-oSkvS_kycaWDZnvPae40eHEC2D5wUZg_aem_7cWtYWay1rYImntfCK3ThA

I had a secure council tenancy in a London borough and there were no checks on my income once I was awarded the tenancy. They made checks when I first applied but not after that. The rights of a secure tenancy are strong and enshrined in law - I had the right for a family member to succeed or be assigned the tenancy, and it could only be ended under a limited number of circumstances (the council wanting it back to house another family would not be enough - not that we ever under-occupied it).

My DSis who got a council tenancy in a different part of London years later did have ongoing checks - her council put up the rent when her income went up, which seemed harsh as she could never really get ahead.

I bought my flat last year under RTB (after 20+ years of being a tenant) as I had a lucky windfall, and was also generous enough to help my DSis out so she could use RTB too. I had my circumstances fully checked and there were no issues with me continuing to be a tenant and being able to buy regardless of my financial circumstances. It's not relevant at all beyond the initial application stage.

Not necessarily, depends on the age and sex of the tenants.

It's not free housing. Because I'm being ripped off if it is as I pay the rent out of my wages, so if it's free - where's my money going? I reckon I cost the taxpayer more in housing benefit for the several private rents I had over 10 odd years than I do now in SH. And that money went into a LLs pocket, the rent I pay goes towards the work the HA does (as well as upkeep on my place of course) in the community.

Surely it's better for the taxpayer to pay less in HB for rent to councils and HAs who use that money in the community, than more in HB that ends up with private LLs? And cheaper rent of course means less HB is needed all together. I don't need it now and haven't since I moved in to SH. If I were in private rent I may well need it.

I'd be happy to downsize from my 3 bed to a 2 bed or even one bed (DD at university and coming back but I'm happy to have a living room as a bedroom so a 1 bed would do) it'd be cheaper to rent and run. But there's nothing less than 3 beds available.

This was the first place I bid on and I got it - no one else wants to live here. It's a converted shop, a maisonette and in all honesty really badly designed and falling to bits. There's nothing here except a fast food place and the parking is a challenge.

I'm grateful for it, and actually like it's quirkiness, and willing and able to deal with the negatives, but it wouldn't be suitable for a lot of people, and according to neighbours I've lived here the longest out of anyone else and it's sat empty for a few years here and there between tenants, so at least they're getting something for it now and I think they're probably just grateful it's not sat empty costing money!

My HA is non profit, and I fulfilled the working but low earning criteria, still would. My rent goes towards the upkeep of my place and towards everything else they run, they just don't make a profit.

It's not free and it's not 'heavily subsidised' in the way people assume, it's cheaper than private rent because
a) they're not making a profit
b) they're a large organisation with their own maintenance teams which makes that maintenance cheaper and
c) you literally get nothing when you move in unlike private rent, no flooring, curtain poles, white goods etc, there were no light bulbs or sink plugs when I moved in here, my first bath was taken with a carefully avoided cup over the plughole 🤣. Pay less, get less - and before anyone starts I'm not complaining about that either.
They strip places when people move and they're made safe and serviceable but there's no redecorating or carpets being replaced etc like with private rent.

There's so much assumption around SH and council housing and most of it is from the media who never show people like me who work full time, pay the rent and don't cause any problems but those who don't work, have lots of children and a sofa and a fridge in the garden.

I'd be more reliant on the state in private rent, which is counter productive is it not?

I’m not actually against people staying in council houses “forever”. I think the issue really is the private market. I know just as many people buying properties to rent, as I do those with social housing. And I’ve seen landlords businesses crumble and their tenants pay the price. If the private market wasn’t so exploitative and greedy, we would at least be able to rely on affordable housing in the private sector. I do know fair landlords too who prioritise housing families and long term tenant. We need more incentives for landlords to do this.

My mum lives in a council house, has done my whole life. Works in a school - worked throughout covid. She hasn’t climbed up the career ladder so her salary has been quite stagnant and became disabled about a decade ago.

Since moving out of home with my daughter, renting privately I moved 3 times - each time the landlord has wanted to sell or their property back, despite estate agents telling me that the landlord was prioritising long term tenants - 3 moves in 5 years across 3 very different bouroughs as I was out priced each time. The last move I was made homeless - couldn’t afford anywhere without uprooting our lives.

Each time a landlord asked me to leave I went to the council, but as a working single mum, I was “well-off” enough to not need their help, and because I could afford the correct number of rooms for me and my daughter, I also didn’t get any help from the council.

I must say I would have had help from the council if I “cheated the system” - unpopular opinion but I have friends that exaggerated their health condition or stopped working for a while and sacrificed their career - and guess what - a decade later they are better off than me - they have long term homes for their children, are picking up their careers again - whilst I worked in the city throughout my 20s and I’m now homeless and have been moved from hotels to bnbs because the council can finally help me. Oh and I’m still working - despite having an average salary (which isn’t much) I still can’t afford life.

The UK doesn’t seem to know how to incentives their workers! I have a few friends that are key workers and live so far away from the school/hospital or place of work, and the bouroughs that we’re investing in key worker housing schemes have shut them all up:

But I am so grateful that I can go back home to my mums when I need to feel human again, because she has a forever home and wasn’t kicked out of it when she was doing well, before she developed a disability and when her kids fled the nest. One hasn’t left home - despite working Monday to Friday, and just can’t afford to leave - it doesn’t make financial sense to move out,

My family also have contributed so much to the local areas. And every single time I have moved I have had to start from scratch. Have been removed from neighbourhoods and you say goodbye to friends and ecosystems - which are invaluable when you have a family - perhaps easier to build if single?

I think about the friends I have that have moved to countries like Dubai that give you amazing perks when you work there, including a home, health care - the few people I know have access to great space and have extended their stay and are saving to hopefully come back to the UK to buy a home.

The UK really need to think about housing people that are contributing to the economy. Social housing doesn’t need to be such a stigma. People in social housing are people - and right now have a better deal than private renters - so I really don’t blame anyone for staying put.

Thank you for your insight. From what you and PPs have said, it certainly is not always as straightforward as number of bedrooms in a property to be considered. And there aren’t a lot of suitable smaller properties.

I’m not suggesting someone would be better in private rented if they still need housing benefit to support their rent. Whatever the original purpose was of council housing, it now should be providing low income households with controlled rent lower than the private sector. However, if someone’s income jumped to be able to afford the private sector without any financial support, I do think they should be steered back to the private sector to free up the property for someone in more need.

I am sorry to hear you have had a hard time with housing. We have similar in our area where we are not eligible for support but struggle to find properties we can afford to rent with our other outgoings. I do agree that the private renting sector needs reform too and, as you suggest, more incentives for landlords to support long term lets at more affordable prices. Private renting will always be more expensive than council though, it’s become a large business in itself.

Regardless of the cause there is currently a council housing crisis that needs to be addressed. Yes they should be building more homes (not reducing as a PP flagged they have been) but they will not be able to build enough suitable housing for everyone on their list to have a forever home. There is a natural cycle for many families of the size of housing needed and the current system does not lean into that. It doesn’t mean anyone with need for that housing support will end up homeless and likely it would only be one or two moves in their entire lifetime, really not a lot.

I don’t blame people wanting to stay put - I’m sure I would - but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Your mum does still appear to need her family home, one of your siblings lives with her and you are also somewhat reliant on her. However there are many out there who don’t (and according to this thread have said as such to the council) and could be swapped to a smaller property to allow a larger family the bigger home. It is absolutely not always that straightforward but there are also cases where it would be. Councils just don’t appear to have the systems in place to identify these or resources to enforce it.

I work in local government in the SE.

Apart from anything else, there is just no money in the pot. Our council's housing stock from the 50/60/70s is largely falling apart, windows are blown, places dripping with condensation and mould. We reached a point some time last year where we had to decide which repairs took priority to be able to manage the budget and that money is mostly going on emergency repairs for heating, water and absolutely crucial maintenance.

We certainly can't afford to do anything much to the many empty properties- some of which are completely uninhabitable. We prioritise the ones we can make liveable with the least amount of work.

We also have the problem of planning. This is a small, congested town and building new properties ( apart from the cost - budget only runs to a few each year)- planning applications are a nightmare. No one wants council properties built near them so they get overturned at every turn.

The department I work in is hugely understaffed. There's no money for more jobs to be created, we've got people on temp contracts to help get us through busy times but that's all. We deal with thousands of calls each week - mostly about the housing situation.

We need as a country to spend absolutely billions on housing to sort the situation out as it stands and that just won't happen so we will continue to limp from year to year patching things up as best we can.

Nope, there's no income limit in Sweden. My DD was a newly qualified teacher on around £2600 per month and her partner worked in IT earning more than she did.

It's been changed. I think it was from September last year, the discount has been reduced massively. Where I live it used to be over 100k discount and now it's around 18k iirc.

Yes I agree but there needs to be a building program of small one or two beds being built for older people who are now empty nesters.
My uncle is on his own in a three bedroomed council house like most of the people in his street.

If someone has social housing, it's not just about the rent being affordable. It's also security - you won't be forced to move due to the landlord selling - you have a sense of permanence. You have a home which is built to decent standards. You can expect your landlord to turn up and do repairs. It's regulated. Private rented tenancies are insecure. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect someone to make such a detrimental change just because they've worked hard and done well.

It would be ideal for people to downsize when they no longer need a big house. But it is complicated. People often have links to a very local area. They may have a garden they love. To ask people to volunteer to move, you need to have something desirable to offer them to move into. Houses that become available tend to be in less lovely areas, for obvious reasons. Forcing people to move would be very costly and time-consuming for the housing association/council, and damaging to the tenant's wellbeing. For older people, being forced to move can lead to their death.

Stable communities are one of the key benefits of social housing. It's a social good. We just need more of it.

In terms of social housing being subsidised, it's all capital, from central government. The rent pays for costs of maintenance etc (and pays off any borrowing to buy the properties). Spread over the life of the property, it will be minimal.

Same as when retired homeowners with no dcs at home don't want to downsize or move. No one tells them they should. Even when the house is too big, doesn't future proof them against future mobility issues or care needs, is more expensive to heat and maintain. If all the empty testers downsized it would free up family sized housing stock for families looking to buy and the housing market in general might improve.

Council and social housing is desirable because of its permanent status once you get a tenancy.

Yes this is the issue - years ago there were enough houses to go around and you could basically take your pick of where you wanted to live.
Right to buy and crucially, no building to replace them has been a disaster for housing in this country