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.

Social housing rent values are actually a more realistic price of what rents should be. Private rents should be capped. If landlords don't like it they need to sell which would release more homes into the system and reduce prices.

In turn more social housing should be built which should cause a collapse in the buy to let rental market.

@HighlandCowbag One is a state asset and one is not. No state £ have paid your mortgage. Your name is on the deeds. Therefore you have bought something over which you have control. The rented house is not under your control. It's also been so hard to get one it does seem unreasonable not to have flexibility within the system. However a lack of council bungalows or any bungalows is a barrier to moving on. They are often only for rich downsizers here! Most near me are £1/2 million. Or more!

Decades ago there was a choice and many people with very decent jobs opted for a council house. My relative did not want to bother with maintenance. They kept a far higher proportion of their salary for holidays and socialising and no need to lift a paintbrush. I had friends whose parents thought exactly the same. Some bought their council houses at a huge discount and financially never looked back,

When people talk about landlord profit, it's a business. They might be paying mortgages. They pay tax!!! Social housing providers are very different,

Also where people say not enough social housing is built on estates, variations have to be agreed. So local councils agree to variations. Essentially lack of building for need is the issue. If there had been, there would not be a huge need to private landlords!

ITS NOT FREE

A friend of my Mum’s got a council house when she was a penniless single parent of 2 young kids. Cambridge graduate, employed but work was irregular. 20 years later both kids had moved out, but she still had her council house. A further 10 years later she inherited £300K, but still had her council house. A further 10 years have passed and she’s basically sitting in a 4-bed house in a nice part of a very affluent city down south. It makes no sense to me.

Social housing is not just cheap rental - it's a different model where people have a level of "ownership" in that they can really make that home their own. As long term residents, they decorate, fit kitchens, create gardens, do all sorts to keep the property updated. Sure you will get some that treat their properties like a pigsty, but for the majority having that sense of "home" is important and it extends to having pride in the estate/area they live in and that's what makes community. If you take that away and start just moving people in and out with no sense of "ownership" and no certainty, you'll very quickly find people won't invest financially or emotionally into their estates, areas, community in the same way.

The state doesn't pay my rent either. Nor does the state own my property, a housing association does. And my rent is reinvested into the housing association to cover costs AND build/maintain other social housing. I'd also argue that a certain % of privately owned property is state funded by wages paid to civil servants, many of which had pension schemes no longer available to the younger generations. Free university, lower salary needed, benefited from the housing market blah blah blah.

It's not just council/HA tenants with empty nests that affect the housing market, which leads to more demand for social housing. It's supply and demand of all the housing stock.

I live in a 3 bed property. I may downsize in the future but tbh I want to always have a spare room for the dcs to 'come home' to.

It's economically rational to remain in a position where you have a stable roof on your head so PP are right that any conditions about taking it away upon earning a good income are pointless.

Any system which gives priority to "the most vulnerable" for such useful things as 3-bed semis will always have that outcome.

@HighlandCowbag Housing Associations have replaced council housing! There was no council housing being built after right to buy and in the 80s it was stopped. HAs provide social housing. In many areas for decades. It's how people rent at a lower rent and you have to qualify to get a house. HAs are given government money and can borrow. How do you think they afford to build homes? Some use developer built homes but the developer does not gibe them!

Keeping your family house so your dc have two homes is a luxury. It is at the expense of larger families who are worse off than you.

This thread is one of the reasons just building more council houses is not the answer. The system needs to change.

It's interesting that people who live in private housing either owned or rented have to do everything for themselves including downsizing if they need to, not replacing things like kitchens if they can't afford it. Meanwhile we have people living in tax payer subsidised housing who are just interested in their own 'rights'. People who live in council housing have no more right to stay in an area they were brought up in or have lived for a long time than anyone else. Reading this thread we possibly don't have such a bad housing crises just, as usual, a poor use of resources.

This is just another area where we are seeing people who qualify for services are getting more/have a better lifestyle than those working and taking care of themselves. What should people pay more tax when the system doesn't work.

Council homes are not subsidised unless you claim benefits 🙄

Well its about time you did. Council housing is a public facility and should be allocated on a needs basis otherwise its completely illogical.

@BurntBroccoli 100% agree. Private lets shouldn't be anywhere near the prices being charged. £2k for a 3 bed near me which is insane

I have already apologised for using that word so no need to shout or curse as others have done. Apologies - cheaper than market rent then and according to gov.uk 75% of people using this service also receive housing benefits covering some or all of the already low rent so an aspect of it is discounted/subsidised/free/or shout whichever word you prefer.

It is allocated on a needs basis. It sometimes improves the lives of the tenants so much they are able to buy a property, are confident enough to get 'proper' jobs, come off benefits as have secure tenancies etc etc etc. If you take away the security if your circumstances improve it gives 0 incentives to improve your circumstances.

I spent 10 years on a waiting list for a property. Of course it would have been less if little old Doris, living in a 3 bed property had moved to a bungalow. But it was worth waiting longer to have the security of a permanent tenancy.

Council houses where literally designed as 'secure housing for life'... thats a persons home, which they put time and money into with the promise of not being randomly booted out.

Initially yes but the purpose has changed. Yes because of stupid government policies but also because of society more generally meaning they are now more to do with providing low cost houses for low income people/families. As that need has changed as has the availability of them and, from when they were first introduced, many people (not everyone obviously) have ‘completed’ the life cycle of having children so needing the space and those children leaving home. There isn’t space for everyone in need of council housing to have multi-bedroom council housing or houses rather than flats so it would make sense for peoples circumstances to be reviewed regularly and then moved into a more suitable home when necessary. They are still being housed for life, just not necessarily in the same one. It’s not as though they would be moved every year, probably only once or twice which most private renters/buyers experience.

As PPs have pointed out there is an issue with availability of smaller homes and their standards so that is also another issue that would need addressing. But the basic principle is that if you benefit from council housing (because it is a benefit in many areas) the council should be able to manage accommodation to suit it to people’s circumstances as they evolve. There was a golden age of council housing that is never going to come back because of funding issues and population increases so the system does need to change with this. It clearly isn’t simple though and ideally the entire housing area needs reform, including management of private renting. Not an easy task.

But you cannot kick someone out of a house that was promised to them for life that they have spent a fortune on doing up and making their home. They have financially invested in a house.

It absolutely no different than someone with a mortgage buying a 4 bed house when they don't need it.

@Psychologymam
It's not free housing, tenants pay rent, council tax.
People really need to get rid of this attitude that SH is only for the poor and in need.
Anyone can apply for it and be allocated it.
I know teachers, nurses, who have SH tenancies, nobody would give up a secure home to move to overpriced inspected private lets, also very few ppl can afford huge deposits to buy.

The British state is going to need to get used to walking back promises of things "for life". See also: pensions...

Is this a London vs non-London distinction? Both sides might be accurately reporting what they see

I am in Scotland where thankfully right to buy was abolished, we are building new SH to increase the stock.
MN amazes me that so many are so ignorant of how SH works and also seemingly resentful.
SH is not full of unemployed and druggies, it's just plain snobbery and ignorance on these threads.

But you cant seize something people have paid for.

My parents fully renovated their council house, open planning, utility room extinctions, new bathroom, new kitchen, driveway, full rewire etc... all done at their own expense and hard work, the council couldn't then just say 'nope, move'.

Council houses aren't free as people have said they are paid for houses, they are in between private rent and a mortgage (with right to buy it is in fact simply a council lead rent to buy scheme). Its their house.

I was homeless for 3 years so I full understand the lack of council housing issue but that is NOT caused by people IN houses.

The early 2000s regeneration schemes fucked most of it... walk around most north eastern pit villages and you will find reams of uninhabitable houses that where council and social housing stock that the council did evict people from (at cost) and then left to rot without ever delivering the promised new housing stock.

Bedroom tax compounded it more as many remaining elderly moved as the couldn't afford it and those houses then never got refilled because it would cost the council more to reset them and bring it them up to modern regulation standards to reassign them than they had so they left them empty.

@housethatbuiltme But you cant seize something people have paid for.

Sure you can, with a sufficiently enthusiastic police force. It might be unfair or mean or a betrayal or whatever, but you can. See: various states in history which have done exactly this.

People have also paid into their pensions on the assumption that they'll receive tax breaks on withdrawal - it would be a real jerk move to break that implied promise - but the government can do it.

My brother is in a council house and due to inherit a similar amount following the death of our parents. He was a very high earner for years and now works as a contractor, taking work as when he fees like it, as he still earns well and has lots of savings. In between contracts he lives abroad for months at a time and has a lodger. Just seems wrong (and not even sure the he can legally have a lodger) when the borough he lives in has an enormous housing wait list with families living in dire temporary accommodation.

The poster has already acknowledged she made an error with the free comment a couple of times and corrected her understanding.

Unfortunately, council housing is now for the low income families (‘poor’) and those in need. You need to earn under a certain amount and have less than a certain amount in savings to access it and even then you are prioritised according to need. It didn’t used to be but is. Whether you like it or not, in relative terms that is the poorer people in society and those in need. Those with more money cannot access it. My partner and I cannot as we earn over the threshold and have too much in savings, but we also can’t really afford to rent or buy in our area either.

No one would (I’m sure I would be very resistant to choose to do so myself) but that doesn’t mean that they should not if they are able to afford private renting. We can’t just keep building council housing for everyone. It was a great concept when it was introduced but now unworkable. The system and approach needs to change to cater for how it is now used.