This is not a rant

avantra

This is a question which I don't know the answer to and tbh really not sure this is the correct forum, but here it goes anyway.

Do people in social housing here in the UK get re-assessed about their needs for social housing after they obtained the said housing?

For example if say you get a council house and later on your circumstances change for the good, do you have to move on to make space for new claimants or you allowed to stay?

carefullycautious

What do you mean?

Oldernotwiser

avantra wrote: »

This is a question which I don't know the answer to and tbh really not sure this is the correct forum, but here it goes anyway.

Do people in social housing here in the UK get re-assessed about their needs for social housing after they obtained the said housing?

For example if say you get a council house and later on your circumstances change for the good, do you have to move on to make space for new claimants or you allowed to stay?

Not that I've ever heard of, although some HAs put certain Tenants on a probationary tenancy first.

shakerbaby

Looks like a rant to me.

avantra

carefullycautious wrote: »

What do you mean?

I 'll give you another example: in the village near us there is a small council estate, some of the people who lives there were unemployed for a period during the 1990's. When these people applied for social housing their reasons were acceptable due to financial hardship.

Since than some became employed/self employed on a good salary, however even in the current condition (30k+ salary, driving a new car, take holidays and improving the place they are still paying about 50% less in rent compare to private tenants that get less in their salary and can't afford to buy any where near here (South West). So all that we want to know is 'are they get re-assessed if their needs are different?'

Really not ranting, I am asking this question as my son is writing a an article for a local youth paper and I thought you learned lot might know.(Google didn't help).

StevieJ

I am pretty sure you don't get moved on but if you experienced some of the dodgy estates
around the country, I think a lot go by choice if they can afford it

Pont

Around here the only reason you would get reassessed is if the number in the household decreases or increases. For example, a elderly single person living in a three bedroom property would be asked (not forced) to move into a smaller property. Likewise a young couple living in a flat, but had since had children, would be rehoused into a larger property when one became vacant.

I'm not aware of anyone being reassessed purely because their financial situation has improved. However, I have heard talk of some tenants receiving cash payments from the HA if they move out to buy as this frees up a house for those who can't afford to buy.

Oldernotwiser

avantra wrote: »

I 'll give you another example: in the village near us there is a small council estate, some of the people who lives there were unemployed for a period during the 1990's. When these people applied for social housing their reasons were acceptable due to financial hardship.

Since than some became employed/self employed on a good salary, however even in the current condition (30k+ salary, driving a new car, take holidays and improving the place they are still paying about 50% less in rent compare to private tenants that get less in their salary and can't afford to buy any where near here (South West). So all that we want to know is 'are they get re-assessed if their needs are different?'

Really not ranting, I am asking this question as my son is writing a an article for a local youth paper and I thought you learned lot might know.(Google didn't help).

Nowadays you aren't usually allocated a tenancy because you're on a low income, there have to be other factors.

Degenerate

Council and HA tenants have secure tenancies - they cannot legally be made to move unless they have breached the conditions of tenancy in a significant way. Cash payments are usually offered as an incentive for those in under-occupied dwellings to downsize, but they barely cover moving costs.

lostinrates

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Nowadays you aren't usually allocated a tenancy because you're on a low income, there have to be other factors.

Quite possibly though, people needing homes because of other factors and/or finacial difficulty are unable to take them, if people able to afford ''normal'' private sector rents are remaining in situ from when it was possible. So very possibly still a current problem. (I have no idea of the system just hypothosising on a logical possibility!)

baileysbattlebus

avantra wrote: »

I 'll give you another example: in the village near us there is a small council estate, some of the people who lives there were unemployed for a period during the 1990's. When these people applied for social housing their reasons were acceptable due to financial hardship.

Since than some became employed/self employed on a good salary, however even in the current condition (30k+ salary, driving a new car, take holidays and improving the place they are still paying about 50% less in rent compare to private tenants that get less in their salary and can't afford to buy any where near here (South West). So all that we want to know is 'are they get re-assessed if their needs are different?'

Really not ranting, I am asking this question as my son is writing a an article for a local youth paper and I thought you learned lot might know.(Google didn't help).

The people you quote as having been given council housing because they lost their jobs in the 1990's - would actually have been given council housing because they were evicted or repossessed (or had other housing issues) during the last recession - unemployment has never been a reason for getting council housing - housing benefit or mortgage help was there for that.

Being homeless, or over crowded or living in substandard accommodation or medical reasons were and are reasons to be given council housing.

The council won't have a clue what they earn. In the past council housing was never means tested.

They may be trying to target council housing towards low income familes now (I don't know) but it never used to be like that. Though generally it would be lower income families who applied for it anyway.