why are some people entitled to a council house but others are not?

Torry_Quine

I was brought up in council houses as was my husband so when we got engaged we went to the council and were virtually laughed out of the place and told to come back when I was pregnant! That was in the 80s and before people were buying their houses.

It never ocurred to us to private rent, mostly I think because we didn't know anyone who did, so set about getting a mortgage although I remember my parents being worried about us having to saddle ourselves with it.

paulineb_2

Soleil_lune wrote: »

Lurked here for a while, but decided to join as I really wanted to comment on this. I agree with con1888. I disagree with the people saying that someone should give up their social housing, when they start to do reasonably well in their life, and are earning a reasonable wage. People should not be made to leave their social housing: more cheap affordable rented housing needs to be built. Making people leave the homes they know and love is not the answer.

Moreover, what if someone gives up their long term tenancy on the basis that they now have a reasonably well paid job, and goes into buying a house somewhere, and then a year or two later, they suddenly hit hard times? This does happen a lot: there is no longer a job for life, or a guarantee that someone is always going to be able to pay the mortgage, (and benefits do not help out with mortgage payments, but they do help with rent.)

So what happens when that person has given up their cheaply rented secure home for life, and they lose their mortgaged home, and end up in 'need' again? I'll tell you. They go back to the housing need people and get told they 'made themselves homeless' and receive no help, and end up in some grotty private let with an extortionate rent owned by some money grabbing-landlord/landlady who does nothing to the property unless it's causing and health and safety issue (and sometimes not even then!)

Everyone should be entitled to affordable rented homes for life, and nobody should feel forced or coerced into buying, as there is no longer a guaranteed job or income for life. It's not the 1990s anymore; people are not under achievers if they rent and never buy a house, and anyone with a social housing tenancy should cling onto it for dear life, and not be bullied into leaving, because they have had a job for a few years. What's more, if this happens, we will end up with only the unemployed, and down on their luck people in social housing; turning them into ghettos!

Such as the area I live in, where I believe around 85 per cent of the people in this specific part of town are unemployed

And believe me, Im well aware unemployment and anti social behaviour dont always go hand in hand, but Ive described this area as a ghetto on more than one occasion and its far from the only area locally thats like this

Id welcome a 50:50 split of people on benefits and people who were working, I think it would make this place a better place to live, massively.

paulineb_2

Meanwhile we have MPs with their two homes, maybe they could give up one of them and house someone thats in need of accommodation?

Then these pesky people who dare to live in a council house and work, wouldnt need to be moved on

Solved.

con1888

paulineb wrote: »

Meanwhile we have MPs with their two homes, maybe they could give up one of them and house someone thats in need of accommodation?

Then these pesky people who dare to live in a council house and work, wouldnt need to be moved on

Solved.

and even if they go to prison they still keep part of their salary :eek: I was actually shouting at the news today.....

paulineb_2

con1888 wrote: »

and even if they go to prison they still keep part of their salary :eek: I was actually shouting at the news today.....

Well yes, looks like the man in question will get ten per cent of his salary paid if he is jailed, tbh, I may be in the minority, but Im not so sure he'll end up with a custodial sentence.

He should if theres any justice though.

AlexLK

Surely social housing (and it's subsidised cost) should be for the needy and vulnerable to get back on their feet? Once back on their feet, there should be no reason why they can't either rent a house privately or get a mortgage. Of course, if there was a council house surplus then it's a bit of a different matter but as far as I am aware there is not (a surplus).

con1888

paulineb wrote: »

Well yes, looks like the man in question will get ten per cent of his salary paid if he is jailed, tbh, I may be in the minority, but Im not so sure he'll end up with a custodial sentence.

He should if theres any justice though.

I haven't really been following the case but when at my parents house tonight I caught the latter end of the news where they were discussing this, I am a civil servant ( a lowly one lol) I would be sacked without a doubt if convicted of any similar crime, never mind get to keep some of my wages even if I get prison time !!

One rule for them...

KnightSmile

I agree somewhat with the principle of council houses. I do, however, find it currently an unfair concept in the modern age due to a lack of housing.

A small minority of people refuse to move from council houses even if they can afford to rent privately because they don't see why they should have to. At the end of the day getting cheaper/subsidised housing should be seen as helping hand not a permanent perk. There has to be a 'cost' to not owning your own property and that cost means that you should have no choice but to downsize when you no longer NEED a certain amount of bedrooms for example.

I am also uncomfortable regarding the concept of housing benefit. I personally think that assisting people with housing should be based purely on affordability and if it were to be based on that criteria alone the government should slowly taper off housing benefits and increase the minimum wage so people get proportionate help. (eg. low earners currently illegible for housing benefit get real help too)

My sister and her partner both work long hours and rent a new build flat - they have a newborn and struggle. There are people who receive housing benefit and pay little or nothing to rent the same flats. The standard of living for my sister is worse or harder than people who don't work or actually earn less. It doesn't make sense and makes people reliant and trapped in the system. Surely in a fair society if you earn more, you should have a higher standard of living right?

I don't blame people who NEED help, they should get it- nobody should be homeless.

Also the "bedroom tax" is absolutely not a tax, its a lower amount of HANDOUTs being provided by the state. A very different concept to a tax.

con1888

AlexLK wrote: »

Surely social housing (and it's subsidised cost) should be for the needy and vulnerable to get back on their feet? Once back on their feet, there should be no reason why they can't either rent a house privately or get a mortgage. Of course, if there was a council house surplus then it's a bit of a different matter but as far as I am aware there is not (a surplus).

Errr yes there is a reason why they can't get a mortgage or rent..many in work cannot afford private rent and its inflated prices or a mortgage. Aside from that, most people I know who are in receipt of 'free' council housing have no desire to get 'back on their feet'. Maybe that's just my experience.... those who work and live in council houses are at least contributing.

I would much rather live in a council area where the majority of tenants work than one where they don't as without being prejudiced ( speaking from experience sadly) the areas where the majority don't work tend to be over run with crime and dereliction.

OH's mum is a housing officer and the area she deals with is pretty disgusting.. the stories make me shudder.

Mojisola

Imp wrote: »

So what you are saying is that people should be housed when they are in need, but when they pull themselves up and are no longer needy, they should be evicted from their home and community?

If you are going to remove people from their homes as a reward for getting a job/being promoted/successfully running their own business, then why would they make an effort to do these things?

People who rent privately don't have any security of tenure. Even if they don't have to move because the LL gives them notice, they often move as the family grows or reduces in size or their financial situation changes.

Why should someone in a council property have a lifetime tenure? Fear of losing the right to stay in a council house can reduce people's opportunity because they won't move to where jobs are available.