Who do you feel is entitled to a Council House

samtoby

I am currently at University (first year) and I have a question around entitlement for a Council House. I have of course written with evidence but I was just interested -

Who do YOU think should be entitled to a Council house?

Gillyx

People who need it, who can't get a house any other way really. I'd like to think if I was in a position where I wasn't able to get a mortgage or a private let that there would be a house available to me.

As it is, we are struggling to save a deposit, so we are forced to privately rent

paulineb_2

samtoby wrote: »

I am currently at University (first year) and I have a question around entitlement for a Council House. I have of course written with evidence but I was just interested -

Who do YOU think should be entitled to a Council house?

What do you mean written with evidence?

I think this thread would probably be better over on discussion time to be honest.

I actually dont sit back and think about who should or shouldnt be entitled, my view is that more council and social houses should be built because there isnt enough affordable housing and some people cant get on the property ladder. And some are forced into paying high rents to private landlords.

I live in a council flat but I had to take a flat in a very hard to let area because otherwise I would have waited for a very long time to get one anywhere else.

19lottie82

I don't think there is a right or set answer to that.

It obviously depends how many people want / need them and how many there are to allocate.

How about we turn the tables around.

Why do YOU want / need one? Where do you live at the moment?

Imp

I think everyone who has the means to pay a fair rent should qualify (I have come to hate the word "entitled") for a council house.

ska_lover

Imp wrote: »

I think everyone who has the means to pay a fair rent should qualify (I have come to hate the word "entitled") for a council house.

That'd never work in my city. Here, two thirds of council tenants are claiming benefits!

One thing I don't agree with, is giving them to immigrants (or cash benefits either) .

Imp

ska_lover wrote: »

That'd never work in my city. Here, two thirds of council tenants are claiming benefits!

The question wasn't about benefits, it was about council houses. And if the benefits give the claimant the means to pay the rent, my original statement stands.

Kynthia

I think the question needs clarity? Do you mean a council house where the occupants pay rent, but it's probably less than private rents because it's not a profit making exercise? Or do you mean free housing which includes council properties (rent free) but also includes those in private rentals but receiving local housing allowance?

Things have changed over time as many families would spend their lives living in council properties, working and paying rent, and it was the norm. Then as their children became adults, they would go on the list to get their own places too. It wasn't seen as charity or something shameful, and people lived in big friendly communities that had pride. Things have changed so that now many think that only those with special circumstances should should get social housing and it often seen has having a stigma attached. Whole estates are filled with those that don't work, many not even wanting to, those with drug, alcohol or mental health problems. Plus lack of social mobility and good role models mean the children in these estates are less likely to work and more likely to be anti social. All of this combines to start to make these areas unsavoury and unsafe feeling meaning there is even more of a stigma against living there.

Perhaps if we had more social housing and included a wider variety of residents, particularly those that currently aren't seen as 'needing' social housing because they work, they would be nicer places to live. There are so many people/families on low incomes that could benefit from secure and affordable housing but would pay rent and want to live somewhere they can care of and have pride in. This greater quantity of housing would increase the number of people helped, create more diverse communities and hopefully reduce the stigma and make them nicer places to live.

DevilsAdvocate1

Kynthia wrote: »

I think the question needs clarity? Do you mean a council house where the occupants pay rent, but it's probably less than private rents because it's not a profit making exercise? Or do you mean free housing which includes council properties (rent free) but also includes those in private rentals but receiving local housing allowance?

Things have changed over time as many families would spend their lives living in council properties, working and paying rent, and it was the norm. Then as their children became adults, they would go on the list to get their own places too. It wasn't seen as charity or something shameful, and people lived in big friendly communities that had pride. Things have changed so that now many think that only those with special circumstances should should get social housing and it often seen has having a stigma attached. Whole estates are filled with those that don't work, many not even wanting to, those with drug, alcohol or mental health problems. Plus lack of social mobility and good role models mean the children in these estates are less likely to work and more likely to be anti social. All of this combines to start to make these areas unsavoury and unsafe feeling meaning there is even more of a stigma against living there.

Perhaps if we had more social housing and included a wider variety of residents, particularly those that currently aren't seen as 'needing' social housing because they work, they would be nicer places to live. There are so many people/families on low incomes that could benefit from secure and affordable housing but would pay rent and want to live somewhere they can care of and have pride in. This greater quantity of housing would increase the number of people helped, create more diverse communities and hopefully reduce the stigma and make them nicer places to live.

I live near Sunderland and what they seem to be doing here is knocking huge areas of council housing down. New houses are being built which are a mix of mortgaged, shared ownership and rented. I think this is a much better way as everyone is mixed together rather than having separate areas.

Before, there were huge council estates such as Pennywell in Sunderland. All the "problem" families lived in a short distance to each other and made life hell for other families living in the vicinity. Also, as they rented, many felt that they were not responsible for the upkeep of the property they were living in. The whole area looked run down and was a bit depressing.

I would rather see a mix of people living together. I think this is also good for the children. My dad was brought up in a council area until he was 11 when his mum moved. He always maintains that this showed him how other people lived and gave him something to aspire to. Both him and his brother ended up doing very well, though the same can't be said for my nana's nieces and nephews who remained in council housing.

SailorSam

It depends upon where you live. I worked in the housing office of our Council over 25yrs ago, at the time there were probably plenty of empty properties but they were in places and of the type that nobody wanted them.

System

Anybody is entitled to apply to the council for housing. Whether an applicant is successful in getting a house or flat will depend on their circumstances compared to others on the list, and the amount and type of housing the council happens to have available at the time.