Who do you feel is entitled to a Council House

pukkamum

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I'm probably being a bit thick, but why is council housing needed at all? Is it because there is not enough private rented to go around? I thought benefits covered your housing cost anyway? So would it not be cheaper to encourage private landlords rather than building swathes of council homes.

The one big problem I see in council areas is that many people view the house as not their responsibility and thus they don't look after it. You end up with huge areas which look a mess and are probably not a healthy place to live in.

An ex was brought up on a local council housing estate. A shop closed down and teenagers took it apart brick by brick. I guess they were selling the bricks. Within a week the building was totally demolished!

You are being a bit thick in making the assumption that everyone in council housing gets housing benefit, and that every council estate is full of scrotes in my street of council housing I would say 80 to 90 % of us work and pay full rent, our estate is lovely with well cared for gardens and houses and a lovely community.

Person_one

Social Housing is supposed to provide an affordable place to live for ordinary people, with a secure tenancy so that they can't be thrown out with two months notice or end up having to move every 12 months.

Private landlords are in the game to make a profit, social landlords are (supposed to be) in it to provide a public service.

Sadly, there aren't nearly enough council houses these days, and because they're a limited public resource its the neediest who get them. If I had my way we'd all live in social housing and there'd be no other kind!

regprentice

Interesting question and relieved the thread has not been swamped by trolls yet!

a few thoughts.

Council estates used to be very close knit and had a good community spirit. I live in a street of around 70 houses and know of 3 families where the council placed children leaving home in the same street as their parents. (this up until 80's or 90's). I do sometimes despair about the area i live in and the general behaviour of children but do have very thoughtful and helpful neighbours, putting bins out for each other, taking in parcels for each other, they might knock on the door if you left you car lights on, i've even had people appear out of their houses and offer to help me with odd jobs/diy i've been doing.

There are also houses in my street that are visited frequently by the police, occasional evidence of drug dealing in the street, the local kids seem to like climbing lamposts and smashing the glass bulb covers at the moment which is a problem now its getting dark. I also have someone round the corner whose house smells of hash constantly and who i have seen twice standing naked in his living room staring into space!

So it has its ups and downs, the older generation would argue that council houses used to be for workers / decent people and that nowerdays they are just for dole scum with 5+ children. This does seem to be a broadly true generalisation. This is largely because the council housing list (in Edinburgh anyway) has around 22000 people waiting but the number of properties available in a year is less than 1% of this. Like everything else nowerdays it seems to be a race to the bottom. The worse case you are the more likely you are to be housed.

The rise of housing associations is a bad thing in my opinion. In some cases the terms council house and housing association are interchangable (ie a housing association now has the council housing stock), but they largely aren't functioning as a 'council house' but in a similar way to wonga, brighthouse or even help to buy. They are flipping new build properties which builders are forced to sell them at a discount* and then passing them on at market value on equity sharing deals to people who can barely afford them and are unlikely to be able to buy the equity out at the end. Exactly this happened to my BIL who was sold an 'affordable' two bed flat in Oxford for £200K on a 75%/25% equity share. In what world is £200K the floor of affordability for housing?!

My local authority (west lothian) knocked down some nasty flats and built some nice new houses to current building requirements which means they have downstairs toilets and accessibility for those with disabilities. Absolutely people in this position should be housed and treated with respect. However the council had to rehouse the people from the nasty flats and they ended up in the nice new houses. Unlikely any of that housing stock will become available to those who would most need its facilities for decades.

Someone really needs to work out why housing has become so expensive, is it wages? new building regs requiring more expensive materials? fatcat builders profit margins?

*I used to work for a property company in Edinburgh looking to build a complex of flats. around 10 years ago if you built more than a certain number of flats in one place (think it was 33) you were compelled to offer a set proportion of them as 'affordable' housing, expected to be done by selling them to a housing assoc.

dandelionclock30

I think any person unless they are very wealthy should be entitled to a council house. People like Doctors and Judges etc should buy their own places.
Here its terribly difficult to get a council place and they seem to go to those with priority extra status, so basically very vulnerable people. Like being homeless with a child and having mental health issues.
I dont think its fair that low waged people or people in normal jobs, have to get ripped off by private scum bag landlords. I also dont think its right that a lot of unemployed /sick people are also at their mercy as the council hasnt enough provision.
There needs to be more council housing for all, less private landlords, who in my experience are filth.

mgdavid

avogadro wrote: »

......

The state provides our education (usually, unless you go to a private school) and it usually provides our healthcare. Housing is just as important, if not more so. And yet there does not tend to be the same stigma attached to state education and healthcare as there is to 'social housing'. Why is that?

flawed logic; not everyone needs eduating at the same time, nor require to use healthcare all the time. So the many pay a little which covers the bills for the few.
However *everyone* needs housing all the time, so who pays?

Person_one

mgdavid wrote: »

flawed logic; not everyone needs eduating at the same time, nor require to use healthcare all the time. So the many pay a little which covers the bills for the few.
However *everyone* needs housing all the time, so who pays?

Mostly, the tenants.

Social housing isn't free, the properties are rented, just not at an inflated price to line a landlord's pocket.

meritaten

well - there ARENT any Council Houses in my borough! they were all 'turned over' to the local Housing Associations.
as for entitlement - anyone who doesn't want the responsibility of a mortgage or cannot get one or cannot afford one. Now this is a very wide range - so perhaps it comes down to 'Should Social Housing (as seems to be the new term for it) be for the poor - or can anyone have one?'

lushlifesaver

I think that for the system to bill itself as allocating housing on a needs basis is a real joke! We live in a nice area, although like everywhere it's got shady patches, but it comes down to what type of housing is available. We have to have an accessible property - there's only three local to us and we can't move due to care provisions and work etc.

'social' housing should be available to all but I also think that councils need to deal more with problem tenants and show them that they won't be walked over 'just because the people need a house'. If you can't treat a property with which you have been trusted with a little respect there should be repercussions.

Bf and I live in a 'council' property, as bf is disabled (severely- i.e. gets higher rate DLA/mobility etc) we live in a two bed bungalow which is adapted, on the corner of a sheltered housing scheme for the elderly - hardly our demographic but it's nice enough.

Bf has lived there for six years, initially he was given a two bed property by the council as they deemed that if/when he needs support a relative/carer could not be asked to sleep on the sofa and as such a second bedroom was needed. He was receiving housing benefit (only able to work part time currently) and when I moved in this dropped significantly from a large proportion of the rent to less than £10 per month - our rent is just shy of £450 so we could be renting in the private sector and get a much larger property (our bungalow has the same square metre space as probably half the downstairs of my parents home, just 5 small rooms and a hallway) but then - how many private landlords do you know renting out a fully adapted bungalow?

We have also been informed that 5 adults can reside in our property before we become 'over crowded' with each child counting as a half! So whilst we are expecting our first child in March we will likely not be able to find a new property until we have a second and both are older! And yet just down the road there is a larger adapted bungalow with three bedrooms all of decent size (we can only fit our double bed and 1 bedside table in our, bf can't even bring his wheelchair in to the bedroom!) which is currently being resided in by a large Asian family all of whom are perfectly able bodied. Now I'm not being racist but there are tying up one of the 3 accessible bungalows that are in our area with no need as they could be in a 'conventional' house. Our friend who is also in a wheelchair has his wife and 2 year old child as well as himself in need of a home and has been on the list for a year, in this time they have had to stay in the Aspire housing at the local hospital which is for spinal injury patients to use for the first 3 months after they are released from inpatient care...how is that fair or just based on needs allocation?

We are in the fortunate position that I now work fulltime and bf is a GB athlete (sounds like a rich game but believe me it's not!) so we are saving as much as possible to buy our own place but that is not possible for many. We both work hard (bf part time as well as full time athlete) and pay full rent, council tax (less discount for disability) and bills but we're working on it.

claire16c

lushlifesaver wrote: »

And yet just down the road there is a larger adapted bungalow with three bedrooms all of decent size (we can only fit our double bed and 1 bedside table in our, bf can't even bring his wheelchair in to the bedroom!) which is currently being resided in by a large Asian family all of whom are perfectly able bodied. Now I'm not being racist but there are tying up one of the 3 accessible bungalows that are in our area with no need as they could be in a 'conventional' house.

That does seem totally wrong as Im sure as you say, accessible properties are probably far and few between.

Sure it would make more sense that that other family could make use of it, who are living in a hospital! I suppose the problem is once someone is in a council house, how do you get them out/swap them around to something more suitable.

ajs88

I think entitled is the wrong word as council housing itself is not free, it’sa 'reasonable' rate of rent with security, and I think that it should be availablefor whoever wants it.

However due to current and past housing policy council housing supply hasdepleted as demand has increased and is currently given to those with thegreatest need.

I guess that you’re trying to gage attitudes towards council housing andthose that have it, so here goes…

Considering the current shortages I think its right that council housing wouldbe awarded to those with the greatest need eg. those who are homeless, at riskof homelessness, have children, a disability or are elderly and have been in temporaryaccommodation the longest.

I don’t think that local authorities should have to provide more than 3bedrooms to any family unless they are caring for an elderly parent who would overwise require care or housing housing of their own.

I think that people should be downsized to a smaller property, if one is available(I don not support the bedroom tax), if they no longer need a larger home.

I don’t think that ‘rent books’ should be passed down, that being Britishborn makes someone a priority or that being in work should be a penalty ifsomeone still has great need.