Who do you feel is entitled to a Council House

ska_lover

Imp wrote: »

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.

Ahh so you are classing benefits as 'having means'.... Interesting

System

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?

People get the impression (probably from the media) that social housing is 'given' to 'certain types' of people. While the rents in social housing are not as high as those in the private sector, the tenant does still have to pay it!

jackyann

I find this interesting, as some posters have touched on, when first conceived, council housing was about ensuring that people could rent decent property at a fair price.
When I was a child (50s) plenty of well-off people lived in council houses - some thought it wrong morally to become a "property owner". There wasn't a question of them keeping more "deserving people" out - there was supposed to be enough for everybody.
When I was a young adult in the 70s (jn my area) council housing began to be rationed a bit, but the council still expected to build homes for teachers, doctors, district nurses etc. It was seen as good for an area to have those sort of workers, and, as another poster has said, for families to be near each other.
It was the sell-off in the 80s (most especially that councils were not allowed to use the proceeds to build more housing) that meant that such housing had to be carefully allocated to people in need.
Of course, housing associations have changed the face of "council housing" and we now use the term "social housing". This era also saw the last of "Parker Morris standards" for building good homes (although when I wikid this to check, I see they may be making a come back!)
When I last enquired, anyone could "put their name down" for a council / housing association house, but as the allocation would be based on need, anyone without some sort of special case would just always be near the bottom.
Where housing associations are especially helpful is with "shared ownership".

geoffky

Everyone...Yet some think they are too good to live in one...

mgdavid

'Entitled' ? - no-one.

[Deleted User]

ska_lover wrote: »

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

This is usually not the case, unless someone from abroad has children and has been given leave to remain as a refugee. Most of the 'council houses' people think have been 'given' to foreigners are in fact private rentals that used to be council houses, bought by their original UK tenants before being sold on to private landlords down the line.

I know this as several of our friends are from south Asia (India etc) and work in the local curry restaurant trade. After working here for 5+ years full time & paying tax etc they are allowed to apply for 'permanent residency' (not citizenship) and are allowed to bring wife & children to join them as long as they can be supported without recourse to public funds.

Many immigrants also buy ex-council properties because they are cheaper.

A friend of ours & his family were subject to vile verbal abuse - because he rented a house via private landlord on a council estate, and some morons thought he'd been 'given' a council house.

The only way an immigrant can be 'given' a council house is if they have permanent leave to remain and/or becomes a UK citizen (which takes years of working or refugee status) and then they are allocated on the same 'needs' basis as any other UK resident. All people from south Asia I know here in the UK have either rented privately or bought homes. The only immigrant I know who lives in social housing is my husband but that is because he lives with me in my HA bungalow that I had tenancy of before we met.

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 ........

What does the colour of their skin or ancestry of their family have to do with it?

Do you know this family intimately enough to know what their access needs are?

Have you observed their home 24 hours a day to see all members going in & out? How do you know that they are all able-bodied? Could there be a family member house-bound or bedridden who doesn't go out much?

One of them could have an 'invisible' disability like MS which means that they cannot manage stairs. They may live together as large unit to facilitate caring for such a family member.

If you are 100% sure that none of them has no disabling health condition that qualifies them to live in an adapted property then I suggest you contact your local HA/Council to discuss your concerns.

pmlindyloo

Since the Localism Act 2011(?) all local authorities are now allowed to make their own policy as regards social housing allocation except for a number of statutory requirements.

In some authorities this has made a tremendous difference in terms of their priorities.

I had a read of some of the different policies (was doing a course so was interested!) and it made for extremely enlightening reading.

Just as an example have a look at the priority bands (A being the top priority) here:

http://www.maidstone.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/26661/Housing-Allocation-Scheme-Leaflet.pdf

Local connection is top priority in lots of local authorities and in the link given those who work/make a contribution to the community are a high priority.