i dont get council flats?

BigAunty

jonewer wrote: »

It fairly well stands to reason since the last last Labour government took the decision to allocate council houses on the basis of 'need' rather than on the basis of being a deserving tenant.

For obvious reasons, this means that council houses are given to those at the bottom of society, hence the phrase 'sink estate'. Just to be clear, the problem with council housing is precisely that it is no longer working class accommodation because people who work are less likely to be given a council house.

http://www.housingcare.org/downloads/kbase/2027.pdf
.

Agreed - social housing tenancy has been based on need for some decades now after scrapping the waiting list principle, checking to see if the applicant was in employment/considered decent, or sons/daughters policies (prioritising relatives of existing social housing tenants).

Councils in England were obliged (up until last year) to provide social housing to the homeless in priority need which pretty much meant that in some areas, virtually all the available stock was being allocated to households undergoing some kind of crisis.

For example, those leaving care (whose vulnerabilities mean they are often have few qualifications and often make up a disproportionate number of prisoners), leaving prison, lone parents fleeing domestic abuse with children, those with health issues/disabilities including addictions, were pretty much parachuted into social housing tenancies as a priority because they are deemed vulnerable whereas a person with a steady job is least likely to get a social housing tenancy.

Now councils in England can offer the homeless in priority need a private tenancy if they wish because, basically, they didn't have enough stock to house those they were originally obliged to do so.

BigAunty

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

The only thing I will say is, because I was surprised by it on the 1940s benefit programme a few months ago, council tenants seems to end up with all decorating and fixtures and fittings costs so I'm not sure which really is cheaper between the two.

I don't understand your comment but I didn't see that programme so I might be missing the context.

A social housing tenant faces at most just decorating costs and basic fittings like carpets and lampshades. This is as cheap or expensive as they like. In some countries (I think NZ?), a private tenant must supply all furniture and kitchen items.

There are many charities that offer those on benefits, low income or previously homeless free furniture, furnishings, kitchenware, etc. Some even help with decoration and carpeting. There's also websites like freecycle where anyone can bag free household items to save them from going in the landfill. Charities like Emmaus offer electrical/white goods etc at a discount to benefit claimants.

Social housing landlords in the past did used to decorate properties between lets or give out grants for this but their budgets are now squeezed. In fact, when my aunty recently downsized, the council offered cash grants for moving/decoration to her, this is quite a common incentive to get tenants to leave properties too big for their needs (now of course, there is the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax impact of reduced HB).

So a social housing tenant may face initial costs that a private tenant doesn't face but then will have a secure tenancy, rent that is much lower. There are millions of people on the social housing waiting lists - the fact that they have to paint the place or buy curtains isn't putting them off.