Will my girlfriend lose her council flat if i marry her? I own two properties.

dodger1

I just want to balance things here a little bit. Not all HA properties are cheaper than private rentals. I rent a very small one bedroom flat from the my HA for £499 per month. There are however several larger and nicer properties available for the same price. I stay where I am due to my assured tenancy.

Morglin

AdrianC wrote: »

And that "advantage" is one of the main reasons why social housing is unavailable to many of those who need it most. Because those who don't need it any more, due to changes in their circumstances, refuse to allow those who do need it to take advantage of it.

Yes, but you would have to be a bit of a fool to move from a secure tenancy to a private tenancy, wouldn't you? :huh:

Our rent is market rate, but assuming we pay our rent and maintenance service charges regularly, (maintenance, security and gardening services are charged separately here), keep the flat to a high standard, and don't upset the neighbours (all of which we comply with), they cannot suddenly, on a whim, decide to issue us with an S21, as a private landlord could.

Bit of a no-brainer really.....:whistle:

The fact that not enough new affordable homes are bring built with Right To Buy stock losses, and an ever increasing population is the fault of successive governments, not current tenants! :wall:

Lin

silvercar

AdrianC wrote: »

And that "advantage" is one of the main reasons why social housing is unavailable to many of those who need it most. Because those who don't need it any more, due to changes in their circumstances, refuse to allow those who do need it to take advantage of it.

I wonder what percentage of social housing is occupied by people who could afford to pay market rent in the private sector? Or who could afford to pay the market rent in the private sector even if subsidised by their entitlement to housing benefit/ WTC/ CTC/ CTB/ CT etc. Both groups would allow those who couldn't afford the private sector some security in housing.

t0rt0ise

silvercar wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of social housing is occupied by people who could afford to pay market rent in the private sector? Or who could afford to pay the market rent in the private sector even if subsidised by their entitlement to housing benefit/ WTC/ CTC/ CTB/ CT etc. Both groups would allow those who couldn't afford the private sector some security in housing.

So you want people who have a secure home to give it up and live from year to year not knowing if they are going to have to move on when their tenancy ends. Why should they? Everyone has a right to a proper home where they can plan for the future. We should be striving to get that for everyone and not simply expecting some to give it up in favour of others.

silvercar

t0rt0ise wrote: »

So you want people who have a secure home to give it up and live from year to year not knowing if they are going to have to move on when their tenancy ends. Why should they? Everyone has a right to a proper home where they can plan for the future. We should be striving to get that for everyone and not simply expecting some to give it up in favour of others.

Totally agree. I was trying to show that there are many others in a similar situation to OP and it is by no means unusual for people with a secure tenure to remain in their homes.

Similar situation in the owner occupier sector. There is moral no pressure on someone who could now afford a 4 bed detached to sell their 2 bed terrace in order that someone who could only afford a 2 bed terrace be able to buy it.

squinty

Morglin wrote: »

That never happened, it got quietly dropped.

Lin

No sure why you think this, its still very much on the cards. Guidance was issued a couple of weeks ago

See ttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-rents-for-social-housing

Chapter 4 Starts off with the statement "The Government believes that local authorities should be able to charge those in social housing with high incomes a fairer level of rent to stay in their homes."

AdrianC

silvercar wrote: »

AdrianC wrote:

And that "advantage" is one of the main reasons why social housing is unavailable to many of those who need it most. Because those who don't need it any more, due to changes in their circumstances, refuse to allow those who do need it to take advantage of it.

I wonder what percentage of social housing is occupied by people who could afford to pay market rent in the private sector? Or who could afford to pay the market rent in the private sector even if subsidised by their entitlement to housing benefit/ WTC/ CTC/ CTB/ CT etc. Both groups would allow those who couldn't afford the private sector some security in housing.

Exactly. Which is why whether a tenant remains qualified for social housing should be subject to review. If they aren't, and remain so, then they should be given notice. Then maybe we won't have any more professional politicians who earn £145,000 per year being publicly proud of living in a council house.

FBaby

thanks everyone, conscience is another discussion

It always is where there is a financial benefit to be made...

Ultimately, you and your fiancee would most likely never have got this house if you applied after being married. She only got it because of her single with a child status. So you really think it is right to use her previous situation to your advantage?

Ultimately, same old story, just a loop into the system that people size up to their advantage and then trying to convince themselves they are doing nothing wrong because after all... the sytem, despite never intended to help them, doesn't penalise them for abusing it.