can you rent a council property if you already own a property?

bobby-boy_2

neas wrote: »

Seems a bit weird that someone owns a flat but can get council housing? Wouldnt they be able to afford private rented accomodation if they sold the flat.

hmmf silly system.. but whatever

Does this mean if you have assets/ money you are excluded from the council housing list? I think not you cant exclude someone for saving.

Seems poppy10 wants to bar people who have assets from social housing as well. Does this mean you can only get council accomodation if you dont own a car, because that is an asset! The list is and should be open to everyone. For example you have a 1 bedroom flat and need a bigger place as you now have children but can't afford to buy a bigger place, according to your logic you should be banned from getting a council house.

Or are you saying only "poor people" should get council housing? Not much of a social inclusion program if you exclude people.

bobby-boy_2

The following is FACT not opinion
http://www.dundeecity.gov.uk/housing/applyforhouse/
look at the second question "who can apply?"
Answer ANYONE over 16
so stop speculating and give the OP fact.
If you live in Dundee you CAN have a council property
(after waiting several years no-doubt lol)

dmg24

In some areas, some types of council housing are not in short supply. Where I am, it is possible to get up to a three bed property pretty much immediately, as long as you are not picky where you want to live.

I enquired about available properties when I was looking to rent (in the end I bought instead), and I was offered three properties to go and look at the same day. I wasn't asked about income/ assets/ circumstances etc.

Surely it is better for a property to be used by someone, rather than being stood there empty?

m00m00

dmg24 wrote: »

In some areas, some types of council housing are not in short supply. Where I am, it is possible to get up to a three bed property pretty much immediately, as long as you are not picky where you want to live.

I enquired about available properties when I was looking to rent (in the end I bought instead), and I was offered three properties to go and look at the same day. I wasn't asked about income/ assets/ circumstances etc.

Surely it is better for a property to be used by someone, rather than being stood there empty?

which areas did they offer you property in ?

I can see places like bulwell and broxtowe having serious churn rates in north nottingham

trudiha

dmg24 wrote: »

Surely it is better for a property to be used by someone, rather than being stood there empty?

Fair point, I think that most of us in the South East, where social housing is in such short supply, tend to forget that the situation isn't true of the rest of the UK.

Debt_Free_Chick

I wonder if the person concerned pays a higher rent to the Council, to recognise the fact that they have an asset?

neas

if you owned outright 50,000 of assets... is it fairer to house you in a 3 bedroom house at a discounted rate (compared to private renting) or to some family with nothing? Family with 50,000 could make that last a good 4-5 years of private accomodation... and afterall council housing is meant to be temporary
Morally... the high ground is mine.

dmg24

m00m00 wrote: »

which areas did they offer you property in ?

I can see places like bulwell and broxtowe having serious churn rates in north nottingham

In my home town , but the parts of it that I wouldn't touch (you know where I mean!). Also the LHA is relatively high here, so if people are on benefits they can afford to rent privately.

I didn't look at Bulwell or Broxtowe, but I would imagine they would be pretty easy to get smaller properties.

Debt_Free_Chick, socal housing rents are not means tested, and do not vary according to income or capital.

dmg24

neas wrote: »

if you owned outright 50,000 of assets... is it fairer to house you in a 3 bedroom house at a discounted rate (compared to private renting) or to some family with nothing? Family with 50,000 could make that last a good 4-5 years of private accomodation... and afterall council housing is meant to be temporary
Morally... the high ground is mine.

I do agree with you about those being in greater need having a higher priority on the council housing list, but I am not sure where you have got this idea about council housing only being intended to be temporary? Do you have anything to back this statement up?

trudiha

neas wrote: »

Morally... the high ground is mine.

This seems to increasing be the general opinion of anyone who doesn't live in social housing over anyone who does. It makes me cringe.